Yes. I suppose you're right, but I think it was violence in the context of the story - i.e. the brother was a very bad sort. It wasn't violence for violence sake and it didn't actually graphically show the incidents you talk about. There are a lot of movies that are a lot worse.
Mrs. Adeshell is very squeemish too and she'd didn't particularly comment about it.
Probably still too traumatised :o
Yes I completely agree it was all within the context of the story and much of it was left to the imagination rather than being shown - which is always very effective.
On thinking about I wonder if the fact that I watched it straight after watching the lovely Seabiscuit might have something to do with why I was so squeemish about it :lol:
I disagree about the brother though, he wasn't a bad sort at all he was just completely traumatised by witnessing the sexual abuse of his sister and blamed Ashton's character, even though he was just an innocent child too.
I thought the point of Ashton's character telling the father to discpline his son was because at that point he didn't realise the brother had witnessed the "robin hood" film, and so didn't understand why the brother was so violent.
It was very satisfing watching the pedophile father getting ripped into by Ashton's character, if only it was possible in real life.
p.s that Mrs Adeshell is made of stern stuff!
Sorry Nell, I didn't mean to put you off, it really isn't that bad, but I'd still wait and get it on Pay per View.
p.s and what about Dumbo, I wept buckets over him being taken away from his mum
soppy herbert regards :lol:
Well the abuse turned him into a bad sort surely?[/quote]
No it made him behave badly with the best of intentions, he wanted to protect his sister but, being a child, had neither the power nor the capacity to do so in anyway other than to attack and try to cause pain and suffering to the person he wrongly identified as being responsible for her abuse.
Well the abuse turned him into a bad sort surely?
No it made him behave badly with the best of intentions, he wanted to protect his sister but, being a child, had neither the power nor the capacity to do so in anyway other than to attack and try to cause pain and suffering to the person he wrongly identified as being responsible for her abuse.[/quote]
So blowing up a women and her child was done 'with the best of intentions'. I personally think it was the abuse of him and his sister(i.e. his father) that taught him to be violent.
It was not the intention of any of the children to blow up the mother and her baby, they only meant to blow up the mail box, it was a stupid prank that went horribly wrong. (Even this is traceable back to the father since it was his explosives they used)
I agree - well almost! I don't think that the abuse "taught" him to be violent I think it was his only way of trying to cope with it and the terrible guilt he feels because he couldn't protect his sister.
When I said he was violent with the best of intentions what I meant (but didn't make clear) was that he wrongly identified Ashton's character as being responsible for his sister's abuse and so most of his agression was directed at Ashton (or Ashton's dog) he is a child trying to deal with the unspeakable (even amongst themselves) he can not "punish" his father and perhaps doesn't even want to acknowledge that it is his father who is the abuser not Ashton. He can not tell his terrible secret and feels guilty that he could not protect his sister even though we as adults know there was nothing he could have done.
I think this film trys to show the terrible damage that is unleashed on so many innocents as the result of an adult sexually abusing a child.
Guess it must have been a better film than I though seeing as it has provoked discussion!
:lol: Interesting what you're saying - I didn't quite look at it from that angle but you're right!