MovieChat Forums > acidraindrop > Replies
acidraindrop's Replies
Yeah, incredible pacing. Never slowed down or felt like scenes or parts of the story were being dragged out. Every character seemed reasonably competent.
I actually loved the fact that it was all over the fucking place. Basically everything you described lol. The strange, genre-defying sequences combined with a surprising amount of worldbuilding somehow worked for me.
If you watch his entire filmography, you'll find that he reuses all sorts of ideas. This isn't a bad thing per se (like in my mind, Hush is a simple home invasion slasher film, but it has creative choices that defines itself from the crowd).
These design choices are tools to tell a story, and it's kind of neat actually to see how these things have improved and evolved over the course of his career.
Example, Haunting of Hill House's entire narrative structure is a more complicated, convoluted version of how Oculus is written.
Absentia's presentation of hypothetical and reality (just a small bit at the end) evolves into what he did to end Before I Wake. And both of this I think are related to his options-montage scenes that he uses in Hush/Gerald's Game. It's like they're all ways to tell a story without being grounded to reality, but without being surreal either. They're just visual expressions by what a character is thinking.
Based on this analysis, I'm not sure how you can watch or read any form of fiction at all unless it references things that you know absolutely nothing about. I usually don't say this but you really are overanalyzing this film for the sake of finding frustration it seems. One observation in particular, your handcuffs line.
Yes, it was extreme, and yes it was quite out of line. But not impossible, and not unreasonable that someone would do this in his position. Both her immediate and subsequent discomfort also reinforce how extreme this is.
This isn't odd or nitpick-worthy. It's just something that happened.
This, if a person compares this film to what 28 Days Later achieved, it's obviously going to fail.
This movie is one of the best found footage films imo (acting, cinematography, pacing, etc). If one doesn't care for found footage films, then this movie is gonna be bad in their eyes.
Blair Witch is scarier with better acting. I know Blair Witch effectively kickstarted the whole found-footage gimmick, and but PA is honestly more of a simple, "gimmicky" horror movie. I like it; I recommend it to anyone interested in horror/found footage. But I think it's just a lesser film. It does it what it does very well, but it's a one trick pony.
Blair Witch's found footage quality is also superior, i.e. more naturalistic than PA. It's hard to put my finger on how to explain that. But it's like how when you see really bad found footage movies, and the way scenes are made or how the camera is moved, it all kinda looks "fake" or "boring". That's what I'm talking about. Again, I still very much like PA (part 1 anyways). It just doesn't do this aspect as well as Blair Witch.
Not to mention the original ending is arguably even more unsettling.
It honestly frustrates me when people say that they prefer Ringu to The Ring. I understand that ppl have different tastes and all, but I think this really is another example of people forming an opinion based on other expectations/standards without granting an honest evaluation. Here it's "oh original is always better" and "asian original is always better" and people, with that in mind, come to convince themselves that Ringu is better.
Hell, OP provided a thorough breakdown of his opinion all those years ago. The one dissenter in this thread could also refer to Ringu as brilliant and provide no justification for it.
I can name a number of films, whose Japanese original is superior. Kairo. Tale of Two Sisters. The Grudge (and I hate both movies fyi). But Ringu...Ringu is arguably not even that good of a movie. It doesn't even matter that the american adaptation exists. A lot of the good things presented in Ringu come from the source novel, which is fantastic. It's a great book. So I could even go further elitist and discredit Ringu as a shitty film adaptation of a great novel.
Ringu can be credited for creating the now-iconic television scare, but I'm hard-pressed to think that, had Ring not been the phenomenon it became, I doubt a lot of these folks would defend Ringu as a good horror film.
It took me like several attempts across several years before I finally finished the film. I think the point when I finally began to love the movie was the flip near the middle when you realize that, it's not just that the kid is an annoying brat, but that the mom is an abusive, grieving mother that has been pushed to the breaking point. The fact that the movie forced me to shift my loyalties seamlessly while re-contextualizing the first half (my god, he has all these battle strategies and traps is because his mom has probably been abusing him since the father died lol) is a testament to the quality of the film imo.
I remember when this movie first launched, its feedback on /x/ was extremely polarized (that was part of my initial interest in checking out the film actually). I can see that tho.
I think a decent amount of the negative feedback is because some ppl didn't "get it". I'm not being an elitist dick, but I've heard some ppl make comments like "why would she feed/take care of the monster at the end" or some stupid shit like that. But on the other hand, I think a decent amount of the feedback is because the flow of this movie is unlike most horror movies. And other psychological thrillers as well. I don't think it's just the death of subtlety.
This movie occupies a strange niche between more "popcorn" horror films like the conjuring, and arthouse horror like It Follows, It Comes At Night, or Vvitch (I'm not even sure I'd consider the vvitch horror). That's why I think this movie has a stranger position. Cause yeah, you know not everyone's gonna like shit like It Follows. But I think Babadook has issues with both audiences.
