MovieChat Forums > SisterSuzy101 > Replies
SisterSuzy101's Replies
Discovered how to copy and paste now, have we?
Well done...
<blockquote> It sucks and it's highly regarded as the worst of the sequels </blockquote>
That’s weird. Last I checked, IMDb still rates it at #4 out of the 10 movies.
See for yourself: https://m.imdb.com/list/ls527952892/
Now granted, it’s only one source but a very reliable one at that - one that’s based on public polls and not one subjective opinion.
Plus, many fans I’ve spoken to consider it among the best as well.
And you have yet to give any real reason as to why Saw III is as objectively bad as you claim.
Why should we take your word for it?
That’s your opinion.
Many found it very interesting and captivating, particularly in the way it explored the relationship between John and Amanda, and his psychology (though some found the brutality a bit much).
There’s a reason it remains the top grossing entry in the franchise, and among the highest rated of the sequels.
From best to worst:
1. Saw X
2. Saw II
3. Saw III
4. Saw VI
5. Saw IV
6. Jigsaw
7. Saw V
8. Saw 3D/VII
9. Saw
10. Spiral
How so?
That doesn't mean she shouldn't hold herself somewhat accountable for how things escalated.
I understand why she was annoyed with Cady over the whole art show/party dilemma, but she should've also cut slack and recognised that it wasn't a deliberate betrayal. Cady just got carried away with newfound popularity, having never experienced anything like it before.
I enjoy it, but it’s more a guilty pleasure than anything else. While it does have it’s charm and some genuinely funny moments, it mostly follows the typical sequel formula of being basically a pointless rehash of the first, only bigger and stupider.
The Meg is decent, but could’ve benefited from more “edge”
The Shallows, while entertaining and very technically proficient, is overall just a run-of-the-mill survival movie we’ve seen a million times beforehand. And it doesn’t have a great deal of rewatch value either.
Deep Blue Sea, while not completely original, is much more unique by killer shark movie standards with more thrills, surprises, and overall rewatch value.
Plus, I appreciate the Jurassic Park homages as well as the Jaws nods.
He’s the one who coerced the little girls into the RV for a ride, and took them back to the house where his “aunt” decided to keep them.
That's an accessory to kidnapping in my book, and many would agree.
<blockquote>All Keller had to do was tell the police what Alex said, and get them to question him, as opposed to him taking the law into his own hands</blockquote>
Um... excuse me?? Keller DID do that. And what did it accomplish!? NOTHING!!!! That's why he took the matter into his own hands.
<blockquote>But that still didn't justify him damn near beating Alex half to death.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Him looking for his daughter and her friend didn't justify his actions either. He just came off as a mean, crazy bastard who'd lost his damn mind.</blockquote>
You state that as if it's somehow fact. It's your opinion.
You're probably the type of person that would prefer to see a guilty terrorist have the right to remain silent rather than give up details of a plot that could kill hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people, right? Your logic suggests such.
Like it or not, torture IS justified when lives are at stake and engaging in such an act has a chance of saving them. Keller knew this and as a survivalist, he did what he needed to do. Perhaps he'd be better off using more efficient means such as nail pulling or electrocution (like in Taken (2009)), but still...
Interestingly enough, Keller's actions are what started a chain of events that led to the ultimate resolution, that would arguably have never occurred otherwise.
Think about it: Keller kidnaps Alex, Mrs. Jones grows lonely and lets Anna and Joy out of the pit - in turn giving Joy the chance to escape.
Furthermore, Keller kidnapping Alex is the reason Loki went over to Mrs. Jones’ at the time that he did - when Anna was about to be lethally injected and he being able to save her.
Plus, everything that followed resulted in Alex being identified as Barry and reunited with his family.
<blockquote>Keller deserved what happened to him in the end, because he really crossed a line he shouldn't have crossed to begin with.</blockquote>
Again, that's your opinion. But hey, try saying that after your child or someone you love/care about is taken, with all signs pointing towards one suspect as the culprit and legal authorities not taking your claims seriously.
True. From what I heard, this movie received a polarised response among critics and fans during its' initial release.
Reception has improved overtime, yes, though I feel that's mainly due to the growth in classic status the original 1985 movie received and becoming part of a trilogy that's just as iconic overall as said movie.
But I also wonder, does it really deserve such a resurgence in popularity? It used to be my favourite as a kid, but on a recent rewatch it just feels too flashy, gimmicky, needlessly convoluted and unfocused with numerous inconsistencies, not as well acted or even as timeless as the original.
I still kinda like it, though mostly as a guilty pleasure.
