MovieChat Forums > dxben99 > Replies
dxben99's Replies
I think it was stated that they need "a girl who will not be missed".
Unfortunately I never watched the original (just never got around to it) but saw this version now and wow, the original ending sounds so much better just reading it. I wish I watched that movie instead.
Wasn't bitching, as I said, I was not sure about the historical accuracy. When it makes sense, it's all good with me.
I just didn't get the other guy's replies talking about judging a book by its cover. That's not what OP was getting at. But wth, no need defending him as you've just explained that he's wrong. I'm out. ^^
Well to be fair, nobody's judging any character here. You seem to hear what you want to hear.
The guy's talking about historical accuracy. I suck at history so I don't know whether it is possible for a lot of black characters to be there in that time. If it is not, or very unlikely, I say he has a point.
I mean, people are (rightfully) complaining about old movies that only cast White actors to Play People from all kinds of races and cultures. Going the other route and casting mixed ethnicities for every role, disregarding historical or geographical context, is not really better.
Just discovered this thread and wanted to take the chance to thank the mods for banning this guy.
Agree with you on the first part. i think the movie made it understandable how the brainwashing occurred.
The second part, I do not agree. I get that you won't get a list actors, but the problem is it is filmed as a documentary and when the performances (and also some of the shots) suggest to you that it is staged, it's hard to suspend disbelief.
So while it may be understandable for some actors to not be that good, it is a valid criticism.
Basically, I totally agree with you. When watching a horror film, the goal for me is to be scared, which is why I only watch them at night, preferrably alone. And most times, I have no problem getting into the movie, but still, most movies just do not really frighten me. (Having you on edge for a couple of seconds due to anticipation is not the same as truly frightening you)
The problem with this movie is not that the premise is unrealistic (as you say, stuff like this does happen), just that the acting and some of the shots are just too unrealistic to be a real documentary and remind you that you are watching a movie.
An example for fake-documentary done right would be Lake Mungo. Of course I knew beforehand that it isn't real but it sucked me in right away and I could totally suspend disbelief and watched it as a real documentary. It scared the sh-t out of me.
With "Poughkeepsie Tapes", I was looking forward for such an experience, but no, just didn't work out for me.
The only really creepy scene to me was right at the end, the interview with Cheryl.
When they're in the bar making the deal, to assure him, Johnny tells him to split himself into the guy who goes ahead with the plan and the guy who stays at home, and that he should keep these two seperated, or something like that.
Right afterwards we get the scene with Johnny and Cherry at his door, and then the splitscreen thing happens, where in one screen, he goes with them and in the other he stays at home. So it was clearly suggested that it's two timelines.
When I first realized that the body of the father is in the trunk all along, at first I thought they were going for a time loop thing. lol
I agree about context and that people tend to leave that out of the discussions, which I think is why I found this discussion so weird. Someone else on here said "wanting to touch our hair is racist". Same person said "Why would a white person want to touch our hair?". I basically agreed with his second sentence and still got a reply that suggested that that notion might also be racist.
Guess that proves your point about context. I was not looking for a fight. My first sentence in the last post was obviously not meant seriously.
Yea I know, I'm full of hate. xD
Srsly, if someone has great hair, he/she has great hair. Asking to touch it, or just doing that, I would consider rude (except when you're close to that person). Not more, not less.
Why would I wanna touch a black person's hair? Seriously, is that a thing? Maybe only in America.. :D
"How come the police discover the body in the pond so quickly? It was chained so probably didn't surfaced."
They said the lake was drained for some reason.
The only one coming across like a prick is you dude.
And you certainly do care about his opinion, seeing how you jump to defend the movie here.
And the guy never bashed the movie. He said he thought it is good, just not as good as the first one. I agree by the way.
Possibly yeah, but I'm pretty sure someone would have made the same thread vice versa. ;)
It was later said that the brother's m.o. of finding victims was a whole lot different from Rose's (can't remember the exact wording). At that point it gets clear that the abductor in the opening scene was the brother.
Plus, the black guy is Andre Hayworth/Logan.
When I was reading OP's post I thought "damn, he's right, I saw something like that too." but couldn't remember it as well.
You got it right for mine. I was definitely thinking of that Sopranos scene. :)
Classic!
I'm sorry to say that this was the most predictable twist I've seen in years.
Definitely this. There even was a sign in front of the building.
I agree. That scene seemed really weird to me.