|
Post by Nora on Mar 4, 2020 22:28:53 GMT
What horror movie doesnt have plot holes? ? gimme a break!!!!!! Hereditary. There. Also there is plot holes that make it easy to accept and then those that make it difficult to accept - a lot of times this is connected with how good the acting and other craft in the movie is, because the better the craft the more the plot holes stand out...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2020 22:37:54 GMT
Alive with fresh thinking from Whanell and a dynamite Elisabeth Moss, this socially conscious horrorshow tips the old monster mash into way scarier shit about toxic masculinity that's as timely as #MeToo and Harvey Weinstein in handcuffs.
Fuck tom Cruise and his Mummy remake trash, this is the real deal.
|
|
RobotTheLiving
Sophomore
"You can't be suicidal if you're singing showtunes!"
@roboftheliving
Posts: 174
Likes: 112
|
Post by RobotTheLiving on Mar 5, 2020 19:52:55 GMT
Alive with fresh thinking from Whanell and a dynamite Elisabeth Moss, this socially conscious horrorshow tips the old monster mash into way scarier shit about toxic masculinity that's as timely as #MeToo and Harvey Weinstein in handcuffs.Fuck tom Cruise and his Mummy remake trash, this is the real deal. Definitely NOT going to see it now you have expressed this. Sounds like a propaganda film. Toasted CheeseThe themes of a man emotionally and physically manipulating a woman aren't exactly new. To me, the movie doesn't really hit you over the head with any "MeToo" sort of themes. With Elisabeth Moss's performance alone the audience is able to empathize with her character.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Mar 7, 2020 4:50:30 GMT
finally saw this, didn't think it was great, but it was alright.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Mar 10, 2020 14:07:22 GMT
I saw it yesterday and thought it was a great thriller.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Mar 10, 2020 14:13:38 GMT
I saw it and enjoyed it every much. But it is true that Moss's performance elevated the film. Nora Which plot holes bothered you the most? 4. the fact that when they delivered the letyer to her at her hideout that Nobody was supposed to know about didnt freak the fuck out of her. I meam that should have been a major plot driver and her sayin: oh fuck i am burned lets get out of here 5. the fact she CAUGHT the knife mid air she did. ridiculous 4 - At that point the husband had already "died" and she had no reason to believe she was in danger - but I also thought she should have asked the lawyer (the husband's brother) "how did you know where to find me?" 5 - She didn't catch the knife, the killer put it in her hand and kept her hand closed around the knife, in full view of everyone. She was in panic and shock and didn't have the presence of mind to try striking at him with her other hand. Not a plot hole.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Mar 10, 2020 17:55:19 GMT
4. the fact that when they delivered the letyer to her at her hideout that Nobody was supposed to know about didnt freak the fuck out of her. I meam that should have been a major plot driver and her sayin: oh fuck i am burned lets get out of here 5. the fact she CAUGHT the knife mid air she did. ridiculous 4 - At that point the husband had already "died" and she had no reason to believe she was in danger - but I also thought she should have asked the lawyer (the husband's brother) "how did you know where to find me?" 5 - She didn't catch the knife, the killer put it in her hand and kept her hand closed around the knife, in full view of everyone. She was in panic and shock and didn't have the presence of mind to try striking at him with her other hand. Not a plot hole.
4 - she should have freaked out, because even if the husband had been dead, only her sister and the guy knew/were supposed to know so it was clear her security parameter has been breached, not important by whom. 5 - interesting, thats not how I understood that scene at all, that he would place it there and held it closed. if thats the case then that changes it a bit although yes we have to go on her being in a complete shock and not trying to struggle with him.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Mar 10, 2020 19:56:55 GMT
Jep Gambardella - I dont think you are correct though. Look, if you slow this down, you can see the knife is not PLACED to her hand by being HANDED to her. Its thrown toward her hand, or it glides in a way that makes it seem like a throw. If it was Handed to her and at the same time he held her hand up like that, he would have to cover a big distance that I dont think you could easily even cover like that (being one human and all) plus the throat slit happened with the person doing the knifing on the Other side of the table (on the other side of the axes too) Plus it doesnt look like he holds her hand after the knife is in it at all, it just doesnt LOOK that way. maybe they intended for it to be that case, but to me the knife flew at her as if somebody threw it. MAYBE his brother was there with him and it was a two man job (both in invisible suits?)
