MovieChat Forums > acidraindrop > Replies
acidraindrop's Replies
I think the movie is absolutely deserving of the hype that it got, but overrated in the sense that....well...majority of the people hyping it have no idea why the movie is so good, and large part of that hype was because of Heath Ledger's death as you pointed out in my opinion. The story is extremely well constructed, but many people overlook that, both ppl who love and ppl who hate the movie.
Yeah the script is cringey and hammy to some, I understand, but that's honestly how I feel about theater myself, but many ppl do enjoy plays, so to each their own.
Babadook is an entirely different type of movie. Babadook is doing the "monster" as metaphor, yeah. It's similar to Hereditary, or, like, The Haunting of Hill House, the netflix show.
But I don't think Starfish is intending to ask any of those questions (actually, I don't think Babadook is "asking" those questions either. It's just the manner in which it is telling its story).
Starfish is similar to Babadook in that they are exploring grief, and the impact grief has on the person and the people around them. But I don't think it's fair to compare their structures. Babadook is presented as a straightforward monster horror movie that can be viewed as just that (but you can delve further to look at the subtext in the trauma/abuse). Starfish does not have a straightforward narrative at all, and it's not trying to. Imo, it's trying to convey a number of emotions, regrets, and desires all in the wake of someone's loss, and it's doing that through a surreal sequence of images and sounds.
I'm not necessarily saying that the alien invasion is NOT a metaphor for something (though I don't think it is, per se, not in the way that the babadook is a metaphor). But I think it's clear that both films are trying to do two different things, regardless of how well Starfish is succeeding or if it floats your boat.
As a person who digs weird artsy, experimental horror shit...I have to say that I agree. I think this may be something specific to the writer, Oz Perkins. I think he might just not have good ideas.
My reference point is The Blackcoat's Daughter, another slow burn, horror film. That one's a bit more interesting in its design with multiple narratives that eventually make sense as the movie progresses. And I honestly did enjoy the film, but I couldn't help but feel like it seemed to not have as much substance as it would suggest. The story was absurdly simple, and the payoff wasn't anywhere as great as it thought it was gonna lead you (but I did like the closing frame).
When I realized he wrote both films, I'm like wow. Maybe he just doesn't have good ideas in terms of plot/story. The most interesting thing about this movie is the title lol.
I didn't like The Shining, but I loved The Others. As another example, I really liked It Comes at Night, and that movie has virtually no details, no explanation....but things happen and it's an engrossing ride. But this movie...when I finally watched it...wow...I've hardly ever felt like I've wasted my time watching something.
I would respond to your points but I'm presuming you're the one who wrote the utterly cynical, manipulative article on wordpress based on your tag. I appreciate the detail you put into that but...honestly, that article is guilty of a lot of the underhanded tactics you accuse the movie of.
In fact, your response to me just now literally ignores the point I was making to the other guy, rejects the film's narrative in favor of the subtext you're placing on it, and brings up irrelevant nonsense.
Congratulations, you recently went to jury duty and learned a few things. But, it's no secret that Fonda's actions in 12 Angry Men violates all sorts of jury protocols. You don't need to be a juror to know that.
"...although 12 Angry Men is superbly acted, the writing itself is a very cynical and manipulative work that ironically does the opposite of what it’s pretending to do."
Ironically, I feel like the author is doing what they are accusing the film to do: cynical and manipulative.
I'm loath to break it down because it's too emotional; there are so many disingenuous arguments made, and the author feels this way cause they JUST did jury duty? It's obvious that the film is stylized, and if a person truly enjoyed and was interested, spending a few minutes of research would reveal that it's full of mistrial-worthy happenings.
Was the author embarrassed to realize that what they mistakenly thought to be an authentic jury proceeding was not?
Like quick thought:
"What you realize is that Reginald Rose is using a real life murder case to play out a smug intellectual exercise, with Juror 8 as his alter ego."
This is irrelevant. Juror 8 does not establish himself as being anti-death penalty. He makes it very clear what he is doing in the movie. Maybe he IS anti-death penalty. It doesn't matter; that's not presented. I'm also not even sure if this is confirmed. I've read quotes where Rose mentions the real life jury he was on, but he says nothing about this alleged smug intellectual exercise and whether Rose actually felt the "problem is that you’re anti-death penalty, so handing in a guilty verdict would be going against your principles." I don't see a source. So I have to assume the author made this up. He's manipulating the reader against Rose by acting like their biased guess about the Rose's intentions should be used to judge the film. The movie isn't about
"the defendant was undeniably guilty but then decide to vote not guilty because it would be against your principle".
The movie isn't about this either:
"If the defendant is clearly guilty, then you vote guilty. If he’s clearly innocent, you vote innocent."
The movie is about, what if it's NOT clear?
lol, this dude created a thread, couldn't be arsed to come up with anything so he copies an article from cracked, which has of course, always been a humor site, which oversimplifies (understandably) for the sake of a joke. (For instance, its comments about A Time to Kill completely misinterprets the point of the movie, which itself was based on a book, written a man who actually practiced law, but that's besides the point...)
Wait, this dude did come up with a single, original point:
"If you don't think it's a big deal, just imagine if it was reversed. Just imagine if Henry Fonda convinced the jury to send a possibly innocent man to death row like that."
Unfortunately, this also completely sidesteps one of the major points that the movie, and that Henry Fonda character is making. Regardless of whether it's morally justifiable or not, the drama that unfolds in this movie is SPECIFICALLY because Fonda is trying to stop a jury from sending a possibly innocent man to death row. It's not about Henry Fonda trying to manipulate a jury for the sake of it. Flipping his position completely removes his motivations as established.