MovieChat Forums > Mynvosa > Replies
Mynvosa's Replies
In a horror movie where the monster can assume the shape of a person, yes absolutely.
<blockquote> Where does it say that the only way for tension to rise is for the monster to be undetectable as a monster by anyone at any time? </blockquote>
Eh? What has this question have to do with my post?
<blockquote> It does not make it immediately obvious who the monster is in every scene except the ones where we know that the monster is stalking BEFORE we even see it, e.g. when Jay's date introduces her to It the first time, and when It breaks into the house the first time. </blockquote>
Well it was immediately obvious to me, and my ability to maintain faith in the intelligence of humanity requires me to believe that it would have also been to others. Also yeah, obviously you’re going to know who the monster is in the scenes where the filmmakers intended you to know who the monster is. But that’s not something I criticised the film for so… *shrugs*
<blockquote> About midway through the movie though, the movie shifts from concealing the monster in a seemingly ordinary human, to making a point with WHO it appears to be, Jay's friend (the one Greg was ogling), the first victim we saw, Jay's father. </blockquote>
So? What has this question have to do with my post?
<blockquote> What's especially dumb is determining what it will take to scare you and how it will work at scaring you BEFORE seeing a film. Dumb as shit. No offence meant. </blockquote>
I can’t be offended by something that makes no sense in the context of this conversation. Nothing in my original post suggests that I did that. I didn’t even mention whether or not the film scared me, so I can only assume that, like most of your reply, this was just an off-topic tangent.
<blockquote> At no point was the movie advertised as you claim. The movie was described as having a monster that is heading towards its victim at all times and that it appears normal enough to blend into the crowd until it gets close to its victim. </blockquote>
You realise that you contradicted yourself, here right? You claim that it was not marketed as such, then go on to reiterate exactly what I said in my post, in your next sentence.
<blockquote> You didn't even try to provide an example. Just a blanket claim that you could tell the monster "immediately" and "obviously" each time. That's usually good indicator that someone is full of it. </blockquote>
It was immediate and obvious to me and the other person I watched the film with. Someone trying to dictate what is or is not obvious to someone else, is in my opinion, a far better indication that someone is full of it. Although, it would sadden me to believe that anyone could not immediately pin the monster in most scenes given how incongruous it was with the surrounding environment. But then again, maybe creepy grey-ish grannies in dressing gowns are a completely natural sight at your university. I don’t know…
<blockquote> The movie clearly states how it intends to create tension by having the monster adopt familiar, unremarkable forms that only reveal their other-ness when they've gotten close to their intended victim. </blockquote>
Except that in the first half of the narrative, the figures are neither familiar nor unremarkable, and when they are familiar, they’re still not unremarkable (greyish skin, awkward gait, strange bruising etc.). From what I can remember (and it has been years since I saw this film), we don’t get a great view of the monster until nightgown nana, and are you seriously going to dispute that she’s out of place?
Also, you realise ‘clearly’ is a synonym for ‘obviously’ right?
Care to justify your comment with any of your own observations? Or can you not refute anything I’m saying, but you feel threatened when people don’t agree with you?
I know! I was looking forward to this movie when it came out, because it was marketed as having a monster that could look like a regular person. But, as you pointed out, every shape the monster assumes is really fucked up looking or out of place. It makes it immediately obvious who the monster is in any scene, instantly destroying all tension that could arise from that premise. I get that the aspect of its relentless pursuit could spook some people out, but... this movie wasn’t that. Sometimes it’s relentless, other times it apparently has time to dick around on the roof for no reason 🤷🏼♀️
I think the only way you could possibly be scared by this movie is if you’re claustrophobic, because the monsters were definitely underwhelming.
Um... Isn’t disagreeing what you’re doing right now? 😂😂😂
I agree that Houghton was out of place... but, Audrey Hepburn? She wouldn’t have fit in at all with the rest of her family, and would have required the recasting of her whole family to feel genuine.
Given the time period and the physical requirements of the character, Jane Fonda would have been a good choice. Fonda had the ability to encompass the girlish and playful elements of Joey’s character without coming across as brainless, as Houghton often did.
I feel like hitfan is projecting his own personal crisis onto Depp 😂😂😂
It was Amber.
Yep. I beleive the clinical word is "Cliterodectomy".