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Mar 10, 2020 20:47:23 GMT
Jep Gambardella - I dont think you are correct though. Look, if you slow this down, you can see the knife is not PLACED to her hand by being HANDED to her. Its thrown toward her hand, or it glides in a way that makes it seem like a throw. If it was Handed to her and at the same time he held her hand up like that, he would have to cover a big distance that I dont think you could easily even cover like that (being one human and all) plus the throat slit happened with the person doing the knifing on the Other side of the table (on the other side of the axes too) Plus it doesnt look like he holds her hand after the knife is in it at all, it just doesnt LOOK that way. maybe they intended for it to be that case, but to me the knife flew at her as if somebody threw it. MAYBE his brother was there with him and it was a two man job (both in invisible suits?) You are right, at the speed the knife ended up in her hand it looks more like it was thrown through the air than moved by an invisible hand, but I will stick with my explanation as it is the only one that makes sense to me!
I suppose he was in between the two women, facing the table. He slits the sister's throat with his right hand, then grabs Cecile's arm with his left hand, puts the knife in her hand, and uses both his hands to stop her from opening hers and dropping the knife.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Mar 10, 2020 21:27:54 GMT
Jep Gambardella - I dont think you are correct though. Look, if you slow this down, you can see the knife is not PLACED to her hand by being HANDED to her. Its thrown toward her hand, or it glides in a way that makes it seem like a throw. If it was Handed to her and at the same time he held her hand up like that, he would have to cover a big distance that I dont think you could easily even cover like that (being one human and all) plus the throat slit happened with the person doing the knifing on the Other side of the table (on the other side of the axes too) Plus it doesnt look like he holds her hand after the knife is in it at all, it just doesnt LOOK that way. maybe they intended for it to be that case, but to me the knife flew at her as if somebody threw it. MAYBE his brother was there with him and it was a two man job (both in invisible suits?) You are right, at the speed the knife ended up in her hand it looks more like it was thrown through the air than moved by an invisible hand, but I will stick with my explanation as it is the only one that makes sense to me! I suppose he was in between the two women, facing the table. He slits the sister's throat with his right hand, then grabs Cecile's arm with his left hand, puts the knife in her hand, and uses both his hands to stop her from opening hers and dropping the knife.
wait but on which side of the table? The one closer to the camera or further away (closer to the column)? because the way the knife goes across her throat suggests (to me) he was behind her closer to the camera. if he was closer to the column he wouldnt have been able to reach that way and slice her from right to left. so he must have been on the side CLOSER to the camera (or behind her). and from that position how would he give her the knife on the other side of the table? he must have thrown it OR there were BOTH of them involved. or it was just the kinda filmmaking where they thought you and I are not going to examine this and debate how it was done
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 4, 2020 20:36:34 GMT
Finally saw this last weekend. I largely agree with Nora and salomonj . I wanted to see it in theaters back in February because it sounded fun and was getting great reviews—just for the coronavirus to hit. Then I tried to watch it through streaming (I’m getting Apple TV free for a year and five free movies as long as they’re under $5.99), and it was $20! Anyway, eventually Apple’s price reduced to $3.99, so I got to use one of my five free movies on it. Which is all to say that I was really looking forward to it. And…? OK, it’s not bad. I don’t regret watching it, but do I regret using one of my free movies on it? Ehh, sorta, yeah. The directing’s better than the script; to be brutally honest, the script is not well-written. Take a plot element like the will, which shows up early on. Elisabeth Moss’ heroine is called in by her abusive dead husband’s brother (!) to sign off on a will with a stipulation that to receive the money she can’t commit a crime. It’s so far from reality—both sides would have lawyers, probate would tear apart the stipulation. Not to mention I’m pretty sure in California the surviving spouse is entitled to one-half of the deceased spouse’s property no matter what the will says. Sure, those may seem like minor nitpicks, but problems like that keep showing up throughout the movie. When cops are investigating Moss, for example, one of the investigators