MovieChat Forums > acidraindrop > Replies
acidraindrop's Replies
That's a good reference point. It's not unnecessary like the The Thing prequel. But...still questionable.
But my issue is just, this movie is unfortunately not very good imo. I think it tried too hard to be something it's not (artsy, social commentary). And then when you bring the original film in the mix, it feels so uninspired in comparison.
Which sucks cause there's really cool bits in the movie. But alas.
Honestly, if I hadn't known the original, I'd probably be like, "oh this is a cool mainstream horror movie, like Insidious, or The Conjuring. It's trying a little bit too hard though. I'm not a huge fan of Get Out, but I think even that movie did the social commentary better"
And I don't think that was even him. I think was just CGI representation. And confirmed when the credits said "voices of..."
I strongly agree actually. It was socially conscious, but did a very poor job of it imo. I think the movie had some good ideas (visual ideas, thematic ideas), but I think the story itself wasn't very well thought out. I don't think this movie had a vision.
This new film felt like it was trying to come up with a very grounded explanation for all the shit that's happening, but I don't think many of the plot points make any sense. I'm not entirely sure the original Candy makes perfect sense either, but it had this dreamlike quality from beginning to end, and I think it allows it to open to interpretation. I feel like maybe Peele came up with some cool ideas, and the subsequent writers just filled in the blanks to flesh out a plot.
I think the movie is entertaining, and well-filmed, but I think it's trying to be much deeper than what it actually is. It's like the difference between a smart arthouse flick, and a film that's trying to be artsy.
Thanks! Trying to...inject some thoughtful discussion into this mess of a board right now XD
<blockquote>This statement alone tells everyone you would. So someone against all forms of racism is a "white loser living in a basement" strange opinion to have.</blockquote>
He was describing himself as a white loser living in a basement, not you. That was the whole point of his response to you.
That people should be allowed the freedom to only write/direct the groups that they are familiar with.
You are trying so hard in these convos lol. But it seems like this movie board is loaded, so ppl are just saying what they want to say at you.
Not sure what that other guy is even saying, but I'm just gonna go with something simple:
Assault on Precinct 13 > Remake
Batman Begins > Reboot
Candyman > Sequel
Only a sequel has a maintained continuity.
lmao. I would say that all the hype of being called the next spielberg not only inflated his ego, but inflated everyone's expectations as well.
Yeah The Visit and Split were far darker than his usual fare. Split was basically a twisted serial killer movie at the end of the day. It caught me off guard how brutal that ended up being at the end.
And lol! That's awful. I don't actually have any M Night films on bluray (I've been contemplating buying the unbreakable trilogy, but that's it). That's really disappointing to hear about, but yeah I'm not particularly picky about DVD.
It is trying to do something different, while organically building upon the original. It's not just a rehash.
But while the original was very creatively filmed and written, I think the new movie falls short in a number of ways. For the record, I think it's highly entertaining and very nicely filmed. Great shots, great atmosphere; this is a definitely a more modern horror film compared to the 90s original.
The original film was, as you said, unique. It had a very different type of narrative flow. This made it exciting and unpredictable imo. It also dealt with some pretty intense themes for a horror movie, especially for the time and it straddles the line between the real and the unreal (quite literally actually, given that that's one of the points of the film). The end product was this violent, surreal thing, and left you with a lot of questions, in a good way, leaving the events of the film open to interpretation...while still being just bloody good horror.
The new movie though, is only worth seeing I think, if you ignore the original, ironically, since the new movie does a great job of connecting back to the source material, for the most part anyways.
I think the new movie is far too on the nose; it pushes some of its ideas in a very heavyhanded manner...which would be fine, if those ideas made sense. But unfortunately, the movie doesn't really make total sense, and kinda just expects you to go along with it. Which IS how the original film was I admit, but again, the original was kind of surreal. This movie is relatively grounded tries to be explicit about what's happening, but stops short of that, so it just comes off unconvincing.
People sometimes criticize arthouse horror films that leave too much unexplained. Frankly, this would have gone better if they just stripped some bits of it, because I don't think this film really had a coherent vision.
I can't help but think the writers had some good ideas and images, and just shoved them together.
Yeah, I avoided it for so long. Finally watched it for the first time like two years, and I was blown away to be honest. Disappointed that I'd slept on it for so long.
Yeah that was a great read. I had no idea about any of that (his jail time, the rehab work he did later, etc.) It was also a nice touch that he didn't bother to pull any punches when he was talking about how horrible of a husband he was for the most part too. Made the story feel that much more authentic.
I'm fairly certain that's what it was. It's similar to what was given to Christian most likely. The no pain thing was just bullshit.
I've watched this film like twenty times and I'm still not sure what the chronological frequency of the festival is.
Yep...ugh
I thought It Comes At Night was a chilling slow burn. It slowly builds a sense of tension and dread that just snowballs into the final act.
That said, I get why a lot of people didn't like it. The trailer, advertising, and even the title implies a different sort of movie.
The movie (intentionally) has little explicit explanation (like what's happened to the world, what some of the character's intentions are, a few surreal sequences etc.), but I think the movie does an excellent drop of conveying paranoia and fear, and what that does to people, and what paranoia and fear make people do.
I think the film is a successful experiment in being able to tell a story with minimal narrative detail while maintaining full thematic and emotional impact. I don't think the absence of detail here hurts this particular film.
I actually enjoy most of their films. But I do think Matrix was a fluke in the sense that its sequels were only half as good as Part 1.
People have lied before about this sort of thing.
You participated in a thread about James Gunn when you have no idea who James Gunn is. Good job.
<blockquote>Raylan happening to be in the burned out house and seeing Phoenix and then throwing together the whole operation seemed a little too quick and easy.</blockquote>
I thought this was a very organic plot twist. It's implied that Phoenix has visited the house on multiple occasions throughout her life. Raylan just got out of prison so it's reasonable he's squatted in the condemned property, and he saw this little girl who reminds him of his wife, putting flowers in memoriam.
<blockquote>When Norman is on the glass above the fire and he just happens to fall off in the correct direction seemed a little convenient, and not quite how gravity works.</blockquote>
Everything from the moment the fire started to him getting out was convenient lol.
<blockquote>Even with the dog, Norman finding the hotel, and that fast when it was probably a little ways away, and also managing to infiltrate the building and locate the fuse box unnoticed? </blockquote>
Agreed about the fuse box/building navigation part. It actually didn't even hit me. I can believe he got there via dog—very nice plot twist. But getting the fuse box...I guess you could argue that he just guessed. lol
<blockquote>And also for what it's worth, when Norman goes after her, he doesn't know what their plans for her are, he's simply looking to get her back.</blockquote>
I liked this. Like, we as the viewer now that her parents are awful at this point, and we know she needs to be saved. Norman is operating on very limited information, but his actions are still very much believable in how he proceeds. I don't even think it's even "convenient" either that her parents suck, like how movies often do this to simplify the moralities involved.
Like they killed his dog, lol, and then they burned his house, and it's all cemented when the turncoat thug tells Norman that they're gonna kill the daughter. This progression I felt like was natural, and not just convenient for the film, so I enjoyed that.
I was fairly disappointed in this film. I don't think it was necessary at all. It really was just a lengthy epilogue like the other fellow has stated.
I think movie kinda tried to be a few different things but didn't succeed in any of them. At best, I think it's a nice little reunion production.