Seen Some Pretty Dumb Thriller Premises, But This One Takes the Gold

I don't usually respond to obvious trolls, but there might be a valid question beneath the gratuitous insults. I can't really tell.

Are you saying that in a movie where everything sucks, it's ridiculous to single out a premise for criticism? If so, I would disagree. A movie lives or dies, at least initially, by its premise. A ten-second pitch to a producer -- the seed from which many movies sprout -- is nothing *but* a description of that premise. The Barden character's statement 57 minutes in may not be considered the main premise, but it is the fulcrum on which the movie depends. If you don't buy it, the whole movie crumbles.

There's a big difference between a preposterous premise and a preposterous reaction by characters *to* that premise. In fact, some of my favorite films have absurd premises made believable by characters' reactions. The original Stepford Wives makes a good example: the physical reality of the wives' replacement is impossible (at least in 1975), but *given* that, the actions of the nerdy, insecure men are completely plausible.

Your complaint reminds me of a writing class I once had in which a student read aloud his composition only to have the teacher call it "boring." His defense? "Exactly! Boring was just what I was going for. Don't you see?" Your claim that I have no right to criticize a character's preposterous reaction in any movie that is unworldly or otherwise strange makes no sense to me. Every movie has to earn its audience after the first ten minutes. Expecting me to stay with it after rules of known human behavior are clearly violated is not reasonable, and that's where I head for the exit.

As Roger Ebert once said, "In a movie where anything can happen, who cares what happens?"

I didn't know anything about this film -- thinking it was a thriller from the get go from the brief IMDb synopsis -- but could tell that it was more than that at least by the middle of the film.

If anyone watches this film to the very end and STILL doesn't get the metaphorical aspect of it from the combat scenes in the house, then you should have been REALLY freaked out by what the fuh was happening other than just "she should have called the cops".

I did and found nothing about a free pass to create a ludicrous premise.
Allegories still have to work.
This one didn't.

Having a film like this open anywhere is evidence of cinema's demise.
The fact that it's the work of the once-great Aronofsky compounds the letdown.

To avoid looking like a mouthy fool, you might take care next time to reply to the right post.
You ended up sending your puerility Sandoz's way.

So in fact your reply was, itself, a swing and a miss.
And for the wrong team.

You're right: I watched 57 minutes, right up till the "No place else to go" speech. I hadn't enjoyed one minute till then, and that ridiculous line for me spelled Game Over. A movie can ask too much of the audience as far as suspending disbelief. This one did, and then some.

Just caught Penn Jillette talking about Scorpion and his involvement with it. I'd never heard of it before last night (being CBS, it's not on hulu), but had planned to give it a go. Will certainly keep your warning in mind. If true, you're right -- I won't like it. Plus I'll have to watch the commercials.