1) You’re right, it is vague, but I’m not really reviewing the film; at least you acknowledge that the review is vague though.

2)Uwe Boll, maybe he’s treated unfair, maybe not; not many are lucky enough to be in the position to make films in the first place, so I can’t say I particularly feel sorry for poor ole’ Uwe. Besides, who cares? I was joking. Yes, the 90% majority can be a feeding frenzy, but on that notion you have to then question the validity of anything you read in criticism and simply judge for yourself by actually watching the film. Does the public really care what critics say? Why are so many critically reviled films, pretty much anything directed by Michael Bay, huge hits at the box office? I agree that criticism should be about more than establishing whether a film is good or bad. The problem: it rarely is anything but that.

3)Yes, actors act (well, some do...). But how do you truly fake or ‘perform’ chemistry? It’s like trying to say someone can fake having charisma, something that is pretty indefinable. You could be right, but I would imagine that the dark moments are simply needed to give the feelgood factor far more weight at the finale.

4)They possibly would, but it depends on how much they like to read I guess. Not to mention I was under the impression that Little White Lies is a serious film magazine. You have to question the kind of people reading and whether they are really that interested in film, or happy to just read brief synopsis styled fluff pieces that can be read in any other film publication, the TV guide or any online fanboy shite. To reiterate: my point is a good critic should back up their arguments to try and convince the reader why their opinion is more valid than anyone else. To say something does not work in a film and lack a reason why is meaningless. I imagine people want to know why a critic makes the decisions of why they like or dislike, or points they have to make about a film; surely that is what defines you from a serious critic to someone just out to make a living. An example of someone that does try to do so is Roger Ebert; whether you agree with his comments or not, he clearly gives examples, and is not just making unsubstantiated statements.

I will say no more on this matter; after all it’s down to personal opinion, right?

1) Of course, my point is how valid or ultimately how right is that opinion and why should I care? I myself stated that I thought it is an entertaining film, but certainly not the greatest made and worthy of the praise it has been given, no way in hell. Its primary aim is to be an entertaining, feel good movie. It has a few dark moments along the way for dramatic purposes, but by the end it does leave the audience feeling happy at the outcome (if not realistic). I’m not at all saying to go along with the status quo, that is ridiculous; but if you’re going to make a point, give a solid reason why. Anybody can make vague statements. One of my major problems with criticism today is the almost arrogance of many writer’s that make such sweeping statements, but lack the ability or just don’t care about being able to convince the reader of their views.

2)It’s not really an overstatement at all. A vast majority of critics do like the film, even with certain reservations, and it did well at the box office, particularly in the UK. The only real way to try and gauge if something is decent is to look at it from a wider perspective. If 90% of critics think something is bad, then there has to be a good reason for them to be saying so, and vice-versa. The other 10% may have some interesting points to make, but you have to question their personal tastes and whether they simply have an antagonistic personality and simply desperate for attention by being different; as there are a few out there. The article you linked to is a fairly decent one by the way, although it could be deemed as over reading into the film a little. Ultimately, everyone is entitled to an opinion, it’s all so subjective, down to personal taste; but sometimes personal opinion can also get in the way of giving something a fair and well-rounded review. I’m also sure it’s possible that there are even a few people out there that like the films of Uwe Boll and think he’s unfairly treated.

3)Yes, you’re right, and my point was that it was interesting to make such an observation despite such allegations within the media of the pair having a relationship; but I’m interested in what the reviewer actually meant, as I thought they were fine together (as I’ve since also read do many other reviewers as well as people I know that have seen the film). Besides, if a couple do not like one another on-set, the results of that do tend to surface on screen.

4)Okay, that’s fair enough; it’s not the reviewers fault. But it’s very annoying to read such reviews where little is fully explained, too many opinions expressed, without real evidence and reasoning why. Maybe more focus on a particular issue that he had with the film, rather than cramming in sweeping generalized statements? Again, another reason that criticism is getting worse in many instances, is that there is an increase on word limitations that is creating the loss of any real sense of depth for a reviewer to be able to comment on films; and it’s just not good enough. Although it must be said the reviewer did decide, despite the limitations they faced, to submit what they had written as being good enough to go into print, where their comments, fairly or not, will remain to be judged.

Pascal Laugier’s Martyrs is a brutal, stripped down, seventies style, psychological headfuck of a film, made by a filmmaker wanting to push the cinematic envelope as well as the audiences buttons.

