MovieChat Forums > acidraindrop > Replies
acidraindrop's Replies
You created a thread. You have to explain yourself.
It'd be disingenuous of myself if I were to agree or disagree or reply or comment on things you never even said.
<blockquote>The things people were saying during the press tours of Black Panther and Shang Tsung were as if Jackie Chan, Jet Li and Blade didn't exist.</blockquote>
Again? Like what things? What are you talking about?
It's a reboot.
What the hell does Jet Li/Jackie Chan movies have to do with Shang-Chi?
And what does Blade have to do with Black Panther?
The only similarity is the race of the lead actor.
Yep. Same here. I had so much fun with this film. i I actually made the same observation too; I was telling some friends that I bet he's been waiting his whole damn career to make a movie like this.
Also, I'm not sure why several ppl seem to think that this movie is unintentionally silly.
Thanks, I forgot to paste the link!
Also agree.
OP and the ppl who agree with them are just edgelords. They caught the whiff of a reactionary perspective and think they're so learned.
The reality is, Jessup did have some good points. Yeah Kaffee is just a pretty boy in a suit. He doesn't know what Jessup knows, and he doesn't know what it's like to stand on that wall. Most likely, Kaffee cannot make the hard decisions that a man like Jessup needs to.
But yeah, Jessup is still a rotten person and did some really bad things. And he got arrested for them. This is just a testament to quality character writing.
There's always the theory that it's possible that the cult was manipulating her family, i.e. her sister this whole time. They obviously knew who Dani was.
Wasn't there an easter egg of a midsommar decoration in the family's house?
<blockquote>You mistake my noting of an explanation for me agreeing with it, instead I only noted it( not because I agreed with it) but because I was shocked there was any explanation at all here considering literally everything else in the movie has no explanation ....but at least here with the electricity there seemed to be some attempt to explain its origin</blockquote>
Because that's the implication. Why would you complain about superhuman strength when the electric powers are the ones that are actually unrealistic? You'd think you'd mention the electricity because there is nothing reasonable about them.
<blockquote>At the first of the movie they specifically say we just tried to give him electric shock therapy and the machine started exploding and he started getting stronger</blockquote>
Dear lord. You actually are accusing the film of being dishonest...but in regards to the electric powers, you think it's totally reasonable that shock therapy gave Gabriel the ability to speak and manipulate electricity remotely.
That is absurd. Doesn't make any sense at all. Its no origin.
<blockquote>But if you can't at least admit there was some extremely dishonest things going on in this movie, I think you're way too biased and like the film too much</blockquote>
I mean, I think you're way too dry about this, and you got insulted because a movie tricked you. I've never seen someone use the word dishonest to the degree that you're using to describe <i>any</i> film.
I acknowledged that there ARE plot holes in this movie. But it looks like you're now being dishonest when I'm trying to respond to you in a rational manner. Ignoring me, accusing me of bias, and saying that I like the film too much to see your "flaws" (instead of just considering that maybe I just don't agree with the particular flaws that you selected, which is why I like the movie more than you). Well, guess I'm done here. For a moment, I thought you could actually be reasonable in discussing the film.
<blockquote>here's no way to hide that kind of scarring she would literally have a scar coming from her head down 3/4 of her back, there would then also be 2 giant circular scars(where they would have to add skin grafts) where they removed the arms, there would also be a giant straight scar going basically shoulder to shoulder on her back</blockquote>
I didn't mean to suggest that it was realistic. I meant the fact that they mention that the doctor was a specialist suggests that we are supposed to evoke a suspension of disbelief in that particular regard. Movies are hardly true to reality after all.
<blockquote>So while I agree it has to be Madison, James Wan decided to direct this scene in a very very dishonest way to make audiences believe something supernatural was going on...</blockquote>
Yes...James Wan did this intentional. It's misdirection. It's absolutely meant to make audiences believe something supernatural was going on. It doesn't make it dishonest. That scene made sense.
<blockquote>or more likely that Gabriel is giving Madison this vision... The movie specifically says Gabriel can give Madison visions that make her think she's living a normal day while he's killing</blockquote>
Yeah! that's what I meant when I said hallucination. I meant the visions. It's part of the twist that gabriel can trick her sensory functions. And again, I don't think this is dishonest. Do you seriously blame every movie that tries to trick the audience as being dishonest?
<blockquote>no not at all, did you not read the part where I said it doesn't make sense to me</blockquote>
Nowhere in your original post do you talk about his ability to manipulate electricity. You only talk about the superhuman strength and agility.
I disagree with virtually all the chemistry descriptions you listed. lol. Sam x Bucky, Sylvie x Loki, Shang-Chi x Katy, and Black Widow x Yelena.
I found that amusing.
Yeah! Unending Night would be cool too.
I'd never actually heard of that movie at all.
Yeah, movie did a really good job of being a light hearted, fun slasher.
This is a strange take.
No, I meant actor. The cast comprises a number of actors.
Dicaprio is an actor.
Caine is an actor.
Cotillard is an actor.
Very true...why the hell did this work lol
Weakest actor in this cast but I'm not sure anything was really wrong with their performance.
<blockquote>We all know what dreams are like, but for some reason, we are expected to believe a dull depiction of 'slightly altered physical reality' is good enough, and looks and behaves exactly like a dream would.
</blockquote>
The dream world in inception is more interesting than 95% of my dreams.
<blockquote>I have the same qualm about flashbacks, memories, etc..</blockquote>
Most flashbacks are included in movies for narrative clarity.
<blockquote>Also, to 'wake up from a dream' is possible to do just by sheer willpower, </blockquote>
Okay buddy. Right.
<blockquote> it doesn't need weird gimmicks, tricks, alarms or falling or whatnot.</blockquote>
The dreams in inception are not normal dreams. They're sedated in a fictional drug. This is explained explicitly in the movie. Inception is sci-fi; what we see in the movie is due to technology that doesn't actually exist in real life.
Did you even watch this movie or did you make this post based off of a plot summary you read?
Later on, I did assume it was her body being taken over by Gabriel (some psychic tumor), and that she was the parkour ninja that the cop was chasing. But I still didn't realize that the figure was actually walking backward until the videotape reveal of what Gabriel actually was. Only then did I put two and two together.
So I think the key was recognizing that the body was moving backwards during all the initial appearances. If you notice that, then you can connect the dots immediately, I think (head wound and all).