[deleted]
[deleted]
It would have been better served as a twenty-five minute "Twilight Zone" episode.
shareexactly!!!!! damn, it's like stumbling into everything i wanted to write myself here. xD
share
MovieChat Forums > It Comes at Night (2017) Discussion > [deleted]
Agreed. I don't see what the point of this was. It certainly wasn't a horror film. Its about people who have learned to survive the ebola apocalypse by becoming germophobic survivalists, they welcome a new family into their home, and then they all die. This feels like a part of an idea for a horror film. Just horribly underdeveloped. We don't even know if its the other family that made them sick in the end. Good god this was a waste of time
shareIt's called ambiguity
share"Its about people who have learned to survive the ebola apocalypse by becoming germophobic survivalists, they welcome a new family into their home, and then they all die."
THAT's called "ambiguity"? hahaha. there wasn't the slightest hint of ambiguity here. go watch "the killing of a sacred deer" or "dogtooth", you will just looooooooove those. also "the survivalist" would be a great candidate. even less substance, yet even more space to project.
Uh no, this is the part I was referring to as ambiguous:
"We don't even know if its the other family that made them sick in the end"
ah, fair enough. where's the doubt though?
shareThere was plenty of obvious ambiguity in the film like:
* Was Will a liar? Did he lie about his brother and did he in fact plan to rob the house?
* Then maybe he wasn't, and in that case: was Paul the real bad guy of the film?
* Who opened the door?
* Was Travis infected the entire time?
Not saying it was a good film because of this, just saying it had those elements of doubt.
for the most part you took the words right out of my mouth, expect that i found it mildly entertaining and that i haven't seen "hidden" and while i stopped watching "lost" within the first season, because i felt deep hatred for each and every character in it, i think that there is a brilliance to that show ... even though i will never ever experience it myself. xD
but yeah, 20 minutes tops for that story, fan of edgerton as well, lazy, lack of imagination, random scenes, no cleverness at all, didn't even care towards the end.
Most film plots could be crammed into 20 minutes, if you threw away all the atmospheric scenes and non-essential dialogue and just told the story as effectively as you could.
But then you'd lose out of a lot of the point of cinema: emotion, atmosphere, world-building etc. A lot of that stuff takes time.
I'd even argue that sometimes a scene can make you feel a lot more just by having longer shots, instead of rushing through it.
For example: They decided to spend a good 5 minutes on the intro with the grandfather's death and funeral - because they wanted to give the audience a sense of what it might feel to be forced to kill someone who had a sickness that would otherwise kill you.
I think the point of films like these are more about giving the audience that kind of emotion, rather than telling a dense plot.
One of the biggest piles of shit i've watched in a very long time !!!!
I disagree. I thought it was a very tense and intelligent film. And there was no run of the mill "movie monster" out in the woods. "It" is fear, paranoia, distrust and nightmares. They all come at night.
I give it a 7.5/10.
π
[deleted]
Thanks. A very intelligent post, and that's why they make chocolate and vanilla. Great name, btw!
π