MovieChat Forums > Shame (2012) Discussion > Awful, just awful

Awful, just awful

posted 12 years ago by CrbCrtx
46 replies | jump to latest

A character with no soul, no humanity, just an empty shell of a human being living in an empty world.That's a great start with lots of dramatic potential. I was excited about it but Fassbender is an awful actor. He bored me in almost every scene and he's just so obviously trying to get an oscar nom with cheap method tricks. Especially the worst example is the conversation toward the end with his sister on the couch, should have been powerful and emotional but it was just empty and drowsy. And I also have to say that this movie has some of the WORST camera angles in film history. You could never see the actor's faces! WTF? Overrated performance, a truly dreadful film that someone conceived as an erotic art piece, but just isn't - it has some of the least sexy sex scenes in history - my libido was not enflamed at all, lol! Oh, and Fassbender watched way too much Last Tango in Paris.

[–] kidjay83 12 years ago

Fassbender watched way too much Last Tango in Paris.

HA you mean steve mcqueen watched to much last tango.Tango inspired this movie no doubt i can't remember which interview it was but.Steve mcqueen admitted that he was influenced by tango tango was based on the directors sexual impulses.Shame was very similar its not so much about sex addiction.As it is about sexual impulses and giving in to them basically hes just living out his fantasies through his films.I dont feel fassbender was bad in this.The real issue was the script or lack there of the material wasnt great.
For and actor like fassbender he's very good at doing what he's told never anything more.He doesnt go above that to make anything better he's good at just fulfilling the obligations of the role.He's a walking talking computer he's not a human being when it comes to acting.Fassbenders acting does come off contrived at times thats only because hes very technical as and actor.Thats why he was so good at being and android in promethesus.Like that machine he's calculating with his acting someone like jaoquin phoenix would of been better.I also got the impression that it was a wannabe art peice that just failed miserably

"If you want art, don't mess about with
movies. Buy a Picasso"

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] maria-virokhovsky 12 years ago

Haha, you're so funny. Yea right, he is such a terrible actor that he keeps winning multiple awards (crealry, people who distribute them know less about cinema than you do). And about an empy shell... you actually seem like one, if you didn't notice his deep care and concern for his sister, the way he's nice to people in general, and how he feels bad about himslef. Or you're just totally blind and ignorant.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] littlesue-567-593153 12 years ago

I found some of the sex scenes erotic, having the blonde up the side of the building, the Prostitute undressing for him and having the girl up the window, strangely I did'nt think the scene in the bar was erotic whereas a lot of women do, just found that pervy and unnerving.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] littlesue-567-593153 12 years ago

Thats very true, though I would'nt mind giving it a try for a few months, lol

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] filmchaser 12 years ago

Totally agree.

[–] DanaShelbyChancey 12 years ago

I agree with you that the movie wasn't that good. It held my interest while I was watching, but the next day, I don't think highly of it.

Maybe it was a good depiction of a sex addict, I don't really know. Fassbender's performance was good, but not the Oscar powerhouse I was expecting.

At the risk of being called a prude, there was too much nudity. I liked Carey Mulligan in An Education, but I think less of her now after that nude scene. It was distasteful. Maybe it was supposed to be, but it was unnecessary too.

The gay sex in the alley, and the couples having sex against the picture windows. That struck me as the director trying too hard to be shocking. It is not shocking if you feel it's shocking on purpose. It's just mundane, then.

[–] bobcanduit 12 years ago

Yes, you're a bit of a prude. For me, I adored this movie, have enormous respect for Fassbender, and think Carey Mulligan is a talent way beyond her years. She played two extremely different characters in two widely different scenarios. She performed both roles and situations with stunning perfection. I am not one who requires seeing an actress doing sex scenes and nudity, but it was the nature of this role, and she did it so very well.

[–] jestragon 11 years ago

In complete agreement with the prude labelling. There is nothing particularly shocking about sex up against a window or in an alley, it's an accurate portrayal of the situations his character would lead himself into.

I can understand the distaste some people may feel with certain aspects of the movie, but in general I found the acting tremendous, the cinematography very atmospheric, scoring and choice of music great (especially Gould's Goldberg variations). And it's damned realistic where it matters most.

[–] Osmooms 11 years ago

Have to basically agree with all you stated, this was nudity and sex simply for the sake of it, used as "filler" almost, it got rather boring fairly early on. The point was made, no need to labour it. Fassbender, well meh, performance as far as I'm concerned, he's never really struck me as much of an actor anyway.............

[–] EddieAdamsFromTorrance 12 years ago

Some people just don't understand film. You are one of those people. Stick to Spielberg, we'll keep McQueen, Thomas Anderson, Godard, etc.

[–] jab670 12 years ago

McQueen grouped with Anderson and Godard? Not yet. Give him a few more features first. So far, I feel he's better suited for short-length films. Shame would have been fine at 30 minutes. But the film ran out of things to say after the first act.

[–] littlesue-567-593153 12 years ago

I agree, Hunger would have been better as an hour long film to. He has tendancies to do long drawn at pointless scenes.

[–] jab670 12 years ago

Yeah. And while that shot in Shame of Fassbender jogging was pretty and I liked the detail of the broken walk signal... but what was its significance?

It might have worked had it built tension, or engaged you in his perspective, or had a certain rhythmic pacing that hypnotized you, or give you a sense of his surroundings... And metaphorically... well, it was visually and thematically one-dimensional.

I don't think he should write his scripts, personally.

