(Dir. Dan Trachtenberg, 2016)
Rated PG-13, this movie has a lot of really freaky elements, but it never becomes explicit. 10 Cloverfield Lane tells to story of a woman who awakens in a bunker after having a car accident. The man who brought her there, Howard, claims that there has been an apocalyptic event and the air is now toxic. What follows is a psychological thriller where the woman must decide what is real and what is a lie, but quickly realizes she must escape no matter what. **Spoilers** I have a lot of mixed feelings about this movie. I enjoyed the movie as I was watching it, but once I finished I started to wonder about some things. I'm torn between liking the way they made it turn out so that the end of the word threat really was real, and feeling like they should've just stuck to one genre. I thought it was kind of cool how they made the threat real, because that doesn't usually happen in these psychological thrillers. I liked even more how she still had to find a way out, because even if Howard was right about the external threat, he was still crazy. However, I went into this movie not knowing what Cloverfield (Dir. Matt Reeves 2008) was and I feel like that knowledge would've completely changed the movie for me. I can see it being a much different experience when you know exactly what is going on externally, because when I watched the threat outside was unknown. Even after I knew there was a threat, I didn't know exactly what was until about the very end. When I watched it I wondered why they didn't hold out longer before revealing there was a real external threat, but now that I know about Cloverfield I'm really glad they didn't. By not relying on that aspect to much I think it makes it appealing to people that have already seen Cloverfield. I do want to know more about the girl that Howard probably did actually kidnap, but I feel like that would've been hard to fit in so I'm not that mad about it. **End Spoilers** The acting was spectacular. John Goodman is amazing, of course. He did an amazing job of making his character seem intimidating and crazy, even when he wasn't directly threatening anyone. To be honest this was especially terrifying to me because I've grown up with John Goodman playing the good guy in Disney movies, so this was quite the switch. It's like watching David Tennant play the bad guy in Jessica Jones. The use of lighting in this also really added to the atmosphere. The unnatural lighting helped add to the claustrophobic feeling of the bunker and made an amazing contrast with the natural light whenever they were close to reaching the outdoors.
1 Comment
(Dir. Vsevolod Pudovkin 1928)
I don't think they actually had ratings at this point in time, but I'm going to give it a PG. Just warning you now, this entire post is a spoiler. I would hate to spoil the plot of a nearly ninety year old movie for anyone. I can't honestly say that I'm a huge fan of USSR era propaganda films. I realize that considering the times and their lack of resources what they managed to do was quite good and they innovated new film techniques, but they're just so boring. Their central idea is pretty much always the same. If you've seen one you've seen them all (just think underdog takes on capitalism), and I have now seen two so. The protagonist of this film is a simple Mongolian herdsman, who I think has sick father. It's a little hard to tell, either way there's a sick old man involved. This old man produces and amazing (I assume its amazing because of the way the characters react, I don't actually know that much about fur trade) fox pelt and tells him not to accept less than five hundred silvers for it. The herdsman heads off to sell his wares and thus begins the epic tale of people trying to cheat him out of his fur (darn capitalists, can't trust a one of 'em). Eventually he meets a British trader who once and for all cheats him out of his fur, and they get into a fight. The herdsman has to flee because the British guy gets injured and stats yelling at everyone to avenge the white man's blood. Yeah, this film is not really subtle. So the herdsman ends up joining the "partisans" who I think are Russian? The Russians have to come in at some point in this film right? Anyway about .05 seconds after joining the herdsman gets captured by the British. He is sent to be executed and is shot twice before falling off a cliff. While this dramatic as all get out execution is going on the British commanders figure out the herdsman is a direct heir of the great Genghis Khan. Uh oh, too late they rush out to stop the execution, but manage to find him alive. The herdsman is nursed back to health and they make him into a puppet ruler. At some point the British fur trader shows back up, and surprise!!! so does the herdsman's pelt. The nasty fur trader is giving it as a gift his mistress, who for some reason is there. The herdsman goes into a blind rage and attacks the fur trader who starts screaming again about avenging the white man's blood. Except this time everyone is like "bruh, get wrecked, that guy is a prince" (Actual quote). Shortly after this the herdsman summons a Mongol hoard outta nowhere and EVERYONE gets wrecked. The End I made that summary very detailed and in depth so you could begin to realize what a ride this film is for yourself. So now imagine those events, with a bunch of interruptions by random symbolic images and at least 