is her best friend, who’s deeply involved in the case. Apparently conflicts of interest don’t apply in Frisco? The movie has so many things like that, in fact, that the viewer just can’t suspend his disbelief. And that ridiculous stipulation is the most obvious Chekhov’s gun ever—and it plays out exactly as you expect it when you watch the will scene. That points to an even more damaging element in the script: you can see nearly every plot twist coming from a mile away. That flaw seems even more pronounced after I saw Last Passenger, a movie that takes time to tell its story in delightfully unexpected ways. To be sure, I’m not calling for big, Sixth Sense-esque twists that make you reconsider everything that came before—just little surprises that let you know the writer and director are one step ahead of the viewer. Without those surprises, the viewer quickly becomes bored. I know I did. With all that said, the movie has one major surprise up its sleeve—and delivers it brilliantly. Even though I don’t recommend the movie, that single twist is so good that I don’t want to give it away. I’ll just say it’s the Chinese restaurant scene—and anyone who’s seen the movie will know what I’m talking about. Beautifully directed and a huge shocker. Alas, that’s the best part. I saw the supposed twist ending coming early on (the will scene, in fact), yet it still feels tacked-on—and unfinished. How did the husband get in the secret room? How did he fake his death? Why do we need any of this twist? Writer-director Leigh Wannell makes a clever choice early on not to show the husband’s abuse (with one jump-scare of an exception, which is effective). All well and fine—but when we finally meet the husband at the end, the actor isn’t convincing as an abuser. To be fair, that could be Wannell’s point—abusers don’t seem like abusers, which tends to be true—but we should have seen rage in the husband’s eyes, or something like that. He’s trying to seem unctuous and comes off as mildly irritating. In spite of all that, I mostly liked the direction, which was part-Hitchcock, part-John Carpenter ( Halloween and Halloween II), part-early M. Night Shyamalan ( Signs). The opening sequence is largely silent and beautifully directed—the best part of the movie other than that one big twist. The acting was fine: not especially memorable, but fine. Unfortunately, the writing was so weak that it sunk the movie as a whole. Too bad.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jun 4, 2020 22:27:33 GMT
Finally saw this last weekend. I largely agree with Nora and salomonj . I wanted to see it in theaters back in February because it sounded fun and was getting great reviews—just for the coronavirus to hit. Then I tried to watch it through streaming (I’m getting Apple TV free for a year and five free movies as long as they’re under $5.99), and it was $20! Anyway, eventually Apple’s price reduced to $3.99, so I got to use one of my five free movies on it. Which is all to say that I was really looking forward to it. And…? OK, it’s not bad. I don’t regret watching it, but do I regret using one of my free movies on it? Ehh, sorta, yeah. The directing’s better than the script; to be brutally honest, the script honestly isn’t well-written. Take a plot element like the will, which shows up early on. Elizabeth Moss’ heroine is called in by her abusive dead husband’s brother (!) to sign off on a will with a stipulation that to receive the money she can’t commit a crime. It’s so far from reality—both sides would have lawyers, probate would tear apart the stipulation. Not to mention I’m pretty sure in California the surviving spouse is entitled to one-half of the deceased spouse’s property no matter what the will says. Sure, those may seem like minor nitpicks, but they keep coming back throughout the movie. When cops are investigating Moss, for example, one of the investigators is her best friend, who’s deeply involved in the case. Apparently conflicts of interest don’t apply in Frisco? The movie has so many things like that, in fact, that the viewer just can’t suspend his disbelief. And that ridiculous stipulation is the most obvious Chekhov’s gun ever—and it plays out exactly as you expect it when you watch the will scene. That point to an even more damaging element in the script: you can see nearly every plot twist coming from a mile away. That flaw seems even more pronounced after I saw Last Passenger, a movie that takes time to tell its story in delightfully unexpected ways. To be sure, I’m not calling for big, Sixth Sense-esque twists that make you reconsider everything that came before—just little surprises that let you know the writer and director are one step ahead of the viewer. Without those surprises, the viewer quickly becomes bored. I know I did. With all that said, the movie has one major surprise up its sleeve—and delivers it brilliantly. Even though I don’t recommend the movie, that single twist is so