[–] littlesue-567-593153 12 years ago

Well it least you know with a McQueen film you always have a moment you can go and make a cup of tea or go for a wee and not miss anything!

[–] Lssah2006 12 years ago

Still trying to figure out how the hell this movie got a IMDB rating of 7.9

90 minutes of my life I will never get back again (it seemed longer though)

[–] ColdestWinter 10 years ago


I liked the movie well enough(more of the acting less of the direction and script) but this movie had too many unnecessary scenes like that jogging scene.

~Memories made in the coldest winter~

[–] ColdestWinter 10 years ago

Shame would have been fine at 30 minutes. But the film ran out of things to say after the first act.



~Memories made in the coldest winter~

[–] PurpleProseOfCairo 9 years ago

"Some people just don't understand film". There we go, a day is never complete without some IMDB goomer claiming that he's cleverer than everyone else because he "got" a difficult movie and they didn't. Some people just have different tastes to you, can't you understand that? And Spielberg is a bad example to mock someone over - he has actually made some great movies. You should have said Michael Bay.

[–] zeeke 9 years ago

Spielberg has made some great movies, but they are o a different kind, mainly entertainment or grand biopics, this is a totally different kind of film, that has some entertainment, but that isnt why it was made. It really is a brave masterpiece at sounding risk of sounding like a pretentious douchbag. and it s a movie that not everyone will get, because if you dont understand addiction, why would you get it. I think all the pauses/long shots/shocking moments make the film. the fact there are people even calling this an eroti thriller shows how much they completely miss the point

I'm a contradiction 

[–] colton_orieux 12 years ago

Maybe not the decade, but definitely one of the best performances I've seen in a long time (aside from almost everything Leo does).

For everyone complaining about the emptiness of the film or the boredom they experienced watching it, I pity you. This film was a expose on the life of a sex addict, someone empty, someone bored and confused at all forms of human interaction except sex. Fassbender played it expertly IMO

[–] coolbrett 11 years ago

Let me guess. You're a fan of Leonardo DiCaprio? I'm willing to bet all the money I have that you are. Because you simply don't get subtle acting. Where the actor really becomes the character and doesn't have to resort to practicing facial expressions in the mirror. Or try your hardest to make every single emotion 10x more visible than it should be. Leo is the king of overacting and he's always so bloody passionate. Fassbender is what you call subtle. Anyone who simply pays attention to the performance and understands real human emotion can acknowledge that. But even robots will tell you Leo is so passionate because he makes it so bloody obvious. I use Leo as an example because there's really two types of acting fans. Ones who appreciate subtlety and REAL acting, and those who like theatrical over the top showoff performances. It's no wonder you didn't think Fassbender was good in this.

[–] cbartal 11 years ago

Isn't every male a sex addict? It is embedded in our DNA.

But most men don't have the constant opportunities that this guy had in Shame.

The guy was somehow perpetually bombarded by offers of sex from every hot woman in his vicinity that had 2 legs and a pulse.

99.99999999 percent of men should be this lucky for an hour even. This guy somehow was so sexually delectable that he could snap his fingers and an orgy would appear. It was dopey. It was soooo dopey.

I caught it on HBO the other night and I thought it was cheesy soft porn.

[–] coolbrett 11 years ago

I think when you think all men are sex addicts, you're thinking about one type of man in your head. I bet at least half of the male population really don't think or care about sex at all. And plenty of those will actually be able to do it too. They would be preoccupied with other things, most likely reading or something.

As well as that, being a sex addict, and just really really liking it are two totally different things. You could see Brandon's addiction tearing his life apart. But other men can function fine and think of other things if they tried. Even if they still pay for hookers occasionally as well. With Brandon it was clearly an issue. But many guys just celebrate the fact that they like sex so much.

[–] littlesue-567-593153 11 years ago

Its a myth that all men are 'sex addicts'. My mate works as a Sexual consultant for RELATE which is the old 'Marriage Guidance Council' and she says over half the problems she deals with are with women complaining their men are not interested in sex or bothering with a sexual relationship.

[–] ankmiike 11 years ago

Saying most men are sex addicts is going too far.
Saying at least half don't think or care about sex at all is, again, going too far.
About what is true, we can quote our options all day long, so let's just turn to the results of a scientific survey.
On average, men think about sex almost 19 times per day (food: 18, sleep: 11).
Women, nearly 10 thoughts about sex per day (food: 15, sleep: 8 1/2).

You may be thinking "Hey, that's wrong! I don't think about sex that often." Yeah, that's why it says "on average", not "every". If you are thinking "But, the people I know don't think about sex that often either." Yeah, you can't be inside peoples head even for a second, forget all day long. And, they won't talk about it all day long (Specially to you, seeing how you seem to have negative connotations about sex) for the fear of being called, or thought of as, a pervert (they may even be ashamed of it).

Seek to understand, not judge.

[–] matahari20-1 11 years ago

I think it's probably only men with a sex-addiction or a tendency for sex-addiction who think every other guy must be a sex addict too. No offense.

It was creepy to read this though. You know...people like you are just never going to get what a film like this is actually trying to say. Hint...it's not trying to say some guys just get more sexual opportunities than others and *beep* it's all so unfair.

[–] Dr_Julius_Strangepork 8 years ago

men with a sex-addiction most certainly do not think every other guy must be a sex addict too. it's quite the opposite, that men who do not have that addiction like to joke that all men are.

[–] zeeke 9 years ago

funny you said that after the comment above you. I agree btw, dont get the Leonardo "what do I have to do to get an oscar" thing at all

I'm a contradiction 