MovieChat Forums > Rinn13 > Replies
Rinn13's Replies
Precisely. I get it, they were trying to be deep and artsy, showing these manufactured differences of how two people take "the world ending".
But I'd hardly call the ending "beautiful". It was pointless. The guy just kept saying "at least we have each other, WE will find a way, WE can make some kind of life together." And she was selfish, and depressed, and obviously didn't care as much about him as he did about her, and decided to end it all, because why not?
This movie has two major problems, beyond its blatantly bad writing:
1. The reliance on its characters being the dumbest fucking people on the planet at all times, so as to constantly fall for the bad guy's shit.
2. This new obsession filmmakers seem to have with "subverting expectations".
The only rational reason I can think of, that this film is SUCH a vague abortion of pointless scenes with ZERO explanation or resolution whatsoever, OUTSIDE of the filmmakers simply being THAT bad at filmmaking, is that they fell in love with their own cleverness, and thought what an artsy "shock" it would be to the audience, for the film to deliberately HAVE no point. The film itself is doing to the audience what the phantom killer is doing to the family the entire time: fucking with you.
Either, regardless of whether this film's badness has rhyme or reason, or not, it doesn't change the fact that it IS a bad film. I honestly wonder, when actors sign up for shitty horror films like this, and they read the script, are they consciously AWARE that like "Man...this movie's not gonna make any goddamn sense. This might be REALLY bad."? One of my favorite young actresses is Annalise Basso, who has proven that she is a really talented, smart young woman. And yet, she keeps taking roles that are SO poorly written, and acting in horror films that are SO incredibly dumb. It just leaves me scratching my head as to why you would take these parts, except just to merely take a part period.
Even with a "better" ending, this movie was just one series of pointless crap after another. I don't like to just dump on other people's art, but seriously? This is a growing trend I've noticed in horror movies, especially from the 2000s onward, which is to have as little of a vague plot as possible, and then just create a pile of "spooky" or tense scenes, with "spooky" music laid over it, most of which have little to no actual relevance or point.
I'm sorry to the writers and directors, but seriously...the point of a movie is to tell the audience a STORY. And you told the audience next to noting for 90 minutes. It isn't even remotely the worst HORROR film I've ever seen. I've seen far worse. It was just....REALLY badly written, and ultimately pointless.
That, my friend, is what bad writing looks like. When you're so inconsistent from scene to scene, that you can't even be bothered to pay attention to your own plot, and your own character relationships. That scene was so painful and uncomfortable to watch, like "REALLY?". The things both of them said, were just shitty as hell, and utterly pointless, other than to manufacture some needless drama at that exact point. And then that scene is almost disregarded soon after as the film plods along.
Honestly, I think that's a myth that horror/film fans perpetuate. The vast majority of modern horror films have bleak, depressing, "the bad guy wins" or "everybody dies" type of endings. If anything, having an ending like the original Gremlins, or Poltergeist, or The Gate, where people go through a terrifying ordeal but the main characters DON'T die, that is rare, and sadly almost novel these days.
Personally, I don't watch supernatural horror films to see bleak, hopefully, "let's be as fucked up as possible" shit. If I want that, I can find it in the news in real life, like every single day. Personally, I like to be entertained, not to watch the writer/director masturbate over how clever they think their "I made a bleak ending just like everyone else" is.
Just because something seems "weird" to you, doesn't mean it's "weird" to other people.
The Captain of every Star Trek show/ship has in fact been the "star". They have ALWAYS been the "main character" of the show, from Kirk to Pecard to Cisco to Janeway to Archer. That doesn't mean that, as you say, other actors/characters haven't "stolen the show", or had episode that focus on them over the main character. That has been a thing almost as long as television has been a thing.
Saying the Captains of the previous shows WEREN'T the "star", is like saying that Jerry Seinfeld isn't the star of "Seinfeld". He 100% is. That doesn't mean that George and Kramer aren't funnier and more interesting than Jerry himself. They are. But they're still no the "star" of the show. I love Kirk, and he's my favorite captain, but yes, Spock and especially Bones are more interesting and entertaining. But the show wouldn't be the same without Kirk, and he is absolutely the "star".
The problem that a lot of longtime ST fans have with Discovery, is not really that they are focusing on an officer instead of the captain (Which in this case is actually Michelle Yeoh). The problem many including myself have with this show, is that it not only visually (especially the "Klingons") reeks of the god awful Abrams reboot films. But that it also reeks of shallow modern Hollywood trends, such as trying to manufacture "Diversity", and leaning heavily on SJW-style talking points and themes. The very fact that they're trying to make events in this show "be a commentary on the current American political climate", is both absurd and embarrassing, as a longtime fan. When Roddenberry created the show in the 60s, he did not create it to be an analog to the current world of the 60s. He purposefully set it in the 23rd century, far enough in the future that he felt it would be plausible and acceptable by most audiences to see humanity shown as FINALLY having gotten over its petty bullshit like racism, sexism, and pointless wars. So tying this show to contemporary times is pointless, and lame.