good that I don’t want to give it away. I’ll just say it’s the Chinese restaurant scene—and anyone who’s seen the movie will know what I’m talking about. Beautifully directed and a huge shocker. Alas, that’s the best part. I saw the supposed twist ending coming early on (the will scene, in fact), yet it still feels tacked-on—and unfinished. How did the husband get in the secret room? How did he fake his death? Why do we need any of this twist? Writer-director Leigh Wannell makes a clever choice early on not to show the husband’s abuse (with one jump-scare of an exception, which is effective). All well and fine—but when we finally meet the husband at the end, the actor isn’t convincing as an abuser. To be fair, that could be Wannell’s point—abusers don’t seems like abusers, which tends to be true—but we should have seen rage in the husband’s eyes, or something like that. He’s trying to seem unctuous and comes off as mildly irritating. In spite of all that, I mostly liked the direction, which was part-Hitchcock, part-John Carpenter ( Halloween and Halloween II), part-early M. Night Shyamalan ( Signs). The opening sequence is largely silent and beautifully directed—the best part of the movie other than that one big twist. The acting was fine: not especially memorable, but fine. Unfortunately, the writing was so weak that it sunk the movie as a whole. Too bad. This is pretty much exactly where I stand as well. Great direction; poor writing. Whannell will no doubt fix whatever shortcomings he’s had writing his own projects, as even in this one it was just a polish away from being more than acceptable. Yet I’m still just disappointed that they made an Invisible Man movie without the Invisible Man. He’s technically in it, yes, but not the way he should be. He should’ve been the protagonist. I understand wanting to tell a different story rather than retreading the original, but this is just so lame, especially once you see the lengths Whannell was willing to take this iteration. How cool would this have been if it focused on Adrian slowly getting crazier and crazier while he murders people in Whannell’s new trademark action style (which is cool as hell btw)? Instead we get an overlong movie about people not believing someone else about something - until they do. That is - in my opinion - the most frustrating and boring narrative storytelling technique ever. The movie is also not much more than a poltergeist haunted house movie for a significant portion. Man, how I’d have loved to see Oliver Jackson-Cohen (who I believe is a solid up-and-comer) chew on a character that slowly descends into madness with some darkly comical and scarily twisted monologues worked in there. I know the original Invisible Man is one of my favorite movies and some bias might be showing here, but come on. That’s just more interesting on every level - and it leaves so much room for evolution and originality. What could’ve been...
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 4, 2020 22:34:45 GMT
This is pretty much exactly where I stand as well. Great direction; poor writing. Whannell will no doubt fix whatever shortcomings he’s had writing his own projects, as even in this one it was just a polish away from being more than acceptable. Yet I’m still just disappointed that they made an Invisible Man movie without the Invisible Man. He’s technically in it, yes, but not the way he should be. He should’ve been the protagonist. I understand wanting to tell a different story rather than retreading the original, but this is just so lame, especially once you see the lengths Whannell was willing to take this iteration. How cool would this have been if it focused on Adrian slowly getting crazier and crazier while he murders people in Whannell’s new trademark action style (which is cool as hell btw)? Instead we get an overlong movie about people not believing someone else about something - until they do. That is - in my opinion - the most frustrating and boring narrative storytelling technique ever. The movie is also not much more than a poltergeist haunted house movie for a significant portion. Man, how I’d have loved to see Oliver Jackson-Cohen (who I believe is a solid up-and-comer) chew on a character that slowly descends into madness with some darkly comical and scarily twisted monologues worked in there. I know the original Invisible Man is one of my favorite movies and some bias might be showing here, but come on. That’s just more interesting on every level - and it leaves so much room for evolution and originality. What could’ve been… Didn’t mention this in my way-too-rambly review, but completely agreed. An Invisible Man remake that, like the original, actually stars the Invisible Man is a great idea… I mean, this guy comes up with an invisibility suit and he…annoys his wife? Sure, of course he turns homicidal quickly, but still his whole motivation is ruining her life. Compare that to Claude Rains’ intention: What could have been indeed…
