MovieChat Forums > ps48 > Replies
ps48's Replies
...I get the vibe that this guy felt offended when you used the word autistic, and he automatically felt the need to be a contrarian to any idea you posed.
It's a good observation.
I'm not sure either way, but I will say I definitely did not like the protagonist.
Well said. Something I thought was funny is that John Malkovich was consistently portrayed as the evil, cowardly sexist Trump supporter... but he was consistently right, in the movie, lol. And he's killed only because the others mistrust and hate him so much, not because of any of his own mistakes. I felt like that was really ironic, since the writers were clearly intending to paint him as the bad guy.
(((I wonder who)))
Well, I mean, the Jews DO control MSM.
I don't think OP inherently has an issue with black man + white woman. I think he has an issue with the FREQUENCY of that portrayal.
"Black man = Alpha/Athletic/Smart/Good, White man = Beta/Scrawny/Dumb/Bad" is another trope that's been over-represented in MSM lately, including commercials, shows, movies. It is, you must admit, getting old.
Agreed. I was fine with the double-twist for exactly these two reasons:
1.) We felt empathy/sympathy for Antonio's character throughout the entire movie. For him to suddenly be an evil murderer -- while a very creative twist -- was also a shot to the gut.
2.) Indeed, this was far too elaborate and crazy of a setup to be realistic. It was believable enough to hold our interest while watching, but after the movie is over, we'd think about it and be like, "Wait a minute... that would never happen."
So, for it to end up being a dream actually solves both problems. The unrealistic situation still has value because now Antonio's character is going to write a (fictional) book about it.
So yeah. Normally, "And then he woke up and it was all a dream!" is a really stupid ending, but in this case, it actually works very well in my opinion. I thought this was a very cool, clever movie.
Buzzkill:
It's not totally happy actually, because, the alternate version of TAU in the little droid that Julia took only retained all of its memories because its connection to the main version was severed by Alex -- but that means at the moment of the connection being severed, there were essentially two different versions of TAU both "alive" at the same time. Real TAU (in the house) really did get lobotomized by Alex, and then is presumably destroyed when the house crumbles, which also "conveniently" ties up the loose end of the two separate versions existing simultaneously.
Of course, it's also ridiculous that each of those little droids actually has the capacity/capability to run an entire independent version of TAU. If they were intended to be cleaner bots, it doesn't seem sensible at all to have ALL of them have the hardware/software capabilities of running an entirely independent version of TAU. Why would he design them like that rather than just have them be little drones that accept commands from the main version. Then again; it's a movie.
I was expecting an annoying ending. In the beginning, there are TWO separate scenes where Julia is "plugged into the chair implant science thing". I thought the reality was that that only really happened once, and the rest of the movie was a simulation/experiment, meaning in the end it would be revealed that she was still trapped in the dungeon.
Thankfully the ending was better than that, but I still can't say I thought this movie was very good... I just thought TAU's "TEACH ME MORE JULIA PLS PLS" was just really corny, in the same way that the movie CHAPPiE was corny.
For a similar low-budget "artificial intelligence science-puzzle" movie, I'd recommend Infinity Chamber.
It was the creator's (Alex's) initials, it showed his full name in one of the scenes when the girl is snooping through his files or whatever. A magazine cover or profile pic of Alex pops up, and to the right of his picture it says Thomas Alexander Upton ... or something like that. First name might've not been Thomas, but I think that was it.
I don't blame you, I almost turned it off there too. The dialogue was pretty bad too, especially in that first scene.
That's a good question. When I watched it, I assumed he lived and never even considered that it might've been a dream from delirium or whatever, but you're right that it could've been. I think he did get shot in the stomach.
The surprise for me came from the focus on the camera at the very end. I may be interpreting that the wrong way, but my interpretation of that moment is the writer intentionally making the viewer question the two possible meanings of that shot:
1.) The reveal of the camera itself (since the model is the same as the cell's camera) is an indication that he's actually still trapped.
2.) The reveal of the camera is just pointing out that that corporation's surveillance is everywhere, yet, since it's facing away, this indicates that he is actually free.
Again my first instinct is that the writer intentionally wanted the viewer to have a hard time deciding between those two interpretations... But maybe I'm wrong and the writer actually only intended #1 or #2, and the other option was unintentional.
Thoughts?
Regardless, the camera reveal itself was a surprise for me. Nice little addition. Reminded me quite a bit of Deckard finding the unicorn origami at the end of Blade Runner, only to have the movie end a few seconds later when the elevator doors close.
Right, taking drugs and wandering around alone into a desert when you're supposed to be watching your kid, decidedly venturing back to the same place where she got two of her limbs sawed off and eaten AFTER she was saved, and then falling in love with a cannibal weightlifter who had previously eaten grilled chunks of her body are all very bad ass qualities. Definitely a strong, intelligent, and admirable character we can all look up to.
This movie was doodoo and so was your insult
^Yep
Yeah I have no idea how a couple of these people are getting that Regan was a "douchebag". I think they're just too sensitive.
I was bullied when I was younger but I still do not side with Ed, at all. Regan was the good guy. I think some people on here just see his wealth and immediately become upset and want him to be the bad guy.
