Showing posts with label entertainment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label entertainment. Show all posts

Salo or the 120 days of Sodom is one of the most disturbing horror movies of all time. I was deeply horrified when I first saw it and couldn't sleep. I was still shocked by what I saw and how such terrible things could happen. I thought about the real-life cases similar to the film's depiction which happen and how they could happen. The scenes kept replaying in my head. I was in the mood to watch an extremely disturbing horror movie so after watching Salo, I immediately regretted what I wished for. I had a nightmare about Salo.

When I saw the torture scene at the end, I literally exclaimed "Oh my God! Oh my God!" as I grabbed my chest in horror and disgust. I was the only one watching Salo in the dark so I was trying to comfort myself. Just the name itself "Salo or the 120 days of Sodom" is scary and dark considering Sodom was a city so wicked, the God of the Bible destroyed it.  

In this review, I'll give a non-spoiler review first then a spoiler review. 


Non-spoiler review:

Cinematography:

Despite Salo being a horrifying film, the cinematography is beautiful. I loved seeing beautiful camera shots of rich and extravagant buildings at the beginning of the movie. Unfortunately, it wasn't enough to soothe me from the horrors to come.   

Dialogue:

The dialogue in Salo or the 120 days of Sodom was bone-chilling and disturbing. It built up horror and tension very well. 

Acting:

The acting is great, especially the actors who played the Libertines. The actors' reactions and dialogue made Salo or the 120 days of Sodom scarier than the torture itself. 

Soundtrack:

For much of Salo or the 120 days of Sodom, the libertines played the soundtrack. That was disturbing and creative.

Story:

The story is about fascists who kidnap adolescents and subject them to 120 days of torture. 

I must confess this movie is not for everyone. Salo or the 120 days of Sodom was disturbing because the torture was realistic. It was not excessively gory or meant for shock value and entertainment like typical slasher horror movies. If you're looking for that, don't watch this movie. There are no jump scares, obviously fake blood, etc. Just terror.         

Themes: 

I loved the complex themes of Salo or the 120 days of Sodom. I feel like there's more than one way to interpret the film.

Overall, Salo or the 120 days of Sodom is one of the scariest and shocking horror movies ever made. If you can get past the horror and grotesque nature of the film, you can see how it's a masterpiece. I highly suggest you buy it on DVD!

     

Spoiler review: 

Cinematography:

Despite Salo being a horrifying film, the cinematography is beautiful. I loved seeing beautiful camera shots of rich and extravagant buildings at the beginning of the movie. Unfortunately, it wasn't enough to soothe me from the horrors to come. The cinematography was incredible. As the torture is happening, the camera is recording everything from a distance. It's to make you feel disassociated from what's being shown. The set designs are special because they're minimalistic and simple, forcing you to focus on what's shown in front of you.

The camera shots at the circle of death scene increased the dread felt when watching the teens get tortured. This scene was disturbing not from a story point of view but also because the camera angles make you feel like you're a voyeur like the libertines.  

Dialogue:

The dialogue in Salo or the 120 days of Sodom was bone-chilling and disturbing. It built up horror and tension very well. 

Soundtrack:

For much of Salo or the 120 days of Sodom, the libertines played the soundtrack. That was disturbing and creative. The soundtrack made Salo scarier especially during the circle of death scene. The libertines drown out the horrifying screams, shrieks, and groans of pain from the teens with classical music. This made this scene more horrifying because you're left to imagine what sounds they made while they were tortured. 

Acting:

The acting is great, especially the actors who played the Libertines. The actors' reactions and dialogue made Salo or the 120 days of Sodom scarier than the torture itself.    

Story:

The story is about fascists who kidnap adolescents and subject them to 120 days of torture. 

Salo does a fantastic job of creating dread and learned helplessness. The scene where the libertines give the children the rules is a good example. The servants watching the children know something is terribly wrong but the libertines scare them away. 

I was deeply disturbed by the woman telling the story of how she was abused as a child. This realistically shows victims of child abuse can become abusers if they don't peacefully resolve their trauma. 

The scene where the libertines point a gun at a boy's head and act like they're going to shoot him but don't. What they say afterward is ruthless and cruel. 

The scene where the man forces a girl to eat his defecation was the most disturbing and intense scenes of Salo or the 120 days of Sodom. She's forced to eat it or suffer a worse fate. As a viewer, I didn't want her to do either which made me feel worse.

