For The Sake Of Vicious

I caught this one at Fantasia International Film Festival this year, and it really is one vicious little number that makes the most of a minimal budget to deliver maximal carnage. It's an effective grit-your-teeth brawl-fest and a refreshingly straightforward take on the home invasion genre. Plus, it's set at Halloween, which is always a bonus. Directed by Gabriel Carrer and Reese Eveneshen, For the Sake of Vicious also stars Nick Smyth and Colin Paradine. Dread will debut the film in select theaters on April 16, before expanding to On Demand on April 20 and Blu-Ray on May 4. For now, you can watch our exclusive trailer debut below, just brace yourself for some bloodshed.

For the Sake of Vicious

Spoiler alert: I came away disappointed, Chris.For The Sake Of Vicious reminds of Random Acts Of Violence by title first, then presentation. We are thrust into a violent situation that continually escalates. The filmmakers want to prove that anger and aggression only exacerbate whatever problems exist. Random Acts Of Violence whimpers when it strives to become a satire on violence in the media, while For The Sake Of Vicious loses its poignancy during a repetitious Assault On Precinct 13 standoff. For the sake of viciousness, indeed, but at what cost?A nurse returns home (Lora Burke) to find Chris (Nick Smyth), a stranger with demands, and Alan (Colin Paradine), Chris' hostage who she's asked to keep alive. There are accusations leveled against Alan by Chris. People yell. Alan thinks he's calling for backup, but thugs descend on the house, and the three must fight their way out. Simple, but creators Gabriel Carrer and Reese Eveneshen craft two at-odds halves of separate movies that don't stick together.There's an attempt to put forth a special effects showcase through fight sequences that is admirable on a slim budget. For The Sake Of Vicious also wants to be a "Halloween thriller," but the few jack-o-lanterns, a paper skeleton, and one trick 'r treater don't sell the festive vibe. It's battered, but editing cuts are jagged while characters are beholden to their crazed circumstance. It's violent, it's bloody, but it's not the knockout action invasion that's promised. Nor does the buildup enhance the senseless beatdowns that follow. - 5 out of 10 - Matt Donato

Gabriel Carrer and Reese Eveneshen : I know with the script originally wasn't. We can actually I think it earlier draft. We didn't actually say or what happens to the child. What so ever I think it was kind of always like that something really just bad happens. That content is so delicate rates you're just like oh no like you know how do you like we'll. I'm sorry no we left that I wouldn't get why we wish for that a little bit too. It added more motivation for the characters but we did not see much into it either any kind of do this delicate balance is. I mean it's you know it's a terrible thing happening you know it's and you don't want to focus on that you don't want to make that kind of that central banks certainly didn't want to show any because you know. Coming from us that we were answered nearly being chopped up there is a certain limit that you want to reach and I you know I don't for both of us we're not we don't have to go down a dark hole. I don't think we're inspired by anything specific but it was something that was in the original draft you know were neither one of us gets mobile phone calls and we you know we're we know striker and you know I have younger sisters are 14 years older than you just kind of put yourself in that mindset of what would really push somebody over the edge and there's not much that gets worse than that this is the taking away of innocence is probably the most active well the fact that like I think it's just one or most brutal crime any want to commit yeah so yes indeed I heard she was it's very taboo subject and we it's something people often shy away from and we thought if we kind of lean into it a bit again would claim that the larger themes of aggression viciousness.

The Journal of Aesthetic Education 37.3 (2003) 112-118 // --> [Access article in PDF] Hong Kong Art: Culture and Decolonization, by David Clarke. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2002, 240 pp. Paper. The issue of identity is a "vicious" circle in relation to Hong Kong's return to China in 1997. The more one talks about it, the more it is to be talked about as if it is a phenomenon at a very special moment. But isn't not talking about Hong Kong identity in a certain period of time also a "vicious" circle, in which the lack of noise invites further silence?