As far as horror goes, this is a shocking, bloody and unforgettable masterpiece depicting hell on earth, showcasing the levels of depravity human beings are prepared to go to further their personal beliefs.
Indeed, the film is one of two halves; the first is shocking, frightening, and brutally engaging, but the second, unlike many films labelled within the bizarrely titled ‘torture-porn’ canon (do people really feel aroused whilst watching torture?), feels like a sudden reversal on the prior violence committed. By being so gruelling, almost tedious, and horrific in its relentless and monotonous execution, it drags out pure, raw emotional feelings of helplessness and sadness from the audience at having to witness the plight involving the central protagonist. Like Gaspar Noe’s Irreversible, by being truly painful and harrowing to watch, it engages the viewer to question their participation in such horrific activity, to hopefully think about the frankly irresponsible, disposable and sugar-coated violence we are so used to seeing in (particularly) contemporary Hollywood cinema. The idea that violence works best when not shown is a fallacy and wrong; violence should be shown in its entirety; violence needs to be hard to stomach, to disgust, not glorify or to be swept under the carpet without leaving any effect or consequence.

We need a brave film such as this, that has the power to remind us every so often about the harsh reality of violence after having watched popcorn flicks such as the recent comic book adaptation Wanted, in which in one sequence a train filled with hundreds of innocent people is derailed and destroyed without a second thought; where human life seems tantamount to very little.

Despite admiring or possibly hating the film, by simply dismissing Martyrs as a bloodbath without brains, or unfairly labelling it as another torture-porn film is plain laziness as it deserves to be given far more thoughtful consideration; even the ending, pretentious or otherwise, does make the viewer consider the possible ramifications of what they have just viewed.

French horror is undoubtedly the leading purveyor in the current climate; films that are created by filmmakers that seem to live and breathe the genre, that fulfil the conventions required for fans of viscera and relentless energy, and unlike the mostly turgid American horror output, the films are based around decent plots, story, and most importantly an emotional backbone, something which the hollow American horror films generally lack.

Martyrs is a reminder of what a real horror film is supposed to be, and not the typical pseudo ‘horror’ junk featuring a bunch of insipid, vacuous teens fresh off shows such as The Hills or Gossip Girl; it is undeniably tough and brutal, and not for the faint hearted, but is an incredible emotional experience that, just like Gaspar Noe’s Irreversible, is a film that won’t be forgotten in a hurry after having viewed it, a film so haunting and disturbing, that having actually witnessed it once provokes the terrifying thought to consider actually sitting through it for a second viewing at a later date.

Cinema is not just about having a joyful experience; it also has the much needed capacity to force us to face and conquer emotions that we may not want to deal with, something that many of the best films with longevity tend to achieve.

Although not worthy of the accolades the film has garnered, it is hardly deserving of the scathing and rather pretentious comments contained within this review; random and vague statements that seem to simply want to buck the trend of the universal favouritism the film has gained, which lack any real explanation as to exactly why and how this reviewer came to make them, such as: “Beaufoy’s dialogue is a ghastly muddle of cliché mouthed by two-dimensional pantomime characters” - really? How? and: “Boyle’s frantic direction sits uncomfortably alongside the more sedate sections from the Millionaire studio” – does it? How? And so exactly how should it be done then?
Discussion and criticism of the lack of any real sense of social realism or the plot being contrived is a little simplistic and unnecessary, when its fairly obvious that the vibrant style, over-the-top narrative and plotting of the film seems to fit more within the confines of a modern fable, situated within an interesting and unusual (for Western audiences) backdrop. This is as much about realism as any of Baz Luhrmann’s films.
“The use of crowd-pleasing tales of triumph over adversity, of the underdog done good”, is simply a commercial commodity of world cinema, nothing more, and hardly something British filmmakers can be labeled with, apart from the occasional success such as The Full Monty (particularly with the unpopular glut of dreary, miserable, and tiresome cinematic treats that Britain does tend to release).
“The dearth of onscreen chemistry” comment is interesting, especially when the couple is rumored to have had an affair during the making of the film and possibly still dating in the real-world.
“The main thrust of the clumsy narrative is of exploitation, corruption and criminality”, it’s hardly a clumsy narrative, and is the use of corruption, exploitation and criminality supposed to be a bad thing, or just a good dramatic decision?
“…framed by a one-sided, old-fashioned and decidedly British vision of modern India”. Is it? In what way? Or does it actually touch upon an often overlooked part of India that is rarely shown in modern commercial cinema, and certainly rarely depicted in most Bollywood productions?
The fact is that the film is clearly not out to break new ground, or deliver some major political or social message, but work as an entertaining, hope-inspiring, dramatic story; of which it is fairly successful in doing. The review though seems to be a typical indication of the way most criticism is heading: an annoyingly shallow series of attention seeking, vague statements, written in a smart-arsed prose, that offers very little constructive criticism and seems more like an immature and deliberate attempt to defy the popular opinion toward a well-liked film.