I was disturbed when the libertines revealed they killed their own mothers. We get no flashbacks which is more terrifying.
 
We don't learn the victims' names which shows how dehumanized they are. I was disturbed by the various reactions from the adolescents. Some are disassociated, others try to escape, etc. It felt real.      

The ending was highly disturbing and scary. The young libertines learn the sadistic and sick cruelties from the older ones. Although the kids went home free, they could never be the same. Their souls will be corrupted by the horrors in Salo. Technically, they're not free because of the extreme trauma they endured. 

Theme:

Salo or the 120 days of Sodom has a complex theme. I have two interpretations. One is a political message on capitalism. The hypocrisy of capitalism is the concept of all people being equal are not practiced. People with high social statuses get more privileges than lower classes. The lower class are treated like cattle. 

The other way I interpreted it is a message on child abuse. Salo or the 120 days of Sodom exposes the horrors of child abuse. Adults are sick enough to prey on the most vulnerable of society to gratify selfish and vile desires - children. What you see in Salo or the 120 days of Sodom happens more often than people think. It doesn't matter what people's social statuses are, how intelligent they are, how rich they are, etc. Child abuse happens at all levels of society. Salo exposes the disturbing reality that child abuse can happen to anyone. If abusers have enough power and money, they can escape justice. 

These themes are what made Salo or the 120 days of Sodom horrifying. 

Overall, Salo or the 120 days of Sodom is one of the scariest and shocking horror movies ever made. Salo is powerful because it makes you realize you have a dark sadistic nature like the libertines that you refuse to acknowledge. If you didn't, why would you watch the film in the first place? If you can get past the horror and grotesque nature of the film, you can see how it's a masterpiece. I highly suggest you buy it on DVD!    

How would you benefit from buying this DVD? 

DVDs are cheaper than streaming - Streaming sites are a waste of money. When you compare the time you're not using your monthly subscription to the time you are, you'll see you're not getting your money's worth. It's worse if your internet is poor to where your movies buffer. You're wasting money paying monthly fees. If you pay more for better internet, that's even worse. With DVDs, you only make one-time buys which save you a ton of money long-term.

DVDs have tangible ownership, streams don't - When you buy DVDs, you technically own them. With streams, you only pay for permission to watch them. If a company no longer wants to have its content in say Netflix's library, the company can request Netflix to remove it. You won't be able to stream it anymore. If a company stops selling a movie on DVD, that's the worst thing they can do. The company won't bother to confiscate your DVD.    

DVDs have exclusive content, streams don't - DVDs (namely special editions) have much more content than streaming services such as extended editions, unrated editions, deleted scenes, interviews, "making of" documentaries, etc. Movie streams don't. Typically, streaming services play only standard editions of movies. This DVD set has Salo : Yesterday and Today, a 33 minute 2002 documentary featuring interviews with director Pier Paolo Pasolini, actor filmmaker Jean Claude Biette, and Pasolini friend Ninetto Davoli
Fade to Black, a 23 minute 2001 documentary featuring directors Bernardo Bertolucci, Catherine Breillat, and John Maybury, as well as scholar David Forgacs, the End of Salo, a 40 minute documentary about the film's production. Video interviews with set designer Dante Ferretti and director and film scholar Jean Pierre Gorin. It has deleted concepts that were more grotesquely violent than the official version!  

You can resell DVDs but not streams - You can resell DVDs since you have tangible ownership of them. With streams, you don't own them so you can't. Once again, you save a ton more money buying DVDs than streaming. 

DVDs have better quality than streams - Quality is determined by bitrate. Higher bitrate means higher quality video and audio. Quality can also be affected by codec encoding and compression techniques. Regular DVDs run at 6-8 megabits per second. Streams usually play movies at lower rates. Netflix for example plays movies at around 5 megabits with a standard connection. This DVD set has high definition digital restoration.

DVDs don't require Internet, streams do - If your internet connection or streaming service fails, you won't be able to finish watching your favorite movies and shows. Nothing is worse than watching one of the most critical and intense scenes in a movie only to be interrupted by say internet lag. It ruins the viewing experience. With DVDs, you don't have those problems. 

DVDs look fantastic on display! - DVDs will make your room look much more alive with its stunning physical artwork! There's nothing like holding a DVD of your favorite film in your hands! With streaming, everything belongs to the streaming service. It can feel like you're just renting your favorite films.  

