AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

The Hole

2K views 21 replies 13 participants last post by  manpig 
#1 ·
#2 ·
I saw it last weekend. I found it very entertaining. My wife on the other thought it just so so. But I enjoy psychological thrillers and she is more into chick flicks.... I thought the ending had a nice twist too. I rated it 4 stars on Netflix (which I must applaud for lowering their prices!).
 
#3 ·
Watched it tonight as a total gamble (had never heard of it), and was pleasantly surprised. I'm sure there will be the usual "I figured it out when I opened the DVD case" postings, but I thought the manner in which the story was told was interesting and well conceived. Beats the usual Hollywood Bad Boyz IX redux any day of the week. 3 out of 4 stars.
 
#4 ·
I agree. I like Thora Birch, and she does a first-rate job here.


BTW it's the only movie where you have a chance of seeing Keira Knightley's boobies. Not that anyone here will catch the movie only because of that, of course. :D
 
#6 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Grubert
I agree. I like Thora Birch, and she does a first-rate job here.
Indeed. I've been impressed with her ever since 1995's very underrated and adorable tale of girlhood, Now and Then . Good acting, and you could tell even then that she'd grow up to be a cutie.


Aside from the obvious choice of *American Beauty*, I think her most impressive film is the amazing, quirky, poignant Ghost World . A real indie gem, with more heart and inventiveness than any blockbuster. I'll take great human portraits over Hollywood glitz any day.


Any Thora Birch fan would do well to check out those two films...
 
#7 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Grubert
BTW it's the only movie where you have a chance of seeing Keira Knightley's boobies.
Underage Keira Knightley boobies at that.


Err... ummm... Pervert!
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Josh Z
Underage Keira Knightley boobies at that.


Err... ummm... Pervert!
Really? Oh dear, my inner dirty-old-man simply *must* rent it now. For, umm, the horror, not the boobies, but the horror. :eek:


Actually it's a funny coincidence that Thora Birch is in this movie and mentioned in this thread, since IIRC she was 17 when she shot her breast-baring moment at the window in *American Beauty*. I can remember one of the conservative Christian "film monitoring" groups at the time yelling "child pornography!" when it was released, despite the fact that it wasn't even a sexual context but rather a metaphor for baring herself.


Dredging into film history, Brooke Shields was the queen of underage nudity in mainstream cinema. *Blue Lagoon* is the most obvious, but she was also nude in other mainstream films, most notably the unsettling Pretty Baby --which I haven't watched in many years because I find the idea of nude scenes with pre-teen prostitute characters pretty unappealing. :( There was even a cover story in People Magazine back then about whether Brooke Shields' films and modeling was art or child pornography.


But I digress. Interesting historical sidebar though...
 
#9 ·
Christina Ricci was also underage when she did The Opposite of Sex, in which there's a poolside scene where she takes off her bikini top, but the goodies fall just outside the picture frame. And no use resorting to the open-matte full-screen version - director Don Roos made it clear on the commentary track that he hard-matted that shot.


Sergei, most if not all of the nude shots on Blue Lagoon had a body double. Don't know about Pretty Baby.
 
#10 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Grubert
Christina Ricci was also underage when she did The Opposite of Sex, in which there's a poolside scene where she takes off her bikini top, but the goodies fall just outside the picture frame. And no use resorting to the open-matte full-screen version - director Don Roos made it clear on the commentary track that he hard-matted that shot.


Sergei, most if not all of the nude shots on Blue Lagoon had a body double. Don't know about Pretty Baby.
I've read that before, but there are some shots where both face and nipplage are in view at the same time. I'd imagine that a body double could have been used for any shots that focus on the body rather than the face, but IIRC there are definite shots of Brooke's own breasts not fully covered by strategically placed long hair and island doodads. However I haven't seen it for at least 5 years, so there's a chance I'm misremembering.


As for *Pretty Baby* Brooke herself is definitely quite nude--but she was completely undeveloped and only 12-13 during filming, so it's definitely not a good sort of nude. It's disconcerting nudity, because she's still completely a child and not even the least bit arousing, yet the character she plays is a prostitute in 1910's New Orleans. The nudity is in a completely nonsexual context though, which is why it's perfectly legally sold at major retailers and shown on cable despite the much more conservative climate of today in which such a film would never be made. Last time I saw it was 2-3 years ago on one of the movie channels; it's actually a pretty good movie with a sterling performance by Susan Sarandon, but it's definitely disconcerting.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Grubert
I agree. I like Thora Birch, and she does a first-rate job here.


BTW it's the only movie where you have a chance of seeing Keira Knightley's boobies. Not that anyone here will catch the movie only because of that, of course. :D
Didn't realize she had any. Gorgeous face, but a generic, underdeveloped body. I believe another movie site refers to her as a "tomboy beanpole".
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by Sergei Esenin
Really? Oh dear, my inner dirty-old-man simply *must* rent it now. For, umm, the horror, not the boobies, but the horror. :eek:
I believe the review at dvdtalk.com included some screen caps of the scene in question.


Don't everyone rush there at once!
 
#14 ·
I think "The Hole" is another example of bringing out old movies to capitalize on an emerging star's new name recognition.


I thought the premise of the movie was shaky, and Thora Birch's behaviour as the events unfold were totally unbelievable. After the first "main event" any teenager would do whatever is possible to end the situation.


