MovieChat Forums > PepperoniToni
PepperoniToni (7)
Posts
Replies
I watched this last night and I found it somewhat jarring. They give you long shots of what is clearly a child, then it cuts to her face and she's a 30 year old looking woman, but the height of the camera and the actress compared to the other actors is disconcerting, you're expecting her to be at the same height, but she's not. My takeaway from all this was, who in this film would believe this woman is a 9 year old kid?
If you can get on board with this, then the film itself was quite good, I liked the twist and how it played out. I can forgive a few glaring issues to do with geography and logistics etc, but I liked it.
I agree with what you're saying. Another problem I had with this was, if the mother <spoiler>knew the orphan wasn't hers because she had killed her daughter, why didn't she just say "no, that's not my girl" and walk away? Nobody would have questioned it. I'd have gone to Russia (because one has to play along and pretend that you're hoping it's your child), said that's not my kid, but let's get a DNA check just to be sure. I suppose her motivation must have been to make the husband happy. </spoiler>
It's right in the middle. Better than a lot of rubbish I've seen, but equally there are many far superior films out there. It does have some interesting elements and I thought the production value was good, the special effects were well executed if not somewhat cliched in their originality. The kid was an able actor, managing to do a decent job, as were the rest of the cast. It does leave you wondering where the plot is heading about 20 minutes from the end, but in the end the "twist" is only a vague surprise, leaving one underwhelmed.
I would recommend it, but if you're a seasoned movie-goer or a fan of horror in general, it probably won't blow you away.
What this guys says. 100%.
"But if you enjoy action thrillers, nice wintry Canadian scenery, cool wolf action, and/or Gina Carano then it's worth giving a look."
These were literally the only reasons we had to watch this, it ticked a lot of boxes for my wife, and ultimately because it was a very, very average film, these were the only elements that sustained our interest.
Oh, I looked it up - but only for your benefit, the first definition to come up when Googled:
"Double standard
A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for situations that are, in principle, the same, and is often used to describe freedom that is given to one party over another. A double-standard arises when two or more people, circumstances, or events are treated differently even though they should be treated the same way."
I know what a double standard is, if that makes me a "smart one" then so be it - clearly smarter than you. So to clarify, again for your benefit only; if you are happy with The Goldbergs definition of "the 80's" where they jump all over the decade and reference different events and crazes without applying a linear timeline, then you have to apply that same benefit of the doubt to Schooled, where they do exactly the same thing. If you can't my friend, you have what is commonly referred to as a DOUBLE STANDARD.
You're welcome.
incorrect. they jumped all over the place during the goldbergs in terms of the timeline. lots of anachronistic references, but that worked fine. you have double standards if you think schooled breaches these pre-determined rules.
View all replies >