New copy.


Used copy.






















The Charismatic Enigma Jeff Hardy fails miserably at playing heel for one reason - He can't get the fans to hate him. No matter what he says or does, the fans will always love him. Jeff Hardy will almost always be successful as a charismatic face. Nevertheless Jeff Hardy isn't that bad of a heel as i originally thought and as we shall see shortly.

Take a look at this promo he had with the Undertaker. Not only does he undergo a deeper and darker make-over, we see a darker side of his character. He becomes reckless, angrier, aggressive, and more disrespectful. He becomes less concerned with titles and more with damaging reputations. He is bent on being ruthless with his opponents. It takes alot of guts to interrupt the Undertaker and even more to challenge him like Jeff Hardy did. I was shocked to see how stronger Jeff Hardy was than his face character when he faced the Undertaker. Despite his heel role being short-lived at WWE, he was given a better chance at TNA.


At TNA, Jeff Hardy first turns heel after he cheated his way into becoming TNA world champion. This shocked the wrestling world as Jeff Hardy joined the heel group "Immortal." While i do admit that Jeff Hardy had very underdeveloped heel mic-skills, i quickly saw his actions spoke louder than his words. His attitude and egotistical actions caused many fans to boo him even for a brief period. Jeff Hardy gradually showed that he was more than capable
When Hulk Hogan threw away the old TNA world heavyweight championship belt and introduced the new Immortal championship belt in Jeff's image, a revolution began. Since then Jeff Hardy was the most dominant champion and the leader of a new era in TNA. Jeff Hardy showed that he wouldn't let anyone, not even the TNA president, stand in his way of reigning over the roster. 

Despite all the heel characteristics Jeff displays, fans cannot erase Jeff's face character. It was so ingrained in his career that it backfired on him. No matter how many angles he tried using, he could not land a devastating blow to his own reputation. As a result, his heel character wasn't as successful.  

Jeff Hardy essentially dug his own grave as the face we all know and love. Eventually, it seems Jeff gave into his loyal fans and gave up his heel role. Jeff Hardy's legacy endures as TNA's Immortal and World Heavyweight Champion, regardless of whether he is heel or face. 
With MMA fighting in direct competition with pro-wrestling, businesses like the WWE have fallen in popularity. This is due to the "realness" of UFC fighting and the decline of creativity in the pro-wrestling business. I think the UFC is not in any way superior or more advanced to pro-wrestling. There are many misconceptions of how pro-wrestling works and how UFC works in which i will attempt to resolve. I will argue why pro-wrestling is much more entertaining than MMA fighting.

"Pro Wrestling is fake, UFC is real" - Many people believe that everything in the pro wrestling world is fake and that wrestlers do not get hurt. Nothing is further from the Truth. Pro-wrestling is scripted but in no way fake. Pro-wrestlers put their bodies and health on the line for entertainment. They engage in rough-play but injuries are still real. An example of this is when Undertaker throws Mankind of a cell and gives him a dislocated shoulder along with a concussion. Chair shots, submissions, punches, etc. are all painful despite being scripted. Pro-wrestling tries to limit the amount of pain but this isn't always possible.


While the martial arts in UFC are authentic, that's exactly the problem. WWE invented it's own brand of fighting dubbed "Pro-Wrestling" while UFC relies on martial arts, thus misrepresenting it by making it into a sport. In traditional martial arts, people train for survival whereas UFC fighters train for competition. In traditional martial arts, the purpose is to improve your health and well-being. The UFC fighter's goal is to be a dominant champion. A traditional martial artist doesn't have to be a bodybuilder while a UFC fighter is typically muscular. A UFC body-builder has the luxury of substituting techniques for muscular strength in submissions. This cannot be done in the discipline of traditional martial arts. According to UFC rules, there are many things that are forbidden - Head butts, Eye-gouging, biting, hair pulling, groin or elbow strikes, blows to the back of the head or spine, throat
strikes, kicking the kidney with the heel, the list goes on. Indeed, UFC fighters train with martial arts but is it authentic to it's original form when so many attacks are forbidden? Not at all.

