Post: #1

For those who saw the movie, I want to throw in some points for discussion.


The "seduction" scene:

Rupert opens a girl with a neg, Roxy "analyzes" his attempt to discredit him, then main character Eggsy enters and interrupts, which again Rupert tries to analyze.

The neg opener is pretty poorly delivered in the film. It means to mock PUA tactics and discredit the character who immediately loses frame after he is "exposed". Aside from that, the deconstruction by Roxy is somewhat try-hard, using (at least in the German version) the word neuro-linguistical programming. This kind of smart-assing only works in movies. A real girl (and I) surely would have thought: Freaks.

Apart from that, Roxy's whole attack makes it look as if it was a bad thing to try to seduce a girl: Oh look, there's the bad guy. Personally, I don't mind that Rupert lost, but the movie authors could have let him have some self-respect. Same with the other contestants of the team - they are made look like idiots by playing status games and poor Eggsy, the victim, is protected by Roxy. Yeah, just like real life.

But I love how Eggsy makes a funny face when Rupert tries to analyze him. "Huh, wtf?" Natural.


There is also a part where contestants are to be run over by a train and are supposed to sacrifice themselves for the company. What kind of "moral fiber" is it to sacrifice yourself for other people? Just Hollywood indoctrination. Remember the dialogue at the beginning? "I see a man with potential. A man who does what is requested." Fucking wrong. "Loyalty" to people, not to values.


I like the sentence "It is not noble to feel better than others, but to feel better than one's older self." Although it's somewhat wrong, too. Competition is just a part of life, it just shouldn't be the main focus.


To the end of the movie I felt increasingly sick from all the violence. Pointless gore, almost intensified by the pretense of "this is bad and the bad guy makes us like it". I laughed somewhat, but I didn't have the feeling that anyone in the room enjoyed seeing it.

I'm not whining around, but what hypocrisy is this? The movie makes us watch these scenes where innocent people murder each other for minutes. It makes us delve into it. But it's the bad guys fault. Right. Who made the movie? Who decided to have us watch this? Can you push away the responsibility for making viewers sick by saying "this is what bad people are like"? It's dishonest and it's no comedy. I'm fine with people who want to watch gore, I myself am fascinated by videos of people being beheaded by islamists. The nausea that comes with it is a part of life. But I recognize it's a part of me and I'm not giving up responsibility for that feeling. I want to see it and it is my choice.

Is today's movie viewer an object that is to be seduced, like a shamefaced girl, to be able to live the guilty pleasure of gore without acknowledging that he wants it? No, it's not the bad guys. It's everybody. People subdue their aggression due to misled morality and need a bad guy to let it out on - since he is exempt from morality by that. Like the guy who crashed the Germanwings plane or the girl that threw puppies into the lake.

The movie made me feel sick and I didn't like it. And no, that's no message. The intent of the movie was to make me feel sick, else it wouldn't have done so. It's merely a nice trick of a manipulator to make you feel bad and make it seem like someone else did it. Take socialists and their class concept. Sure, the rich guys are oppressing you. No, in fact it's the socialists who make you feel bad about yourself in the first place.

After the end fight, I almost felt like something had taken over my mind and I needed a surprisingly big amount of willpower to stand up and walk out of the movie before it was over. Ever tried to do that in cinema? Haven't been to cinema for 3 months and I honestly hated the "pumped up" feeling afterwards. Like I wasn't in my own skin.

Post: #2

Mark Millar. He loves violence.

And spot on with the mystery method analysis.