ACJayC
Joined Nov 2019
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges5
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews76
ACJayC's rating
Essentially an action-comedy with some entertaining dialogue, but also a story structure that doesn't flow all too well for me.
I just wish the story was a bit more focused on the brothers, because their story starts off quite promising, only to fall very flat.
This movie is really about Willem Dafoe's character, and honestly, the movie fails hard without him.
I just wish the story was a bit more focused on the brothers, because their story starts off quite promising, only to fall very flat.
This movie is really about Willem Dafoe's character, and honestly, the movie fails hard without him.
It's a suspenseful and gruesome watch that doesn't sugarcoat its violent nature.
The "story" is designed to be a lengthy and thorough scenario/situation - where characters are developed through very subtle language or actions, and the effect of friendly casualties is at the center.
There's no typical character arcs, no clear antagonist, or conventional story structures here. In other words, this is a different type of war movie.
The "story" is designed to be a lengthy and thorough scenario/situation - where characters are developed through very subtle language or actions, and the effect of friendly casualties is at the center.
There's no typical character arcs, no clear antagonist, or conventional story structures here. In other words, this is a different type of war movie.
People really didn't understand this movie when it came out. And I guess it makes sense why, as this is presented as a conventional horror blockbuster. Because of that, people went into this movie with the wrong expectations. It's like telling an IT fan to watch The VVitch. One movie is for casual fun, while the other has underlying depth that requires more attention.
NOPE is a thematically-driven movie, unlike many blockbusters. It's story is designed in a way that it all links back to the grander themes, not necessarily the plot. The movie is FILLED with symbolism, hidden details, and storytelling elements that are more abstract. It's VERY easy to miss all of this when you're expecting a casual blockbuster. The movie explores themes of spectacle and exploitation (specifically animal exploitation, in this case). The literal chapter names are named after animals that have been somewhat exploited for the sake achieving a spectacle. I realized all this symbolism and thematic development after my third time watching this movie, yet people decided a single watch was enough. While I don't think the story is perfect, a lot of complaints people had about the movie can easily be answered by just watching the movie again.
One complaint I truly don't understand is people's critiques on Daniel Kaluuya's acting, calling it uninspired or dull. Mate... he is playing a character who is very introverted and acts more like a horse than the horses he spends most of his time with. He is terrible with people, but is deeply connected to horses. And Daniel Kaluuya NAILS that characteristic. What more is there to explain other than, pay attention.
NOPE is a thematically-driven movie, unlike many blockbusters. It's story is designed in a way that it all links back to the grander themes, not necessarily the plot. The movie is FILLED with symbolism, hidden details, and storytelling elements that are more abstract. It's VERY easy to miss all of this when you're expecting a casual blockbuster. The movie explores themes of spectacle and exploitation (specifically animal exploitation, in this case). The literal chapter names are named after animals that have been somewhat exploited for the sake achieving a spectacle. I realized all this symbolism and thematic development after my third time watching this movie, yet people decided a single watch was enough. While I don't think the story is perfect, a lot of complaints people had about the movie can easily be answered by just watching the movie again.
One complaint I truly don't understand is people's critiques on Daniel Kaluuya's acting, calling it uninspired or dull. Mate... he is playing a character who is very introverted and acts more like a horse than the horses he spends most of his time with. He is terrible with people, but is deeply connected to horses. And Daniel Kaluuya NAILS that characteristic. What more is there to explain other than, pay attention.