MovieChat Forums > FilmFan1983 > Replies
FilmFan1983's Replies
It leads to a much more convoluted plot in both films, where characters act in weird ways just to make the movie happen. Meanwhile, all of it isn't necessary since Laurie still lives in Haddonfield, already defeated Myers (at least temporarily), and permanently disfigured him. He would surely have at least a passing interest in her. No need for Dr. Sartain to go insane or have Corey who is the new vessel for evil start dating Laurie's granddaughter.
Yes, strange choices in both films that just overcomplicated things to an absurd degree. When I meant he showed humanity in 2018, I was really just referring to the one scene where he toys with the babysitter before killing her.
It was meant to be ambiguous. Just like with many things in that movie. Everything up until that point suggests that he is human. Although, he never gets shot in the face so you could still potentially argue that he's not supernatural, just very powerful.
I've seen others compare him to Batman who took far worse punishment and managed to survive despite being just a man in a suit.
Actually these fights helped elevate the movie. It's also very topical. The issues they disagreed about are at the forefront of our public debate on a surprising number of issues. How much rights should violent criminals have if they are likely to kill again? Which method of interrogation is most effective? What purpose does the international order have when the overwhelming majority of people within nation states choose uprising? In addition to tackling all these interesting social issues, the film also delves deep into Black Adam's origin, constantly reframing his actions in interesting ways. All within an entertaining superhero movie.
The movie didn't need a great villain. There is literally no one who is his match, The psychological battle and internal struggle were far more interesting but the action was pretty good too.
I think Michael targets Laurie because he sees her drop the keys in the mailbox. However, the Judith headstone which could be argued was meant for Laurie was probably the inspiration for the sibling development even though it wasn't made explicit in the first film. It's also worth noting that Laurie and her friends physically resemble the murdered sister in the opening. So a lot if it is left for interpretation, but what made Michael so memorable is that despite everything, he still acted human. This is made apparent time and again in the first film. The version we get in the DGG trilogy does not for the most part. He shows shades of his former self in 2018, but not in Kills or Ends.
It's currently 5.1 on IMDb which is where I would rate it. It's not awful but not the unsung classic people are making it out to be. I watched it awhile ago and didn't care for it. When fans kept name dropping it, I figured I'd give it another chance. It's perfectly average if you're into B horror or cheesy sci fi.
I don't think it would have made much of an impression as a stand alone film. Part of the interest is from fans trying to tie it into the whole Halloween universe.
I wasn't crazy about the movie but that seems awfully low. We're talking straight to video quality here. Ends was competently made and had a decent conclusion.
Wow, Scout is still very beautiful but she doesn't look much like she did in those movies. I don't think I would have recognized her and I saw those movies several times.
It's nice to see Heather in there. Halloween and NOES are my favorite horror franchises.
The fact is that they didn't even need the sibling connection to make Michael stalking Laurie make sense. in DGG's timeline, he already faced Laurie once before and in this movie, twice, so why wouldn't he go after her? However, DGG went the weirder route of making Michael a man child, which is why he needed Dr. Sartain in 2018 and Corey in Ends to make the meeting happen (and I still don't know what Laurie's plan was by pretending to commit suicide). However, the original already establishes that Michael knows how to drive and set up traps and is clearly stalking his victims while biding his time on Halloween night (He even lets Tommy go). Not exactly the behavior of a man child. I personally didn't mind the sibling connection, but how hard could it have been to come up with another reason for Michael to stalk Laurie? I don't know what DGG was thinking.
I guess he bought into all the nonsense from hack reviewers that Michael is just an "idea" and took that literally. Either that, or he was so desperate to separate himself from the other sequels that he ended up losing his way.
You could literally make that argument against anyone who claims to be oppressed in society. Just because you view white men as being inherently privileged doesn't mean that their lives are without struggle or without search for meaning. When dealing with such a large group of people, it will hold true that for every person you can't help, there are plenty more "spoiled" or "entitled" ones you could by treating them or just showing a tiny bit of empathy.