According to an article titled "9 Ways Fights are 'Fixed in MMA'", the author explains that experienced fighters are set up with inferior ones. The UFC company doesn't mention the difference between a record of wins and fighting experience. Take undefeated UFC champion Ronda Rousey. She is a very aggressive fighter trained in Judo and attacks to level an opponent. While it seems as if she's won by extraordinary experience, this was only because the women's division was not as developed as the men's. The author suggests that UFC relies on what is called "padding records." The UFC company picks similar fighters in physical characteristics and records, but not in experience. Looking back at Ronda's fights, i can clearly see that these fighters weren't even close to her level. I'm not expert in martial arts, but even from a standard common sense approach - You don't rush in against a very aggressive opponent. A smart martial artist would learn when to keep his or her distance. This is what Ronda's opponents did not do. The company does this to make Ronda popular. How skilled is Ronda Rousey in reality? We don't know yet.


* UFC keeps beef professional, WWE doesn't - I'm pretty sure you've seen UFC challengers keep it professional while somehow trying to entertain us with the intensity. Take a look at this video on how UFC promotes its fights as the fighters stare each other down. Notice how Ronda Rousey flips the bird at Miesha Tates just before she is separated. We all know they're trying to make the fighters look tough so why disguise it with the professionalism? We know the fighters would fight right then and there given the chance, so who are they trying to fool? Nonetheless UFC does not let them do so. With all the conferences and interviews, UFC lacks the anticipation that WWE has.

Now watch this intense promo of a match between pro-wrestlers. There's no one standing behind them to make sure things don't get out of hand. On the contrary, it's the feuds that are promoted by the business to fuel the hype of the crowd. There's almost no rules. It's just pure intensity and creative characters with their own unique voice. It's a mistaken notion that pro-wrestlers just jump around and fight. They must also have great skills on the mic and in dialogue. You will see pro-wrestlers attack each other backstage to show their frustration and dislike for one another. You will see pro-wrestlers make daring claims in a solid and strong aggressive voice. WWE creates an environment where you can feel the competitive recklessness and ferocious hunger of wrestlers to succeed. It's as if the rules in society don't apply in the WWE and that's what makes people anticipate the matches. UFC lacks all of those things period.    

* Pro-Wrestling is strategic like UFC - As i've stated earlier, Pro-wrestling is indeed scripted. You can find an example of a pro-wrestling script in the link below. Notice that the script only mentions who the winner, but it does not say how that victory will be accomplished. This is where the pro-wrestlers creativity and knowledge must kick in to get the job done. Pro-wrestling is thus no easy task. Pro-wrestlers still train like athletes because they are athletes. Some claim that pro-wrestlers have time to practice every choreographed move before the match - they don't. Smackdown for example runs on a weekly basis so the superstars must improvise on the spot. If a pro-wrestler lacks creativity and the ability to entertain, he or she won't be as popular. As a result, they won't appeal to fans or the company.

Pro-wrestling despite relying on a script, still has some form of strategy. Take for example the competition for the WWE title between Jeff Hardy and Triple H. Jeff Hardy is known for being a fly high risk taker who is willing to sacrifice his body for a victory. He's artistically acrobatic, agile, quick, and smart. He knows that Triple H is stronger and more offensive so Jeff Hardy devised a strategy. He put Triple H in a submission, continually tried pinning him, and flipping him over to counter-attack. This has gained Triple H's respect for using your opponent's weaknesses to your advantage.

* Pro-Wrestling is creative, UFC isn't - UFC almost always has the same types of matches. Almost all of the fighters look and fight the same. While it's entertaining to watch two fighters battle in a cage, it gets boring after a while. Some may argue "It's an unfair comparison because this is UFC.." however i beg to differ. This is entertainment. The goal is to please the crowd in the best ways possible. In Sword-fighting competitions for example, fighters are set up to fight in groups and use many other weapons. While UFC might have many MMA techniques, many fighters do not last very long and often do not get to employ all of their moves. It easily turns into a submission or knock out.

As i've stated earlier, Pro-Wrestling isn't just about fighting. It's about theatrical performance, character and storyline development, creativity in gimmicks, fashion, as well as ring maneuvers. It's as if your watching a movie in person. There's a wide variety of matches than the standard ones - Hell in a Cell, Punjabi Prison match, Royal Rumbles, tag team matches, Elimination chamber match, and so on. Each has it's own set of rules thus each pro-wrestler must adapt to the environment.

One would think that realistic fights equal more entertainment but this isn't always true. It's about how the fights are marketed and this is what makes WWE more entertaining than UFC.