20 minutes of nothing happening between any significant events. This film is over two hours long but the actual plot parts could be condensed into fifteen. Russians. One scene really stuck out to me, so basically they want to show how capitalism is bad and capitalist people are overindulgent and wicked. To do this they decide to spend seven minutes flashing around clips of the British commander and his wife getting ready all while playing music reminiscent of the sure-skree-skree noise in the Psycho shower scene. Very awkward to watch. (Dir. Lee Unkrich 2017) PG, seriously take your entire family to go see this. It's heartwarming and everyone will love it, adults and kids. Coco tells the story of a young boy, Miguel, who wants to be a musician. This wouldn't be a problem, except his great great grandfather walked out on his family to become a famous musician, leaving behind his wife and child to fend for themselves. His great great grandmother learned how to make shoes to support her family and banned music, traditions their family still follows. This film does an amazing job illustrating the give and take relationship of a family. Fighting one's own desires with what their family wants and what is best for them. What I love about this film, and what Disney has been trying to focus on for a while, has been focusing on family love and relationships instead of romance. Though, Coco does a much better job at this than Frozen. I actually waited a day to write the review on Coco because the last time I saw a Disney movie in theaters I loved this much it was Frozen. Then after I left the theaters and spent a day thinking about it, Frozen was filled with so many plot holes that no charming snowman could save it. Then they overplayed that snowman and it slowly became the WORST part... Nevermind I shouldn't get into that now. So, basically I was being careful and making sure I wasn't just caught up in post-movie euphoria. Coco still holds up and is an amazing film that is worth having to sit through a nearly half-hour Frozen short for. All I have to say about the short is that if you need to use the bathroom or refill your popcorn, go ahead and go during it. It lasts so much longer than you think it can. The only thing I could complain about with Coco was that the plot was a little predictable. Then again I'm not sure if that's because I grew up in a family that has a game where we try to see who can guess the ending/plot twists of a movie first. Either way, I didn't even mind knowing what the twist was going to be. Honestly, at a certain point I think they want the viewer to guess what the plot twist is going to be, they drop so many hints about it. When you figure it out it builds up this beautiful dramatic irony where you want Miguel to figure it out so bad. Usually I hate being left in suspense and just want to jump into the film myself to fix the characters problems, because man I have enough stress in my daily life, but the story in Coco was so beautiful that I didn't mind. The animation in this movie was absolutely stunning. Disney has come under a lot of fire lately because a lot of their faces look the same now that they've switched to their new animation style, but this movie does not have that problem at all. There's so much variation and you know what I think I'm just going to have to add extra photos to this post. It's just so beautiful, and the colors when he enters the land of the dead are stunning. I recently listened to an interview with Lee Unkrich and you cantle this movie was very much a labor of love for him. I mean, it took about seven years to complete which is insane to me because I can't commit to anything for more than a day. I think it does justice to the traditions of Dia de Los Muertos, of course this being said by someone with no familiarity with it at all so my word probably doesn't mean much. However, Gael Garcia Bernal was in the film and helped out so I believe he was likely very helpful in keeping it true to Mexican culture and values. Also I just need to take a moment to talk about how much I love Gael Garcia Bernal. The first movie I saw him in was No (Dir. Pablo Larrain 2013), and it was absolutely fantastic. I recommend everyone see it, but keep in mind it is rated R. If you couldn't tell from my whole review, I love this film. I can't wait until it comes out on DVD so I can watch it again, or maybe I'll just go back to the theater. It's seriously that good. (Dir. Taika Waititi 2017)
PG-13, but don't worry there's plenty of inappropriate humor. Including a Hulk dick joke, am I allowed to say that on this? Guess I'll find out. 