Also lol, I also felt like Pet Sematary (the original) was far scarier than The Shining. It wasn't as well acted, but I think it's a far effective horror. I'm also biased against the shining but *shrugs*
Agreed! I was disappointed when the IMDB boards went down...I just found this place a couple of weeks ago. Glad something like this still exists.
Some ppl hear about one good and safe creative design choice, and they assume that it's a requirement for anything good. Or they misunderstand it. Like the idea that because he didn't learn his lesson, he didn't have a character arc.
I legit read the post thinking that OP was going to add on to it or to expand, or to discuss further, but he just ended with that excerpt, so I'm just like okay, wow. A strong example of not thinking for oneself.
Regarding the appeal to authority bit, it's funny. There's an article that got bumped here a few times (not sure if the author is secretly doing this or something) that basically starts off with how they started to hate the movie after they finally spent time on a jury, and then proceed to leverage this massive essay that seems reasonable but is actually rather manipulative in how it reviews what's happening in the film.
There was an informative essay written by a law student I think many years that did point out a few legal issues with the film. But in all honesty, I continue to say that I really don't care about that anymore than I care about fake science in movies. I think we all can hold some suspension of belief...when we choose to.
But I definitely agree with you about pointing out that the jury needs to make a decision through reasoning because indeed, it hardly ever is clear cut. Jury is allowed to think. I think some ppl may have read about some of the flaws of the jury proceedings and then proceeded to exaggerate and act like EVERYTHING that went on in the movie is grounds for mistrial.
Regarding in terms of backup/consolation, yeah, I think that may be where we fundamentally differ. I can see what you're saying though, in that she has these developing feelings for Harvey while also harboring a passion for Bruce as well. The batman identity is something that would simply make it an easy choice, the dealbreaker.
Our different views seem to still be based on the exact same pieces of evidence in the film too, so it's not even like we're going through different thought processes. We've just responded to the depicted conflict differently.
I think an interested related question would be, would Juror 8 have gone through all this trouble if the penalty wasn't the electric chair.
1. I've always loved the wachowskis, but they've always been full of it about the Matrix like this.
2. They probably did intend the allegory. They probably intended all sorts of random stuff that they never made sense and never revealed, and not really there. They straight up lauded themselves once and said how the matrix is full of so much hidden meanings that no one will ever understand. And you get it (re: the sequels); you saw how self-indulgent they were lol
3. Besides, Ben Hur had that hidden romantic subtext that didn't get revealed until like 3 decades later. And honestly, that one's totally buyable, doubt that was a retcon.
People made a big deal when Tropic Thunder threw out the retard all over the place. This scene def wouldn't work now, even with the character in mind.
It's a causal loop, not a plot hole. It's no different from the original terminator film, really. Or 12 Monkeys.
The way the film is written, humanity always survived with the tesseract. Mcconaughey was always the one sending messages back to his daughter. History cannot be changed or manipulated because it will always have been the way it was.
Hmm, it's possible maybe we're using the word "play" differently. Or maybe our personal values are really different, and thus, our interpretations of her character differ accordingly.
I believe she was already taking the safe choice of Harvey while still harboring feelings for Bruce. I think she's always had those feelings for Bruce (since Batman Begins), and they never went away. She didn't pursue Bruce though because of all the concerns about his Batman identity.
I think this is the whirlwind you're describing but I think a key difference is that you believe her feelings with Bruce to be developing, sudden, passion-driven. And it wasn't until the press conference when she finally goes wait, I want to go for Harvey.
But since I think her feelings were always there, I'm leaning towards her thinking that Bruce is a backup option if things don't go well with Harvey (or anyone). I think she's been holding out for the possibility that Bruce will finally reject the Batman identity. I don't think she rejects Harvey's proposal because she's confused of who to choose (though, she does say "I don't know" iirc). I think she rejects Harvey's proposal because she's not ready to give up on Bruce. And then the press conference happens, and she's like, whoa, you're never gonna let go of Batman. This will never work. I'm picking Harvey.
I don't think she may have been intentionally being mean. But I think she was intentionally doing what I described above, which I consider to be a mean thing.
I used to hate this scene when I was younger, but now I appreciate the epilogue because I realize so many movies (across multiple genres) seem to end abruptly for dramatic effect or something. I often annoyed that I can't see the aftermath.
I think it creates a realer bookend. That these characters continue to exist beyond the film.
I agree with most of your points on Holmes vs Gyllenhaal's depiction of the character but I have to agree (unfortunately) with OP on how she played Dent and Wayne.
I absolutely think that she was completely unfair with them. It was complicated, and she was caught in the middle of emotional attachments, but I don't think it was right at all. She was unwilling to commit to Harvey because she still held on the hope that things could work out with Bruce. And I think that was intentional as TDK establishes her to be a flawed character in how she relates to these two men. (It's clear she doesn't know Bruce as well as she thinks, and she arguably doesn't know Harvey that well either.)