* WWE has a more engaging audience than UFC - I've seen UFC audiences seated the whole time many times before. Go to a WWE show and it's like a concert as you hear the crowd roar. You see their reactions of sadness, anger, happiness, excitement, disgust, and so forth. You can see how devoted the fans are to their favorite superstars by the signs they hold up and the clothes they wear. Some pro-wrestling companies may allow fans to engage in some of the action. In the WWE world, the fans have a very close relationship with the superstars. While UFC managers try to please the crowd, the fans are no more than spectators. If their favorite UFC fighter loses, that's the end of it. This does not work in the WWE world. Ideally, the company works for the fans' best interests. If enough fans want something changed, the company will comply with their demands. It is the fans of pro-wrestling that direct the matches and develop story-lines. The fans are apart of the pro-wrestling business.  

In conclusion, if people understood how UFC and WWE rather than promote false myths, we ought to see the clear differences. Once we do, we can decide for ourselves the Truth. When taking many things into consideration, i am convinced WWE surpasses UFC in entertainment value and ought to gain the same amount of popularity as UFC if not more.











http://theweek.com/articles/447375/heres-what-prowrestling-script-looks-like

http://www.slate.com/blogs/quora/2015/10/06/is_pro_wrestling_fake_and_scripted.html

There are several people who claim that pro-wrestling is sexist and racist. They'll point out many examples such as WWE bra and panties matches, Machoism among male wrestlers, among other things. They will appeal to your sense of morality and argue that these are grounds to stop watching pro-wrestling all together.

However the media won't give you the full picture. They will claim that women are there for eye candy but ignore divas like Lita, a very dominant pro-wrestler among other women. They will claim that it's racist against blacks then use Mark Henry as an example although he stated it's not the company's fault. They will also ignore the many other things that also apply to men as much as women.

What is the main purpose of pro-wrestling? Entertainment. Ultimately, pro-wrestlers aren't there to be friends. They're not there to be role-models. They're not there to promote any morals. They're main goal is to entertain people in order to get paid. I don't watch pro-wrestlers to see how manly they are when they hurt others. I don't even watch pro-wrestling to see people get hurt. I watch pro-wrestling for the entertainment. It's the choreography and the art itself that i'm interested in.

With that in mind, everything that pro-wrestlers do regardless of gender or race is strictly to entertain the audience. Just as women are almost nude, so are the men. The reason being is that the less spandex you wear, the more mobile you become. It was not intended to degrade either gender.

While it's in my opinion that some WWE events like lap dances are irrelevant, they're not sexist. To judge them as slut-shaming is assuming that women are not sexual beings. What if a lesbian is turned on by the sight of woman in a bikini? What if a straight woman appreciates a Diva's curves? What if the Divas are comfortable expressing their sexuality? It is these kinds of questions rendering sexist arguments mute. They're not there just to please men, but also many other people. As for "manly" behavior, it's not restricted to one gender. Many women in the audience are fond of it while still keeping their femininity.

Some advocate for there being more women and races represented in the business. They argue there's so few blacks, Mexicans, or women in the business. This might strike you as concerning, but it's only because the media suggests that something is wrong. Being raised in a Hispanic family, i was never concerned about my race on T.V and neither were the audience. Many people of all races and ages loved Stone Cold, the Undertaker, Rey Mysterio, Jeff Hardy, Bobby Lashley, Kane, the Rock, etc. because of their talent, not the color of their skin. If you were to ask me: "Do you think WWE needs more pro-wrestlers of your race?" My answer is "No." I'm satisfied with my favorite Hispanic superstars: Rey Mysterio and the Mexicools. When i saw their entrances, i did not see racism. On the contrary, they made me feel proud of my Mexican heritage. However when it comes to pro-wrestling, race is out of the picture. I look at quality over quantity.

Let's face it - The word "sexist" and "racist" have been thrown around too much. These terms are dead until we bring them to life by giving them meaning. No matter what race or gender you put on T.V, the outcome is the same - People will protest. There will always be people trying to take down the business by using race and sex as a means to do so. In the world of pro-wrestling, we ought to look at the pro-wrestler's character above all. The problem is not WWE, the problem is you and your perceptions. When you stop trying to implant ideas into entertainment in the name of education and politics then it stops being enjoyable. Embrace pro-wrestling for what it was meant to be - Entertainment.
 

Art and entertainment

- Created By SoraTemplates | Distributed By Gooyaabi Themes