ununchanged
A rejoint janv. 2006
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d’aide sur les badges.
Commentaires21
Évaluation de ununchanged
This movie is perfectly well acted and well produced in almost every aspect. It portrays the theme of blindness surprisingly subtle and more realistic then most movies. It doesn't have the "I iron my pancakes"-flatness that is often found within the genre. So why do so many people still hate it?
--- : It makes too many, too valid points that are pro-empathy. Wich is unusual for a most horror movies. A large subdivision of the horror crowd really hates that. It provides near impenetrable reasons, that egoistic "preserve-myself-and-my-family-and-defend-against-parasites" behavior falls short in front of the multitude a threats that require different kinds of "evolutionary fitness". Even in an apocalyptic situation. A movie arguing so well, that a live worth living, doesn't only include empathy as a core value, but actually REQUIRES it for the survival, makes them feel guilty. So they dismiss it. After all, believing that "helping" is "something weak and stupid people do, to preserve themselves" is how they manage to live with themselves. When they're faced with a valid point of how altruism is a successful way of survival, they run out of "weak" or "soft" people to blame. So they get spiteful.
--- : It makes too many, too valid points that are pro-empathy. Wich is unusual for a most horror movies. A large subdivision of the horror crowd really hates that. It provides near impenetrable reasons, that egoistic "preserve-myself-and-my-family-and-defend-against-parasites" behavior falls short in front of the multitude a threats that require different kinds of "evolutionary fitness". Even in an apocalyptic situation. A movie arguing so well, that a live worth living, doesn't only include empathy as a core value, but actually REQUIRES it for the survival, makes them feel guilty. So they dismiss it. After all, believing that "helping" is "something weak and stupid people do, to preserve themselves" is how they manage to live with themselves. When they're faced with a valid point of how altruism is a successful way of survival, they run out of "weak" or "soft" people to blame. So they get spiteful.
I'm voting this up because it's the best horror movies, I've seen in a long time... i guess the reason it gets rated down is because, it is actually disturbing in a way that is neither scary, heavily disgusting or confusing. It really makes you sick with rage. It actually depicts an unrealistic situation, somehow realistic. Not too subtle, not too styled.
It depicts, how a manipulator would realistically degraded and dehumanize people step by step, and infects the watcher with a superficial disgust towards humanity. It's hard to bare but it may be something that can really get you thinking - how to avoid becoming cynical like that?
I guess that's why some people really hate it - it throws a lot into question: No happy ending, no good guys, no American dream, and a lot of people today get paranoid, every time the villain is a rich guy and the message of a movie isn't "you can do it, if you try" but "live is unfair, try all you like".
The actors aren't prefect, but they're GOOD and FAR above average, so is the directing. Mr. Guesthost-rich-guy, gives the most realistic depiction of a pathological psychopath I've seen in a long time, tho a big part about that might be the writing. The playful aggression, the way he talks friendly, like always referring to slightly stupid children, the "minding your manners" while destroying people, the nasty backhand insults that come out as compliments.
It depicts, how a manipulator would realistically degraded and dehumanize people step by step, and infects the watcher with a superficial disgust towards humanity. It's hard to bare but it may be something that can really get you thinking - how to avoid becoming cynical like that?
I guess that's why some people really hate it - it throws a lot into question: No happy ending, no good guys, no American dream, and a lot of people today get paranoid, every time the villain is a rich guy and the message of a movie isn't "you can do it, if you try" but "live is unfair, try all you like".
The actors aren't prefect, but they're GOOD and FAR above average, so is the directing. Mr. Guesthost-rich-guy, gives the most realistic depiction of a pathological psychopath I've seen in a long time, tho a big part about that might be the writing. The playful aggression, the way he talks friendly, like always referring to slightly stupid children, the "minding your manners" while destroying people, the nasty backhand insults that come out as compliments.
I rate this movies low because it just didn't deliver what was promised. It's not really funny, or scary but mostly: Confusing. It gets annoying.
If you put a ton of somewhat deep references into a few hours of time, and give it a title appealing to confused young adults ---> you can be surethey start searching for a deeper meaning. That's a good thing I believe and I think that's what this movie is doing. --- However, it's trying to be a "cult" movie and it's trying way too hard. We always search for meaning, for connections, for causality - that's just how the human mind works. That's the reason entirely pointless things often seem to have a deeper meaning, if they're put into focus.
But what does this one mean? The topics touched are mostly shallow, so it might not have a meaning at all. Or at least not one that could possibly be accurately deciphered by anybody but the writer himself.
The meaning originates inside the viewers head, which is a great inspiring thing, i believe. However this ones getting way to close to just creating paranoia.
What is this supposed to be? A satire on teenage movies? More like: Tons of references in a blender. Just because something is fast, and uses tons of complicated references doesn't make it smart. Is this supposed to make the viewer think deeply about questions like: Why are the 80s the new 90s? I think it's lacking depth and tries to make up for that by being cryptic.
----> The hard, and the smart thing is: Making a complicated message easy to understand. Giving a surprising but at the same time logical explanation is. Inspiring deep questions. This one is just being cryptic and trying too hard.
If you put a ton of somewhat deep references into a few hours of time, and give it a title appealing to confused young adults ---> you can be surethey start searching for a deeper meaning. That's a good thing I believe and I think that's what this movie is doing. --- However, it's trying to be a "cult" movie and it's trying way too hard. We always search for meaning, for connections, for causality - that's just how the human mind works. That's the reason entirely pointless things often seem to have a deeper meaning, if they're put into focus.
But what does this one mean? The topics touched are mostly shallow, so it might not have a meaning at all. Or at least not one that could possibly be accurately deciphered by anybody but the writer himself.
The meaning originates inside the viewers head, which is a great inspiring thing, i believe. However this ones getting way to close to just creating paranoia.
What is this supposed to be? A satire on teenage movies? More like: Tons of references in a blender. Just because something is fast, and uses tons of complicated references doesn't make it smart. Is this supposed to make the viewer think deeply about questions like: Why are the 80s the new 90s? I think it's lacking depth and tries to make up for that by being cryptic.
----> The hard, and the smart thing is: Making a complicated message easy to understand. Giving a surprising but at the same time logical explanation is. Inspiring deep questions. This one is just being cryptic and trying too hard.