've never been a huge Thor fan, I've never hated any of them like some people I know though. They just kind of paled in comparison with the rest of the MCU. If Thor wasn't in the Avengers I doubt I would've ever watched them. This movie changed that for me. I really enjoyed the humor in this movie and I wish that they'd started out the Thor movies with Taika as the director. If you've kept up with my posts you would know that I recently watched and loved What We Do In the Shadows, which is co-directed by Taika and he is in it. What I really enjoyed about What We Do In the Shadows was how they made inhuman characters relatable. Instead of trying to make them seem cool and undefeatable, as people often do with supernatural entities, they focused on their flaws which helped make them relatable and humorous. Taika brought this approach over to the Thor movies and I really enjoyed its effect. Before Thor seemed a little to serious and a little to distant of a figure. This worked when he was surrounded by other characters in the Avengers, but in his own movies it got a little stale. I have heard some complaints that he seems like a totally different character, and I do think that that is a valid concern. Thor is much more of a goofball in Ragnarok than ever before, but I think it works for him. I've decided to not get upset over the sudden character change, because it just works so well and I think was desperately needed. I think that the use of color in Ragnarok really sets it apart from previous Marvel movies. A lot of people complain about the dullness of color in Marvel movies, and they're not wrong to. The way they edit the films tones down a lot of the colors and the end result isn't terrible by any means, it could just be a lot better. The editing process was still the same in this movie, as far as I know, but this Marvel color dullness was evened out by the use of a lot of vivid bright colors during raw footage shoots. Taika saw his chance to bring a lot of color in while shooting the Sikaar scenes, and he took it. One thing I really appreciated about the story line was how they worked in Planet Hulk. The most obvious reason they didn't do a stand alone movie for planet Hulk was the fact that they'd have to get the rights back, which is much more trouble than it's worth. I'm actually really happy about that though, I don't think I could handle a movie centered entirely around the Hulk. So combining it with Thor Ragnarok was a really smart choice on their part I think. It allowed them to include the story line, but not make it the center of the movie and it gave them a convenient excuse for Hulk to help out Thor. I kinda wish that it would've been more of a surprise that the Hulk was in the movie. Marvel kind of touted the fact that Hulk was going to be in it, but I think it would've been a lot cooler if they'd let it be a surprise. Still really cool though, just could've been better. *SPOILER* One BIG issue I take with this movie is that they kill off two kinda major characters and don't even mention it. Two of Thor's friends, ones that played a sizable roll in the universe before, got killed in like a thirty second scene that was never brought back up. I really liked them and if they'd been killed to serve some greater thematic purpose I would've been okay, but it was seemingly for like no reason. So that's kind of annoying. *End Spoiler* Overall I really enjoyed this movie and will totally watch it again when it comes out on DVD. I think that this movie really revamped the Thor universe and the characters in it are AMAZING. You should go watch it right now. Also, Jeff Goldblum, need I say more? (Dir. Drew Goddard 2012)
R-Rated. Super R, lots of gore, cursing, and some nudity. It's all in a fun way though, kinda. Cabin In the Woods is a twist on the classic college kid horror story. 5 friends get together to spend a weekend at a cabin in the woods. While there they encounter many suspicious objects, and accidentally summon killer zombies. The zombies begin to pick off the kids one by one, but wait, there's more! It turns out all of these horror events are being controlled by a bunch of office men running a horror simulation. Why? Gotta watch to find out. Cabin In the Woods derived a lot of its humor from switching from the classic horror scenes to the lighthearted atmosphere in the simulation control center. When in the horror scenes they used a lot of quick cuts dark/bleak surroundings to create the horror mood. While in the simulation center the cuts are more subdued and the lighting is harsh and unnatural. These contrasts starkly define the difference between the horror world and the world of the simulators. What I really likes about Cabin In the Woods was that it was not just funny, it was interesting. Right off the bat it's made clear that the terrible things happening are being controlled by the simulators, but they viewer spends much of the film trying to figure out why. In addition, I genuinely liked the characters, even the "villainous" characters. The simulators never act evil, but they are obviously intended the be the antagonist of the college students. As the plot unfolds we begin to see events more from the point of view of the simulators, and understand their reasoning much better. It's either these people die, or everyone does. My only complaint is that some of the characters were under developed, but when they're main purpose in the film is to be killed off I can't be that upset. Overall I really enjoyed this film. I don't like gore, but this film was funny enough that I pushed through it. (Dir. Jermaine Clement and Taika Waititi, 2015)
