MovieChat Forums > incarnate1 > Replies
incarnate1's Replies
It was alright, but it not only kept Dante as a passive weak man, but also turned him into an unlikeable person with his inexplicable relationships. Randall was clever and his situation understandable in the original with some enlightening lines. Both characters were turned into aged, unmotivated, douches working at a fast food place that apparently never needs to be manned. Just didn't work for me.
All men are portrayed as pigs, murderers, or cowards, in the movie. No in between. Also, her dating experience on Tinder is portrayed as the good 'ol "WHERE ARE ALL THE GOOD MEN?!" adage.
If you can ignore that stuff (beginning of the movie), the movie was pretty good.
I'd say it's more feminist than woke with lines about, "not needin' no man uhh uhhhhhh".
It's not woke, just bland and boring.
I mean, should movies be made only for the people that understand it or made to be understood? I think movies are an art; and art is subjective and open to different interpretations. In that sense, everyone's understanding will be a little different. I suppose it's also by what metric we decide to qualify a movie as good? If it's to evoke any extreme emotion or reaction, then I suppose I'd call this movie good; similarly, movies like Terrifier 2 and Martyrs also left me with similar feelings of dread.
Imagine a movie about Organic Chemistry that is enjoyed by students or practitioners of the subject, but people not invested in that field (or more broadly, whatever specific population/culture/country you might target a movie towards) might not enjoy it as much because they didn't understand everything going on. So is the onus of understanding the events portrayed in the movie, on the movie, or the viewer?
If a seemingly confusing movie that 5% of it's viewers purportedly "understand", are the other 95% wrong in their confusion? Taken in a less extreme ratio, if 60% of an audience likes a movie because they "understood" it, is the remaining 40% wrong in disliking a movie because they didn't interpret it "correctly"?
Where is the insult?
I mean, isn't it possible people complain and understand the movie? You liked it, doesn't mean everyone else did too.
"Well, you didn't understand it", is just never a good defense for a movie.
As you said, the message is pretty much hammered into your head throughout, and the antagonist literally says it as the reason he did it.
If someone doesn't share my opinion, they're wrong because *insert cope here*!
Us, Get Out 7.5/10
Nope 4/10
Eh, wasn't too surprising or impactful for me; we don't really spend too much time with Kutcher and there's some foreshadowing.
That diamond movie with Adam Sandler was a bigger WTF moment for me. Before that it'd have to be The Departed
Yes
Ah yes, because less attractive women are pure.
The least this black women propaganda movie could've done was have decent narrative - nope.
Agreed. Screw whatever artsy bullshit the director was going for. Nothing was resolved.
I don't think you know what the word "jammed" means.
Bill: Jake Gyllanhaal
Very well said friend, agree 100%. Pennywise lost some of what made him truly scary in the 2017 remake.
It was definitely good, not sure about better than the original, but I like that they didn't copy it scene for scene; and the entire second half being original. However, there was something more menacing about Tim Curry's It in his playful outer demeanor, hiding his vile inner intentions; whereas Skarsgard's It plays the straight "scary monster" almost negating the entire purpose of the clown appearance.
Both are trash.
I was more disappointed than curious at the end.
Agreed, cringy af ending, I would've preferred Graves' character in the sequel - it was a stupid "reveal".