I found no suspense and little of interest, only keeping it on because it was relatively short and I knew I could make it to the end of the thing.


All in all a waste of time. The silver lining is now I've seen underage breasts on screen. Woo Hoo.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by madpoet
It does? Not that I can find... if I were looking...
Hmmm... Maybe it wasn't in the review, but links to it in a discussion thread or something. Don't remember clearly.
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by SWC
I think "The Hole" is another example of bringing out old movies to capitalize on an emerging star's new name recognition.
Maybe in the US it is, but when the movie was released in Europe KK was nobody.

Quote:


I thought the premise of the movie was shaky, and Thora Birch's behaviour as the events unfold were totally unbelievable. After the first "main event" any teenager would do whatever is possible to end the situation.
Well, people can react very strangely when locked in. And the movie's logic was no worse than your typical teenage thriller.

Quote:
I found no suspense and little of interest, only keeping it on because it was relatively short and I knew I could make it to the end of the thing.
Well without giving any spoilers, I'd say that what matters is not really the whats but rather the hows and whys.

Quote:


All in all a waste of time. The silver lining is now I've seen underage breasts on screen. Woo Hoo. [/b]
I beat you there. Spanish actress Maribel Verdú (of Y tu mamá también fame) was showing way way more and a lot earlier than Keira. :p
 
#17 ·
Ahh, if you search the Adult forums there for "The Hole" you can find the screen caps and links. Not that I did.


-MP
 
#18 ·
I finally got around to watching *The Hole*. I must admit it wasn't what I expected from the preview--it was made out to be a straightforward horror/slasher film, but it turned out to be a decent psychological thriller. More about motives and story than about scares and gore. I have to say that, even though parts of the ending are telegraphed beforehand, it was still enthralling to watch it play out. The movie's roots as a novel are visible, in a good way, in the details which unfold.


Thora Birch was lovely and talented as ever. She's still fairly young and has turned in many stand-out performances--even in small parts like the tiny role she played in The Smokers , she steals the show. *The Smokers* was a very watchable but forgettable movie, yet I'll always remember it because of Birch's extraordinarily enthusiastic small supporting role. And she's far more lovely than Keira Knightley any day of the week...


As for Knightley, she's by no means a bad actress, but she lacks Birch's screen presence. Even in her recent movies, she seems only "competent" but not really great. One other thing--I was reading the forums at IMDB and someone pointed out that the film's UK release was only a month after she turned 16, meaning she was either still 15 or, far less likely given postproduction and print duplication and distribution needs, just barely 16 when she filmed the make-out scene followed by the brief toplessness. I'm far from prudish, and do enjoy the "sexy high school girl" characters in various films, but IMHO 15 seems a tad too young for this particular role. Sure, Brooke Shields, Jodie Foster, and a host of other good young actresses have played "mature" roles at 15 or even 12, but none of them involved getting pawed onscreen the way Keira Knightley got pawed. Toplessness in a brief nonsexual context, who cares. But the makeout scene where she's clothed but gets pawed all over--no way I'd ever let my 15 year old daughter do that in a movie.


In the current conservative climate I'm a little surprised the film got distributed in the U.S. with the makeout scene intact. Some of you may not recall, but the 1997 remake of Lolita couldn't find a U.S. theatrical distributor at all until finally the Showtime cable network aired it. Though part of the reason was that the whole storyline is about an exploitive sexual relationship with a minor, a large part of it was also the fact that Dominique Swain was only 15 during filming. Even though a pillow always seperated Swain and Jeremy Irons, and although care was taken to be sure there was no actual contact with certain zones with a body double used at times, potential distributors were wary. I remember the controversy distinctly since a professor at my college was teaching a course around Nabokov's writings, and was very upset that *Lolita* had opened everywhere except in the U.S. Now in this film Knightley was apparently the same age as Swain, yet she gets pawed more graphically, in shots where a body double couldn't have always been used.


Ah well, go figure. It does make me think that distribution here was probably deliberately delayed until Knightley was well over 18, though, so that her underagedness would be less obvious and therefore lessen the potential for controversy.
 
#19 ·
While this movie had a lot going for it, including Thora Birch and a nice set up, it falls on its face at the end.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) So we are to believe that the Liz character gets off. Martin was found dead with the key so he was guilty - case closed. But wait, How did Liz get out of the hole in the first place if Martin had the key and was in Barbados (or wherever they found him)? Duh, I guess the screen writer had a heart attack. Is this a thriller or a Monty Python movie. Thumbs way down.
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally posted by John Moschella
While this movie had a lot going for it, including Thora Birch and a nice set up, it falls on its face at the end.


Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

So we are to believe that the Liz character gets off. Martin was found dead with the key so he was guilty - case closed. But wait, How did Liz get out of the hole in the first place if Martin had the key and was in Barbados (or wherever they found him)? Duh, I guess the screen writer had a heart attack. Is this a thriller or a Monty Python movie. Thumbs way down.
The way I understood it was

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) after the opening phone call a few days had passed before she even mentions Martin as she isn't talking about it when she is first put in the psychiatric ward. This gives Martin (who had given her the key and also knows the type of person she is and also realizes how much trouble he could potentially be in) plenty of time to get away. And the cops would still believe that the door was unlocked from the outside because that's what Liz told them and they don't have a reason to disbelieve her.
 
#22 ·
am i the only one here that always reads the spoiler alerts? i have no self control.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top