Great movie...if they took a lot of it out.

Rating: Null/10 (11 July 2004)

What an amazing idea: guy goes back in time to save girlfriend, only to mess up everything else. It could make a very great movie, right? Sure, things could get a little bit disturbing after you altered the past, but that's normal in a psychological thriller like this, right?
Not this disturbing. The writers did NOT have to add such disturbing scenes as the burning of the animal and the naked kids scene.
On another note, violence has been in movies for years. My favorite movies have quite a lot of violence in it. Sure, it can be disturbing to some viewers, but in a movie like Kill Bill the violence is over-the-top, fun, and a get-away from normal life, which is quite violent these days, considering the war in Iraq and other war-related happenings. Tarantino, the director of Kill Bill, is an absolute genius. He makes going to the movies fun. Movies should be fun, even horror movies. This movie, though, is way too violent to be enjoyable at all.
I'm not saying that every two seconds someone's head is chopped off. I mean that the violence that is shown in the movie (and by violence, I not only talk about killing or gore, but rape) is so sick that it ruined my experience of watching this film.
We did NOT need a pedophile father in a movie like this. We did NOT need an animal's life being taken from a violent little twerp just because the animal's owner kissed his sister. What kind of kid does that? Who in their right mind would go crazy over THAT? Sure, I'd have hard feelings, but taking the life of an animal for that reason is not only stupid, but extremely unnecessary. What were the writers thinking?
By the way, Ashton Kutcher was great. I never thought of him as a good actor, but after this I think that he could really go far with this.
People are complaining about how if he went back in time and made a scar on himself, the other person knowing him would've known him with those scars all along. He altered the past, did he not? Kudos to the IMDb member who noticed that. There are a lot of plot holes, and I bet if you spent all night dissecting this movie, you would never figure out if it all worked out like it seemed to. The scene in the ending where the doctor tells the bad news to Ashton Kutcher's character just screwed everything up. I am still trying to figure this out...but I really don't want to dissect the movie into tiny little pieces because I don't think it is worth it.
What's with the Se7en scenes too? So they went to the theatre to watch Se7en, but did you have to sneak whole scenes into the movie that we're watching? Because after watching this, I don't think I really want to watch THAT too. Sorry if your little advertising scheme didn't work with me. Maybe it'll work with the other millions of viewers that are stupid enough to fall for your trick.
What's with that evil kid, Tommy? I wanted him to DIE. That's how much I hated him. He is so evil. "Good acting", you say? No, more like "acting like a little piece of @#$% spoiled brat". I have never seen such evil in a kid like that.
What has come to the world today when you can't even go to a movie without coming out either slightly disturbed or sick to your stomach? Sure, Titanic did that to people, but in a good way, unlike this. Saving Private Ryan? Again, it actually happened, so of course you can feel like that after. But with a movie like this, which is fictional, which people come to the theatre to enjoy, I don't know how many people can enjoy it...yes, the cinematography was incredible. I love the scenes, and the story is not bad either, but did we have to add such disturbing scenes such as the animal and naked kids scene? That was Definitely unneeded material. If these scenes were taken out and replaced with something else that didn't involve poor innocent children and animals, I would probably give this movie 5 stars. But sorry, I lost my appetite after these scenes...not to mention my liking of the movie itself.