Rated R In honor of Halloween I will be reviewing a spooooooky movie This is a mockumentary that tells the story of three vampires, Viago, Deacon, and Vladislav, living in modern day New Zealand. A camera crew follows the vampires as they go through their daily life. Like most mockumentaries there is not exactly a set plot for me to talk about so I'm going to focus on the characters. Each of the vampires are interesting and sympathetic enough that I didn't lose interest of watching what is essentially an hour and twenty-six minutes of hijinks. Viago, my favorite, is an 17th century aristocrat, as a middle child myself, I relate to him. The movie opens with him going around to each vampire and rousing them for a flatmate meeting. Deacon is the youngest of the bunch and was a Nazi experiment in which they turned people into vampires. This is brought up once and then quickly dropped. Vladislav is also known as Vlad the Poker. Fun guys. Despite some of them being hundreds to thousands of years old they still stay true to many of their human characteristics so it's fun to watch them goof around as vampires. Despite What We Do In the Shadows not having a traditional plot, it has a lot of good character story lines. Having multiple siblings, I liked how the family dynamic of the coven was highlighted when a new vampire was brought into the coven. Deacon, formerly the youngest, is no longer the youngest and hippest and is reeling over the loss of being the "baby" in the family. Anyone with a younger sibling can sympathize with this feeling. Vigo's love storyline was probably my favorite, his losing his love is melancholy, but hilarious. I mean, who else can say they missed out on the love of their life because their shipping container was mislabeled and it took them 18 months to get to them? Not many, cause most would be dead. My favorite part of the love storyline has got to be when it brings up the age difference. Iconic. I really like the way they filmed this. The filming seems like a student trying to create a documentary, but at the same time one can tell it's very stylized. The camera shakes sometimes, like the person carrying it is moving quickly, which makes it feel a lot more real. It doesn't do it so much that it's annoying though. The colors are also kept fairly drab and bleak, in order to give off supernatural vibes I guess. The costuming killed me, these vampires stick to the styles of their respective era's WHEN THERE ARE PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR THEM TO GET NEW CLOTHES. I don't know why I found this so funny. tl;dr Vampire shenanigans, if you like Flight of the Concords you'll like this. Also, perfect for Halloween viewing. (Dir. Hitchcock 1940) NR, but it's pretty family friendly. Though, I doubt small children would want to watch it anyway. Rebecca tells the story of a woman who marries a rich man, Max de Winters, after a whirlwind romance at Monte Carlo. Their honeymoon phase abruptly ends when they move to de Winter's family home and the new Mrs. de Winters as well as Max (we never learn her real name, how messed up is that?) are haunted by the memory of Max's first wife, Rebecca. Whoever thought a whirlwind romance with a rich man could end badly? Mrs. de Winters in tormented by the fact that Rebecca was seemingly the perfect wife and woman, while she is still struggling to find her place in the world of the elite. This plot sounds really good and suspenseful, right? That's what I thought, and it was, eventually. But this movie spent way to much time in the exposition. You can call me a millennial spoiled by constant action, but this film did not need to be 2 hours and 10 minutes. *Spoiler* This film gave me serious Jane Eyre vibes. A woman fell in love with a man haunted by a past marriage. The man happens to be gruff, brooding, and rich. The man's family home is eventually burned down by someone involved with his past marriage, but in the end the two get their happily ever after. Am I talking about Jane Eyre or Rebecca? The world may never know. *End Spoiler* I don't have much to say about the style of filming in Rebecca. Probably because I spent the first half bored out of my mind and the second half obsessively comparing it to the 1943 Jane Eyre movie. BREAKING NEWS I just looked up the movie to see what year it was done AND JOAN FONTAINE LITERALLY PLAYED THE MAIN CHARACTER IN IT TOO. The conspiracy continues. Also The 1943 Jane Eyre features a young Elizabeth Taylor as Helen Burns. Sorry not sorry this article has turned into a shameless plug for Jane Eyre. Because I've spent a lot of this post semi-trashing the film I'm going to talk about how great the actors were. Joan Fontaine and Laurence Olivier were amazing as always. I could tell how good of an actress Fontaine is because of how much I hated the character that she played. This is just because I get second hand embarrassment really easily and for most of the film Fontaine's character is painfully awkward. PAINFULLY. I know this is intentional and part of setting up the story that the character is insecure and blah blah blah, but for me it was just a cringe fest. Yes I realize this is a very backhanded compliment and I just said I wanted to make up for ragging on the film BUT STILL. Anyway the acting was amazing. I really believe the woman who played Mrs. Danvers is crazy though, no one is that good of an actress. Overall, I didn't hate this film. I might watch it again just in order to appreciate the filming style more. I'm sure Hitchcock included some really great symbolism and scenes I missed because I was too busy thinking about Jane Eyre. My recommendation to people that think this plot sounds interesting though is to watch the 1943 Jane Eyre first and if you still want to watch Rebecca go ahead. Stay tuned for next week's Halloween review! tl;dr This film isn't bad, but I'd recommend that you watch the 1943 Jane Eyre instead. They're basically the same thing, but Jane Eyre has better plot execution. (Dir. Alfred Hitchcock 1958)