It's odd how many people who pretend to be advocates for victims and their trauma tend to be the least empathetic people around when confronted by other peoples' struggles.
He's making the argument that Jews succeeded in the entertainment industry due to their privelege instead of their talent and that their the unofficial gatekeepers keeping black voices out. However, if you know about history, you know that Jews helped build those industries to what they are today.
It's also odd how someone who considers himself a Christian would demonize an entire people, when religious Jews are about practicing the same core values in their everyday life. You certainly can't compare Jews, who self identify as secular, with practicing Jews or Israeli Jews.
Israeli Jews have their own culture. They value every life lost because they are a relatively small number of people. If we had the same reverence for human life, we wouldn't allow crime to run rampant in our streets, and we would instill in our people the sense of pride that comes from being a part of a community. Moreover, Israeli Jews who serve in the army develop even stronger bonds with each other. That doesn't mean that anyone coming to the US from Israel is given any advantage. Most of them are a part of the working class, and those who do succeed do so because of skills they learned in the military and through prioritizing education.
Kanye's attacks on the Jewish people make no sense. The fact that his views are becoming more mainstream has everything to do with our society becoming more polarized due to the decrease in real and perceived wealth affecting the whole globe. We've seen similar attacks on the Latino community who manage to break out out of the working class.
It taught me a lesson to never watch a "non spoiler" review on Youtube ever again. That was the single most shocking thing in the movie and this asshole reviewer spoiled it in the first 30 seconds. It was all the more upsetting since I went for months avoiding any news or updates on this movie.
Nothing is worse than Zombie's films. From a technical standpoint, Green's movies are infinitely better made and Curtis really helps elevate the material when she's on screen. There is really nothing redeemable about Zombie's films, especially H2.
I checked out general reviews as well as what gay audiences are specifically saying. The criticism coming from the right is fairly predictable, but there is a contingent of people within the community who are bashing this film because the lead is played by a white man.
But as a single Jewish man living in a big city who hasn't found love yet despite creeping on 40, this movie didn't speak to me either even though I tried to give it every benefit of the doubt despite the cringe trailer.
Billy Eichner's persona can best be described as Ryan Reynolds mixed with Kevin Spacey. There were messages in the film I could appreciate such as finding love and acceptance within yourself but the vast majority of it was about redefining gay love as something separate from heterosexual love. So at the very outset, it's preaching divisiveness and condemning those who want to live in committed relationships without any drama. The chemistry between the leads is lacking. I could buy these two as unlikely friends but not as sexual partners. The activist scenes seemed to border on caricature and yet we're somehow meant to take them seriously.
The scenes that had me laughing the hardest were when the main character was making fun of himself (the scenes of him arguing that Lincoln was gay before exasperatedly throwing his dummy in the closet was actually really funny). However, there wasn't enough of that. Throw in the gratuitous sex scenes where anal sex is overtly discussed and it's no surprise that people stayed away.
Other than the complaints about the nudity and the lead actress, I do agree with a lot of your points though. I've seen every Hellraiser film over the years. Some of them are truly awful, most are simply below average to mediocre. However, even the terrible ones were atmospheric and had cool effects. Didn't care for the look of the Cenobites in this version. The Chatterer was especially disappointing.
I really liked the idea of the changing configurations and thought the film would explore that more by giving us more clues on what happened to ones who were taken. Were they Cenobites?
Not sure what to think of the blade. It's an interesting idea and does explain why the Cenobites don't take her or Voigt.
I don't think the lead outsmarted Pinhead at the end. I actually found it odd that the sister condemned her brother to live in hell at the end, which was a far greater punishment than being riddled with guilt for causing his death. None of the reviews I read even mentioned this fact. The movie should have explained it better. Is he suffering or in some sort of limbo? Who knows.