Part III is the better sequel overall. Sure, some don't like the Western aspect or the more 'reserved' approach, but it had heart, good character development, consistency, and an overall better ending.
Deadbeat? Bryan loved Kim more than anything!
Yes, he was on the road a lot due to his job but maintained a solid relationship with her and he never missed her birthdays - and he took an early retirement to make up for lost time with her.
Plus, look at the length he went and risks he took to save her - need I say more!?
Deadbeat implies carelessness, selfishness and laziness, none of which Bryan Mills represents.
It's implied that he now sees the gravity of his mishandling and therefore feels guilty over it.
I made a thread a while back, I'll copy and paste the link below:
https://moviechat.org/tt0104431/Home-Alone-2-Lost-in-New-York/63b513cdf46a232fad00fd19/Realistically-speaking-are-Kevins-family-really-responsible-for-him-ending-up-in-NY
Now I'll quote the paragraph which addresses the main subject of this thread:
<blockquote>Then of course there's the Plaza Hotel staff, whose mishandling of the matter: Buying Kevin's "convincing story", checking him in, and direct confrontation over the credit card in the public lobby, resulting in a chase and them losing him, certainly didn't help either - <b>the very reason Peter and Kate were mad at them.</b>
Fortunately, Mr. Hector didn't fall for the ruse (rightfully so), but as manager he shouldn't have allowed the check-in process to go forward. Instead, he should've quietly notified police that they have an unaccompanied child in their care and advise Kevin to stay put until he can be spoken to (while also assuring him that he's not in any trouble) and the matter get's resolved.
Once the McCallister's reunite with their son and come to collect him, the hotel could take some credit for keeping Kevin safe and put the bill on Peter and Kate.</blockquote>
No, Stu isn't a bad guy. Not even close. It is, however, somewhat understandable why Daniel feels resentful towards him - considering the circumstances (not that I condone vandalism, throwing fruit, deliberately spoiling food etc.)
Perhaps labelling Daniel a "loser" behind his back at the pool was a harsh and oversimplified description of him, and he would've been better off wording it like this:
<b>-<i>"What can I say? From how Miranda describes him, I'm sure he's a swell guy that means well, but he seems to have a hard time accepting that he's a man now. He spent too much time being his kids' slightly immature, excessively fun-loving, fair-weathered friend that feeds immature behaviour and attitudes while not realizing that his kids don't need him to be their friend. They need him to be their father. While a father should enjoy the company of his kids, to be sure, he also has to be mature enough to guide them into adulthood. Sadly, that's why their marriage fell apart. Miranda was tired of looking less like a mother and more like a warden in her own home due to her ex's behaviour and parenting methods. Wish the guy well, though. I hope he acts more mature the next time around."</i></b>
Yes, Daniel was a very loving father but not exactly "hands on" when it comes to parenting. That's actually one of the major developments of his character - he starts out being a tad too loose and fun-loving (in other words, "hands off") but learnt to be hands on where necessary while impersonating 'Mrs Doubtfire.'
Not really. It's decent enough, sure, but hardly left much of an impression.
Honestly, Logan seems to be one of those movies that simply came and went. But when it came, it <i>really</i> came.
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks the first Saw is overrated.
Sure, the general consensus is that it’s the best but I chalk that down to the whole “first is always the best” doctrine that way too many people will just blindly accept without question.
OK, I somewhat respect it for being the introduction to such an iconic horror franchise, but that’s as far as it really goes.
Simply put, the pacing is tedious, the premise is dull and is not as original and many proclaim it to be (basically a Se7en rip-off), and the main characters and performances aren’t anything special (sorry Adam and Dr. Gordon fans).
Then there are the so-called “amazing twists” that are actually really stupid:
Like, why would the mastermind behind the whole thing pretend to be a corpse in the bathroom? John gains literally nothing from it at all that he wouldn't get from just watching the security camera. Why would he need to be there in the room with them pretending to be a corpse? And also, wouldn't it be incredibly easy for them to tell that he's not dead? Even if he took some muscle relaxant (like Saw III retconned in), he'd still need to, you know... breath.
And believe it or not, you move slightly when you breathe. No way two people in very close proximity to him, one of which is literally an experienced doctor, wouldn't be able to tell he's not dead.
Then there's the whole twist with Zep which was fucking stupid too.
Like, he's clearly showing sadistic pleasure when terrorising Gordon's family and watching the game through the monitors, yet we're expected to believe that he's simply following the rules for his survival?
On top of that, Zep’s just an all-round lame villain - he’s not interesting nor intimidating, just flat-out annoying!
At least those movies are fun. Tenet was bleak and pretentious!
Tenet makes the Transformers movies look like Oscar-worthy masterpieces!