Agreed OP is nuts. Brosnan's character was exceedingly polite to the IT guy in the beginning. It is clear that he genuinely meant it when he said in the beginning, when they pass each other outside of work, that he's going to get him a full-time job there instead of just temp work. If they wanted the audience to know that Brosnan wasn't being genuine, they would've somehow communicated that to us. I don't know where people are getting the idea that he was "just using him". Grow up. First of all if you work ANYWHERE you are being "used" - you're completely replaceable - and second of all he WAS trying to give Ed better opportunities because Ed did a great job (in the beginning). That's how it works. And being nice (having him stay for beer & steak) was just him being appreciative and is more than most managers/bosses do for employees. Think about it. Most "cool" managers do what?... maybe bring in donuts once a week? Compare that to Regan inviting Ed over to his home and having beers. Yes he was over to work on his home's IT-related stuff, but going above and beyond is exactly how you find new opportunities. At that point in the movie, Regan was still going to get Ed set up with good work, and that's the point when Ed started stalking his underage daughter.
"Just using him"... Jesus CHRIST. People are WAY too sensitive nowadays. I'm sure OP feels that he's "oppressed" by every little too?
I want to clarify that, ideally, I totally agree that everybody should form their own opinion. I'm not one to say that everybody should just like what the majority likes, and everybody should hate what the majority hates. In fact, I like a lot of movies that people don't like, and I hate a lot of the popular movies (I don't like superhero movies, transformers, and all these recent movie "remakes", etc). However, allowing a community the freedom to accurately rate any consumer product is vital, and taking that away IS a form of censorship.
The thing is, negative reviews are helpful not only to other people, but also to the creators. I think that most normal people understand that "you can't please everyone" so just because one user wrote a bad review on the imdb boards, doesn't mean that everyone is going to take that one review from a stranger as gospel and avoid the movie. But a 1-star average rating and HUNDREDS of back-to-back negative (written) reviews on a show? Hmm... MAYBE that's significant. And if you're a creator and you get hundreds of back-to-back negative reviews, MAYBE reconsider your content.
I want to reiterate that I occasionally like movies that were rated poorly. I have thoroughly enjoyed some movies that were 1 or 2 stars, and thoroughly hated some movies that were rated 5 stars, but that doesn't mean they are meaningless. It tends to be more LIKELY that a 5 star movie will be good, and more LIKELY that a 1 star movie will be bad.
"Trolls" was used as an excuse for Amy Schumer's stand-up failing too. I don't deny the existence of them, but at the same time, it still sounds like an excuse. I don't know about you guys, but Amy Schumer's stand-up IS terrible. Bill Nye Saves the World IS terrible. Dear White People IS terrible (and even racially divisive!). Blame the "alt-right" - but some stuff is simply just unbearable, and we must be allowed to communicate what we like and dislike, publicly.
Strannger
Forgive me but what are you showing me with the link? Are you referring to the 2nd post who claims that the imdb boards have been bad for years?
I personally never noticed, although I never used the general boards either. I only used the movie-specific boards whenever I had a question about a movie I'd just watched, or to confirm a suspicion, or to speculate what happens in the ending, etc. Other people would almost always have already posted the same thoughts.
I also don't know what you mean by your last line: "If people don't want censorship prove you can handle it or you're going off a gut feeling." Prove I can handle what? Censorship? Or trolls? Well, "trolls" don't bother me much, personally.
If someone is very angry, for example, at a movie that I personally think is intelligent - oh, let's say Blade Runner, which is one of my favorite movies. Let's say someone hated the ending, because (well, depending on which version you're watching) it doesn't explicitly show what happens after the elevator door closes. My mother, for example, would be someone who would say, "Well that's just stupid!" So, my mother is a troll? No. She just doesn't "get" what the movie was trying to do, and it's probably a waste of effort to try and explain and prove to her that it's an intelligent and effective ending, and why it all makes sense. This is how I view most "trolls". They're probably legitimately upset by something because they just aren't wired to enjoy a particular thing. OR, they are actually going online to intentionally cause disruption and turmoil for fun. I think it is USUALLY the case that "trolls" are the former, not the latter. In either case, simply not getting worked up by them is a fine solution, IMO. It's just a person typing stuff on a computer either way.
I a firm believer of you need to let the bad in with the good. Removing EVERYTHING just because some bad exists is not a good solution for me.
(cont.)
2.) I feel as if this is going to phase out Netflix "user ratings" ALTOGETHER. I'm not saying it's impossible to come up with a "rating" for a movie based on its Likes and Dislikes! That is totally possible! Just take the Likes divided by the total votes. But, according to Netflix, this is not quite what they're going to be doing with the new system. Liking/Disliking is now no longer going to serve as a "user rating" system, at least, based on what they've said, that's what it sounds like. Instead, it's going to simply serve as a "Hey, you liked, these movies, so we think you'll like these other movies too!"
While a "recommendation" system like that is fine, I feel that they are using the introduction of the recommendation system to HIDE that they are essentially completely removing user ratings. What that means, is: No longer can a TERRIBLE show be spammed 1-star ratings and get the hate that it rightly deserves.
And it JUST SO HAPPENS that there are a few shows that recently got - and are still getting - HORRIBLE reviews because they rightly deserve them:
Amy Schumer's stand-up
Dear White People
Bill Nye Saves the World
Sure - call it a conspiracy theory, but for me, these coincidences are too hard to ignore. Arguably all three of these examples have a political motivation/agenda. So allowing the community to spam them with 1-star won't do, ay?
From a "Netflix spokesperson": "This feature is about helping members better personalize their unique experience, Not sharing an opinion on the quality of a story."
http://ew.com/tv/2017/03/16/netflix-star-ratings/
Same idea behind imdb's removal of the boards, yeah?