PG, but the ending is weird as heck, I felt very uncomfortable towards the end. Early warning, I am going to be very spoilery in this post. I really want to talk about the plot of this movie because I ave a lot of feelings about the story itself. Plus this movie has been out for nearly sixty years so if you haven't seen it by now I don't know what to tell you. Vertigo tells the story of a retired detective, Scottie, who suffers intense vertigo after a traumatizing case in which he nearly falls to his death. Scottie breaks out of his retirement when he is hired by an old friend, Gavin Elster, to investigate his wife, Madeleine. Elster believes that Madeleine has been possessed by a spirit because she often spaces out and kinda sleepwalks all over the city and has no knowledge of these events afterwards. Elster tells Scottie that Madeleine's mother had confided to him that Madeleine's grandmother suffered a similar affliction which caused her to go crazy and commit suicide. Scottie's job is basically to follow Madeleine around and make sure she doesn't die. Long story short Madeleine and Scottie fall in love, but he fails to stop her committing suicide because she runs up a bell tower and jumps and because of his vertigo he cannot make it up the stairs to stop her. Scottie is even further traumatized by Madeleine's death, but one day as he is wandering the city he runs into a woman who looks startlingly like Madeleine, Judy. He asks Judy out to dinner. It is then revealed to the viewer that Judy was actually the woman that Scottie knew as Madeleine. Elster wanted to be rid of his wife, but instead of divorcing her like a normal person he decided to hatch an elaborate plan to murder her. Since Elster's wife lived out in the country and wasn't often seen in the city, it was easy to hire a look-a-like to act as her and establish that Madeleine had suicidal tendencies. When Judy (aka fake Madeleine) ran up the bell tower, Elster was waiting at the top with an already deceased Madeleine and throws her body off, making it seem as though she committed suicide. Judy writes all this in a letter to Scottie and is packing to leave. This is where I think the movie should have ended. Instead of ending at this point, Judy tears up the letter and goes to dinner with Scottie and starts dating hime because while she was busy in this whole murder plot she fell in love with him. At this point Scottie does not know about the plot. This is where the movie becomes very uncomfortable. Scottie begins to force Judy to dress like Madeleine, then color her hair, etc. until Judy looks just like Madeleine. Judy is obviously very distressed by this. Then he forces her to go to the scene of Madeleine's death where Judy confesses, it seems like everything may work out between the two of them, but then Judy accidentally falls to her death. Then the movie ends. I hate this, the plot was so good until everything after the letter bit. The rest I feel is so unnecessary. The letter provides enough closure and, I feel, is a satisfying ending. The plot is revealed to Scottie and all the questions the viewer has are answered. If this were done earlier in Hitchcock's career I feel like this is where he would have ended it. So, in addition to the creepiness towards the end of the movie, the age difference between all the guys and their love interests was kinda creepy too. I love Jimmy Stewart, he is an amazing actor, but at this point you can definitely tell he's old. It's just a little icky seeing all the romance scenes between him and his love interests. In addition to them being generally unhealthy the age difference adds an extra layer of discomfort for me. Age difference between male leads and their love interests is a much larger issue in Hollywood though that I do not feel like getting into right now. Even without the ickiness, I feel the movie's story would've benefitted from a younger actor playing Scottie. If Scottie had to quit being a detective in his prime because of his vertigo, I think it would have made him a much more tragic and sympathetic character. In the actual movie it's just like, yeah sucks you had to retire, but you were probably close to it anyway. I know this review seems very negative, but I actually really liked the movie up until what happened after the letter scene. It felt weird watching a Hitchcock film in color, because all the others I've seen are in black and white, but his use of color was phenomenal. I really appreciate thought out color palettes in films, it's part of why I love Wes Anderson films so much. The palette in this movie is beautiful and I find it all the more amazing that Hitchcock was able to achieve this use of color when it was still a relatively new thing in the film world. (Dir. Dawson Marshall Thurber 2016) Rated PG-13, I think this might be skating right under an R-rating though. Central Intelligence is a classic buddy cop film, except one of the buddies is not exactly a willing participant. Calvin "Golden Jet" Joyner was the It man who peaked in high school and now lives the droll life of an accountant. Bob Stone, now a lethal CIA agent, was bullied in high school and saw Calvin as his only friend. On the eve of their high school reunion Bob suddenly reappears in Calvin's life and pulls him kicking and screaming into a thrilling adventure. In terms of plot, this film was solid. It didn't have any glaring plot holes, of course Bob and Calvin magically avoided getting hit with any of the million bullets shot at them, but I've made my peace with that. Everything was foreshadowed nicely, and the film kept you guessing on who the real bad guy was the whole time. The filming style was basic, it didn't try anything ambitious, the cuts and shots were designed to make you forget you were watching a film. Which is typical for this type of film, and I didn't really mind. They only thing that bugged me a little was the CGI they used to put the Rock's face on an obese body for his high school self. It looked so fake, like a bad photoshop. I am not mad at this film, I had a good time watching it. Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart had good chemistry during this film, plus I'm a sucker for pretty much anything with the Rock in it. Gotta love him. The dialogue was very snappy and hilarious. Calvin reacts the same way I would expect an actual person to if they were dragged into a situation like this. Besides action and the hilarity of the film, it actually delves into the character's emotions quite a bit too. They explore the effect being bullied in high school has had on Bob and how peaking in high school has affected Calvin. Calvin and Bob talk about these issues throughout the film help each other overcome them. What I really appreciate about this film is how it never once takes on the macho tone where men act like it's a good thing to ignore their feelings and lash out. Calvin and his wife go to therapy when they're worried about their marriage and Calvin is constantly trying to help Bob work through his bottled up issues. If you're looking for a film to enjoy and make you laugh this is a good choice. .(Dir Alex Garland 2015)
This movie is rated R. Warning there is cutting in it, but not in a self-harm way. This movie follows and employee at a tech company, Caleb, who wins a contest to spend a week with the reclusive CEO of said company, Nathan, on his private island, I think. They're never really clear about where there are, but he has to be flown in by helicopter so... Island? It turns out that Nathan has actually chosen Caleb to act as the "human component" in a Turing test with Nathan's new AI, Ava, who is pictured above. This movie made me very uncomfortable, but I think that the discomfort is intentional. Caleb is thrust into a very uncomfortable situation and it makes sense the viewer would feel that with him. Honestly, I would have left the place as soon as I stepped foot in it, but I have a phobia of being trapped so maybe it's a little different for me. From the beginning, Nathan is very dominating and kinda has a God complex. Also, most of the film takes place in the underground research center so there is very minimal lighting and it all feels very creepy and clinical. In contrast, most scenes that take place between the human characters take place in nature or otherwise setting with earthy tones and natural lighting. This contrast clearly defines the world of machines and the natural world. However, as the film goes on the lines begin to blur, more and more nature seems to seep into Ava's room as Nathan and Caleb begin to interact more and more in unnatural settings. This illustrates Ava becoming more human and Nathan less so in Caleb's eyes. The actors in this movie are amazing. Domhall Gleeson and Oscar Issac I've seen in movies before this. Gleeson played Bill Weasley in the Harry Potter movies and Issac plays Poe in the Star Wars reboot. Alicia Vikander, who played Ava, I've never heard of her before, but I think she did a good job. It's kind of hard to tell though since she literally plays a robot, but I thought she was good. I honestly didn't realize Issac played Nathan until I saw the credits. His character in this film, Nathan, is so different than the roles I've seen him play before, and he played the part so well it never even occurred to me it was the same actor. Despite the constant feeling of discomfort, I didn't hate this film. I wouldn't watch it again, but that's because I'm just not very into this genre. The film was very well-made and the acting was spectacular. AI honestly freaks me out a little so I couldn't tell you why I decided to watch this film in the first place. The one major problem I had with this film was some of the plot. I think they were going for a theme of questioning the morality of creating AI, but it really just got obsessed with the idea of sexy robots. I'm not sure if they were trying to make a commentary on men treating women like objects, or they didn't actually realize disturbing this all was, which is kind of terrifying. Like, this super genius basically just made a huge technological breakthrough in order to make sex slaves, but they just ignore that bit. They talk about how terrible it is that he's essentially killing the AI when he switches them off, but nobody ever mentions the fact that he's also raping them! They act like it's not even a big deal. tl;dr I don't even know what this movie was. It was weird and uncomfortable, but it wasn't terrible. I also cannot for the life of me tell if it's just subtly misogynistic as all get out, or is subtly trying to work in a message on how women are treated in society. I am just very confused guys. |
Aubrey KirchhoffI'm just screaming into the void and somehow getting graded on it. Archives
April 2018
|