MovieChat Forums > mr159 > Replies
mr159's Replies
It tries to be a character-driven folk-horror. And fails at being either character-driven or folk-horror.
The plot is not slow-burn, just slow. But despite its pacing, the characters and plot still feel half-baked.
The twist, if you can call it that, seems like just another thing that happens in the movie.
I'm surprised this movie has as high of a rating it does on imdb.
I thought about this. They probably wanted to keep the cop hostage and needed the ambulance to keep him alive.
Still pretty mediocre movie.
He was deliberately hamming it as a pompous narcissist who is out of touch with reality. I loved this interpretation of the character.
She was 10. Logic wasn't her forte.
OP there's nothing historical about this movie considering Brokeback Mountain did a much better job 17 years ago.
Sam Elliot here sounds exactly like sexually-frustrated Benedict Cumberbatch from the movie lmao.
Close. It was his cousin Fatt Damon.
Leaving her alive is understandable. Most adults, let alone kids, would balk at killing another human. Even one that was trying to kill them.
But yes, the number of weapons the kid threw away or didn't pick up was annoying. Knife, taser, axe... It reminded me of The Cabin By The Woods where in one scene, the movie specifically addressed that trope lol.
i dont remember the movie well but grandfather paradox aside, there were inconsistencies with the internal logic as well. When the strawberry farmer is killed, a new timeline is created. Not a timeline that is yet to be determined based on actions from 1999 onwards, but a fully formed timeline of pre-determined events. We know this because there are records in the police station of the serial killer being arrested, even though that is yet to happen to the girl in 1999.
But after that, the movie treats timelines as changing in real time. The dad dies in 2019 only when the girl stabs him in 1999. Similarly with the torture of the 1999 version of the heroine, and the entire brawl in the final act. Also, how is it that the heroine finds herself in the same house in every timeline, even the one where both her parents are killed.
Maybe there's an explanation, i can't remember a lot of the details
I didn't bother to really think about the credit scene, it just seemed like one of those Friday the 13th type twists that don't really make sense. I had way too many other issues with the movie.
Horror movies are completely ruined in theatres. If it's not people laughing because they're not into it, it's people too into it deliberately laughing to dispel the nervousness and tension. I feel theatres are best reserved for MCU type movies.
The best way to watch a horror movie is alone at your home.
Yup. Waste of time. Just a lot of self-referential nods that will make hipsters feel smart for getting it.
The Goblin thing is more palatable if you see the 'cure' as a metaphor for therapy. But yes, overall the movie/Spiderman is pretty naive for assuming that bad people can be fixed and will go back to being good. Especially when the movie is set in the Marvel universe where we have seen people who do evil things just for power and greed (Obadiah Stane, Hela, Red Skull). Now imagine Peter Parker trying to rehabilitate them.
Of course. They hit us over the head with it. I also thought they didn't do a very good job with their rehabilitation argument. It made sense for Goblin and Otto as they were basically suffering from mental illness. But Electro was a completely normal dude who decided to misuse his power and hurt people. Taking away his superpowers and setting him free is the equivalent of taking the gun away from a school shooter and sending them back to school
The movie should still make sense within the rules of its own universe. That's something Marvel has always tried to do.
Like when Thanos snapped everyone out of existence for 5 years, and the following movies contextualized that into their narratives. Like underage kids who got snapped, passing themselves off as adults.
Or when they showed the Infinity Gauntlet in Asgaard, that was later proven to be a replica.
"It's magic" is just lazy and hand-waving away all the plotholes. It's why the DC movies are never successful.
Hopefully movie-nerds like us who post on this forum.
Yes, that is correct.
She killed her sister when they were kids, and self-censored the memory to cope with the trauma and guilt. This is explained when she discusses the Amnesiac killer with her colleague. She is then trying to erase her guilt by rescuing her sister.
An English girl, to escape past guilt, tries to find redemption in her job, where she believes she is helping and protecting people. The job puts her in contact with person(s) who end up being murdered by her. In the end, having lost touch with reality, she thinks she has finally redeemed herself. But this is a stark parallel to how the nearby onlookers see her - they are horrified by what she has done.
Nice take. It explains the censor board setting of the movie. Even the director alludes to the real horror being out there already.
Also, I think it's pretty clear that the childhood incident was Enid killing her sister, and then self-censoring the entire event. This is indicated when she discusses the Amnesiac Killer with her colleague, who says the brain edits itself to cope with trauma. Ever her parents tell her that she's never been clear about exactly what she remembers about the day her sister went missing.
Well, foster brothers. Who grew up together in the same house and one became the world's greatest spy and the other became the world's greatest terrorist.
It wasn't that Q was never gay. His sexual orientation was never relevant to the plot. So they could change it without really having it make a difference.
Just like when M was made a woman in the 90s.