Glad to know I'm not the only one who noticed how dark this film is. Streaming at home on TV without the best HDR was obviously not the ideal way to watch.
One of the things I liked about the film was how the lead character redeems herself in her journey. There was potential to further develop the boyfriend character, who obviously had real feelings for her, but the film sort of rushes to the climax at that point.
I liked the bare ass shot in the shower. Wish we could've gotten to see the rest of the male cast naked including Brandon Flynn and the victim from the beginning.
The wokeness bothered me most in respect to the Glenda character whose entire purpose was made up to show that the police and other authority figures were evil. She wasn't even based on a single person. Even in the series, we spend a great majority of the second half of the show seeing how she was victimized. There was a single incident that demonstrated police incompetence that she witnessed yet we're led to believe that her character suffered for months because she couldn't go to the police despite overwhelming evidence which no one in real life was really privy to. Moreover, by focusing on this made up character, you're ignoring the dozens of actual victims who were either killed or lost loved ones to Jeffrey Dahmer.
The episode dealing with the deaf character was melodramatic but still effective. However, it could be considered offensive in a sense that it's entire purpose is to deflect criticism that the show is exploiting its victims by humanizing Jeffrey Dahmer.
Other scenes include the police arresting Glenda's daughter for justifiably smashing that dude's camera and police officers harassing the Asian man (don't know if these incidents actually happened) a civil rights attorney schooling someone on why Jeff Dahmer's crimes are meaningful for the black community, a mother omitting the fact that her son is gay when filing a missing person's report, and a militant cop who tries to get Dahmer to admit that he perpetrated crimes of opportunity rather than passion.
Moreover, it's quite dismaying to read some of the comments on Twitter. You see plenty of people blaming the cops, Jeffrey's parents, and society as a whole on Dahmer's actions but the cops are the ones who are irredeemably corrupt and the true villains, not even Dahmer himself.
The irony of course is that the series revels in Jeffrey's crimes by showing them in graphic detail. It implies that Lionel was wrong to try to write a book even though the media sensationalized and made up details about his life, but making a show about a serial killer without even notifying or offering to compensate Jeffrey Dahmer's victims is all well and good because you check those boxes. Woke hypocrisy at its finest.
I have to agree. Evan Peters can act well enough but he came across too weird. When watching Dahmer in real life, you constantly have to remind yourself that he's a psychopath. The sandwich scene was the worst. The woman could have tased his ass and would have been justified.
The weekend box office showed that even people in the LGBT community didn't show up. Why would they? The film is not a flattering portrait of the community as has been stated many times by honest critics. Your film can be raunchy and gross but if it's effectively endorsing things that are uncommon or even repellent to gay couples, then perhaps it's contributing to negative stereotypes.
The term fanbaiting has recently been thrown around a lot recently, but it perfectly describes what's been happening in Hollywood for several years now. It's when the studios call attention to their minority representation in a film in a way that's supposed to shield it from any criticism. If people don't go see it or don't like it, it's not because they had no interest in the film in the first place, it's because they are a bigot.
This type of tactic doesn't work when the people who the film was allegedly made for don't turn up. It's frankly quite bizarre that Hollywood can't produce a decent gay film because every attempt gets attacked from any and all sides. Independent and foreign filmmakers don't have a problem producing their own gay films that gay people actually want to see regardless of their politics.
Well, they obviously didn't think movies like this would become profitable. It looks like they were more concerned about using LGBT themes in their Oscar campaigns since they could market those in a different way.
Also RomComs in general are out of fashion but there are plenty of gay romcoms being released every year for global audiences that are far better than anything Hollywood could produce. Gay film as a niche genre is actually doing quite well especially if you factor in global cinema. American films in general have become too political in recent years. Any serious attempt to make big budget gay films will ruffle the feathers of everyone including the far left who will complain about minority representation and gay appropriation. Meanwhile, gay audiences will simply just seek out films with themes that interest them no matter where and how they are made.