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jun 4, 2020 23:10:20 GMT
This is pretty much exactly where I stand as well. Great direction; poor writing. Whannell will no doubt fix whatever shortcomings he’s had writing his own projects, as even in this one it was just a polish away from being more than acceptable. Yet I’m still just disappointed that they made an Invisible Man movie without the Invisible Man. He’s technically in it, yes, but not the way he should be. He should’ve been the protagonist. I understand wanting to tell a different story rather than retreading the original, but this is just so lame, especially once you see the lengths Whannell was willing to take this iteration. How cool would this have been if it focused on Adrian slowly getting crazier and crazier while he murders people in Whannell’s new trademark action style (which is cool as hell btw)? Instead we get an overlong movie about people not believing someone else about something - until they do. That is - in my opinion - the most frustrating and boring narrative storytelling technique ever. The movie is also not much more than a poltergeist haunted house movie for a significant portion. Man, how I’d have loved to see Oliver Jackson-Cohen (who I believe is a solid up-and-comer) chew on a character that slowly descends into madness with some darkly comical and scarily twisted monologues worked in there. I know the original Invisible Man is one of my favorite movies and some bias might be showing here, but come on. That’s just more interesting on every level - and it leaves so much room for evolution and originality. What could’ve been… Didn’t mention this in my way-too-rambly review, but completely agreed. An Invisible Man remake that, like the original, actually stars the Invisible Man is a great idea… I mean, this guy comes up with an invisibility suit and he…annoys his wife? Sure, of course he turns homicidal quickly, but still his whole motivation is ruining her life. Compare that to Claude Rains’ intention: What could have been indeed… Excellent point that I forgot to point out as well. This guy makes what would be one of the most impressive scientific advances in history and he uses it to be a dick to this one girl? I get it - he’s a serial abuser with a power complex but, once again, it’s just lame. On the bright side, at least Whannell seems to be headed for a fun new career. He has genuine talent behind the camera that he’s been using on fun B-movies.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jun 5, 2020 0:10:00 GMT
Btw Nalkarj when I said "Great direction; poor writing" above, I was referencing Whannell's screenplay, not your review lol. I just noticed that, hopefully you didn't take it like that anyway lol.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Jun 5, 2020 2:21:36 GMT
Btw Nalkarj when I said "Great direction; poor writing" above, I was referencing Whannell's screenplay, not your review lol. I just noticed that, hopefully you didn't take it like that anyway lol. Oh, no worries at all—I understood!
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Jun 16, 2020 0:17:27 GMT
5/10 Its average.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Oct 1, 2020 21:12:09 GMT
THE INVISIBLE MAN 1933 6/10 THE INVISIBLE MAN RETURNS isn't that memorable, but compared to THE INVISIBLE MAN 1933, it has better performances and the horror and comedy are more balanced. 6/10 Unlike its predecessors, THE INVISIBLE WOMAN is pure comedy. That was a mistake. Not because the concept doesn't lend itself to jokes (in fact, there are some truly funny moments here), but it feels too detached from the franchise. In fact, it came out the same year as the previous installment, making the changes more jarring. 3/10 Is it hard for you to differentiate similar genres? Then this franchise might help you. Compare INVISIBLE AGENT to the first 2 installments. This is a thriller without horror elements. While there are enjoyable scenes, the invisibility concept feels like a last minute addition, resulting in another detached sequel. 5/10 THE INVISIBLE MAN'S REVENGE 1/10 HOLLOW MAN PART I 6/10 HOLLOW MAN PART II 3/10 THE INVISIBLE MAN 2020 9/10 ------------------------------------- You can read comments of other movies in my blog.Why did she have to share a bed with her too? That would have been frustrating. The house looked big enough to have more than 2 bedrooms. Cecilia is so traumatized that she can't even leave the house. It makes sense to have someone keeping her company while she sleeps. why was Adrian so obsessed with his wife. Moss was excellent, but she wasn’t exactly a trophy wife in the looks department. I'm going to need a moment to reboot my brain after reading such stupidity. [...] OK, I'm good. Now, assuming this counts as a plot hole and assuming Cecilia wasn't pretty, she is to him. Besides, his obsession isn't just about attraction, but also about control.
|
|