David Clarke's Hong Kong Art is, in a sense, an initiation of Hong Kong art as a "vicious" circle. In this sense, a concrete affinity between a text and its subject matter is significantly established. This is one of the ideals, potentials, and powers of all books written for the sake of being read and having actual effect. In this respect, this "vicious" circle is not vicious in a negative sense. It is through such interactivities that a book establishes a positive link with its subject matter.

With regard to the book's "ideal" link with its subject matter, I will now discuss the book's actualization of what it sets out to examine. The inadequacy of surveys on Hong Kong art (whether or not as a whole) manifests the relative tranquility in acknowledging that Hong Kong art is distinct. In view of this, the book itself is an intervention that (further) actualizes what it talks about. This is the case particularly in light of its predecessors' "vicious" circle of "silence," let alone those simplifications reducing Hong Kong art to either a Westernized product or a Chinese branch.

This question is worth pondering. Maybe revolutions are generally and historically romanticised. We tend to have this unconscious impression that revolutions are aesthetic and romantic. In fact, revolutions are ugly. They push the worst traits and taboos of a society or a culture to the public and contest it, sometimes primitively and violently. With such an ugly process, the malice of power is eclipsed and the power contest between elites becomes even more vicious.

HOW ARE WE TO UNDERSTAND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF VICE (1) in Aristotle's ethics? (2) As many commentators have noted, it is by no means obvious that Aristotle's scattered remarks about vice really add up to a coherent account. In several places Aristotle clearly assigns the leading role in the explanation of vicious action to reason. We see this, for example, in the unequivocal claim that acts expressing intemperance are "in accordance with choice" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]). (3) This is important, in part because it provides a basis for the distinction between vice and akrasia. Although both the intemperate and the akratic do what they ought not, the intemperate pursue their goal guided by reason and with "little or no appetite" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]), (4) whereas the akratic act from appetite. (5) What both pursue and what both ought not pursue--is bodily pleasure. (6) The difference is that the vicious pursue bodily pleasure because they think it is the central component in the good life. (7) Thus, they choose pleasure as a good, indeed as the most important good. The akratic, on the other hand, pursue bodily pleasure as such and do so contrary to their conception of the good.

When Aristotle writes about vice as a disposition to choose what promotes a certain conception of the good, and especially when he is distinguishing between intemperance and weakness, one cannot but be struck by the similarity between virtue and vice. Both are fixed conditions of the soul that concern the choice of what promotes what appears to be good. The virtuous and vicious alike pursue their respective goals without strong appetite, and both enjoy a harmony between what they find pleasant and what they take to be good. The only difference, it seems, is that the virtuous choose that which promotes what is actually good and the vicious select what falsely appears good.

Elsewhere, however, Aristotle seems to have a different, distinctly Platonic, conception of vice in mind. (8) In 3.12, for example, he clearly indicates that the appetites of the intemperate do not always fall in behind reason's lead. There he describes the appetites of the vicious as "great and strong" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]) (9) and "disobedient to the ruling principle" ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]). (10) Later, in 9.4, Aristotle draws a picture of the vicious soul that could not be more different from the psychically stable and harmonious virtuous soul.

But no political party articulates this. What's lacking, in other words, is vision: a clear sense of how society should be improved. Tony Blair once seemed to have it, and so badly did people want to believe in it that the backlash against him, now it's all gone so badly pear-shaped, is vicious in the extreme. The Lib Dems have merely got double vision. And the Tories don't bother to present any vision at all, and so give the impression that every policy they bring forward is an opportunistic manoeuvre for power for its own sake.

Intolerance: No reason or rhyme, people find fault with everything and anything. They have to say something because they want to say. They are not saying because they have something to say. The religion, regionalism, rationalism and many other isms have made people to exhibit their talent in a way that is not in tune with humanity. Oppose for the sake of opposing and suppose for the sake of supposing has become the order of the day. The negativity is spreading more faster than the positivity, like a wild fire burning the dense forest! We have stopped accepting the people the way they are. We expect everything to happen at our nose level. Our unnecessary analysis has surpassed the meaningful limits and causing more harm than never before! Observing tolerance leads to soothing soul and peaceful society. 041b061a72