Yadda yadda yadda, I'm here to talk about the film or movie listed above, mainly to myself in an open forum I use for my stream of consciousness for some reason.
It Comes at Night was a very well-received horror film that people seemed to like for some reason. I didn't, very much. I mean, it wasn't terrible, it was just kind of OK at best.
The acting in it was terrific. Every actor in it was emotive and enjoyable to watch. They all did pretty well. The cinematography was cool enough, nothing spectacular. The events of the film was for the most part, a few nightmare scenes jumbled in with post-apocalypse life as two families come together. It was kind of interesting, but given that it was most of the film, it really wasn't worth much.
When things actually began getting interesting as people started getting infected, it was... just kind of lame. I mean, by the time it ended, one family had been wiped out in an interesting enough confrontation, but it really wasn't enough to justify a film. The entire movie leaned so incredibly heavily on symbolism, which I always think isn't a bad thing, but people tend to jerk off over it a bit much, especially here where it's not incredibly well placed, as well as dreams, nightmares and vagueness. Now, I love a bit of vagueness. The ending of It Follows, where we don't know what happened the monster, is spectacular. But this, honestly, just seems to use vagueness and mystery as an excuse for the lack of the film here.
The questions of "What happened the dog?", "Who opened the door?" and "Who infected who?" are all just simply not answered. In regards to the dog, it seems to really only add in a plot hole. There's no monsters, so what, did a bear get the dog? And it just managed to limp home, dying? Before someone opened the door and it crawled inside? That's not "I wonder what happened!" that's just a lack of an answer. There's hints that Travis might've went looking for the dog and brought it back, but since that implied a monster it's not entirely true, and even if it is, that just turns the story into a blase "Infection spread through a family and they died".
A huge chunk of this film is based around staring at man's darkest side, what we'll do to survive and protect our family, and how paranoia can tear communities apart. This was perhaps one of the weakest parts of the film. I heard reviews and interviews about how this "exposes man's dark side", so I was fascinated to see that. But it was just kind of... nothing. Honestly, no one in the film really acted dark or evil. The main family finds a guy scavenging, checks to see if he's not dead, and takes in him with his family. Then, there's just a bunch of the two families getting along great, with one line pathetically tossed in where the Father says "Only trust family", which is so out of place in the scenes of friendly fun that it feels like the director only then remembered what he wanted his film to be about.
When the infection hits, there's still no real dark sides. The families isolate to avoid the spread of the infection, and then one tries to leave because maybe their kids infected. All they want is to take some of the food and water. The other family can't let them, because when they run out they know they'll be back. They fight for a bit, but it's made clear they don't want to kill each other. They fight, one finally starts beating the other and is shot by their wife in self-defense, who then in a panic accidentally kills the kid. They then off the mother to put her out of her misery when she begs for death.
This wasn't a group torn apart by paranoia, turning dark to survive. This was two families, both prioritizing their own survival, but still being decent about it. The protagonist showed almost no paranoia, just logical thinking. Same with the other family. I mean, the Verge said "This move is extremely cynical about human nature". What's cynical at all here? That people would protect their kids above all else? That a man would risk his life to save another man and his family? That they didn't try to kill each other until the absolute end, either in a rage, self-defence panic or mercy killing? No, nothing "extremely cynical" about it.
So that's that. The talk of paranoia and what man is willing to do was literally nonexistent in the film, and has been better done in the Walking Dead for fuck's sake. The story was boring and vague, nothing really there to talk about. The "Fear of the Unknown" and "Terror" wasn't even there, because at no point did there seem to be an unknown to be scared of, other than the potential for your family to be diseased.
So yeah. Not a bad film, good acting, cool cinematography, there just wasn't anything here that made it special, or even much of a film. If you're going to watch a horror film, go with something good, like the Invitation, or It Follows, or the Babadook, or It, or Hush, or Creep, or Get Out. All of those are really, really good. I mean, we're in a great age for horror films, anyone who talks about "the classics being the best" are a bunch of idiots. Oh, or 1922, loved the novella, haven't seen it, but it looks good, or A Dark Song, which has been well-received, and it's Irish, so it's next on my list. God, there's so much good tv on Netlflix. Master of None, Designated Survivor, the spectacular and emotional stand-up 3 Mics, the great Ricky Gervais show Extras, the great Brazillian Sci-Fi "3%", Cillian Murphy's great mobster thing Peaky Blinders, the cool, fast-paced sci-fi "Circle", the great London gang thing "Top Boy". God, we are in a great age of television, folks.
Skip this move, watch everything I have listed, and thank me later.
I haven't seen it, but I have heard a few people talk about it, but I never really paid attention since movies aren't really my thing. From your description, it sounds like something I could probably get into, especially that part where you mentioned the movie focusing on "man's darkest side".
Even though I spent quite some time explaining how it was shit at doing that, you stupid twat? Cool, good to know.
Well being the stupid twat I am, I could still find it interesting. You're lack of wide appreciation for art is what holds you back. It's an opinion on how appealing it may be, so I could find it a fantastic movie.
Lack of wide appreciation for art? What the fuck does that mean? I enjoy a wide variety of art. I just don't turn my brain off and jack myself off while consuming mediocrity.
Mediocrity to you, inspiration for another.
Shit is shit, either way it goes.
It's your opinion, Steve.
I've had this conversation with many dipshits like Sent before. Everything's opinion. Paedophiles shouldn't rape kids is just a shared opinion, nothing more. But society's build standards, where we hold certain things valuable. Some of these things, like the level of violence, is subjective. I prefer the fun, wacky Guardians of the Galaxy, but that doesn't take away from the brutality of the Dark Knight or make it worse. However, things like an actual plot, in-story logic and individuality are considered almost universally to be preferable than not. You can disagree with that, and that's your opinion, but the way society works is that I can say this was a shit movie the same way I can say Batman vs Superman was a bad movie, or the Room.
As regard to it exposing man's inner darkness, that's not even subjective, that doesn't happen. Everyone in the film is completely reasonable. The Road is about shit being dark and man being evil. This involves people risking their lives to help each other, and then just having opposite objectives and fighting to protect their families, so no, it doesn't expose paranoia or darkness.