It was in the Now Reading thread. I mentioned the film while writing about the book.@Number 6 posted about it somewhere in this thread.
I watched it when it came out. I hadn't read the book yet, so I loved the film; very original plot, decent characters, and some brilliantly built scenes with tension to spare. It wasn't until I read the book the next day that I started to notice some flaws here and there, not related to the film itself, but to the way some stuff were translated from the literary work to the screen. As a film, I still think it's great, well developed and original, but as an adaptation it falls short.Everyone seems to be talking about that Netflix movie Bird Box. Has anyone here watched it? Is it any good?
Everyone seems to be talking about that Netflix movie Bird Box. Has anyone here watched it? Is it any good?
You couldn't be more wrong. I've heard a lot of people talking about that, but Josh Malerman's book came out in 2014, with the first draft having been written as early as 2008. Film rights to the book were acquired in 2013 (before the book was even released) and initiated production in 2016/17. No Quiet Place ripoff there; if anything, it was John Krasinski (or whoever it was that came up with the story) who ripped off Bird Box.I'll watch it eventually, the reason I haven't yet is because I still see it as a ill timed rip off of A Quiet Place. A movie about not being able to make noise? How about a movie about not being able to see! Sooo.... When I get over that I'll watch it.
That's also not the movie's fault. The book hardly explains anything as well.It's just another one of those Netflix horror films that thinks not revealing anything about what's happening is somehow a shortcut to suspense. I felt unsatisfied by it.
Thanks for the insight. I still wasn't sure if I'd see it or not, but it sounds interesting from some stuff I've read around, your post included.Upon a couple of recommendations I decided to watch MANDY. It was described to me as a "psychodelic horror." Um, it was definitely psychodelic, but it wasn't scary in the slightest. I still enjoyed it. It is literally a trip. The use of visuals and music were fantastic and it was VERY intertaining. Dialog is minimal, cryptic and the plot is a done to death kidnapped/partner is murdered other left for dead revenge story. Nicolas Cage was a pleasant surprise. After his horrible career choices as of late (Ghost Rider, Wicker Man remake, etc.) I wasn't too sure, but he did a good job here. I kinda want to rewatch it intoxicated in some way shape or form lol. While it won't scare you it will definitely entertain you. Title track was done by King Crimson, I only know that because the openning credits tell you haha.
That's also not the movie's fault. The book hardly explains anything as well.
Not sure if what I'm about to say could be considered as spoilers, but anyhow...If that's the case, then that makes things worse, because what I said would apply to a lot more horror media. I realise that mystery is a part of good horror, and it's what I like about it the most, actually. I also appreciate that true horror comes from that core of the mystery that remains unexplainable. But what I saw in the film just looked like a lazy copout, in the sense of "if we show them all blindfolded, we don't have to show what's actually going on, and hence we don't have to come up with something that's actually going on". Not having a proper story with the excuse of leaving it all to the viewer's/reader's imagination just seems like a lazy shortcut to me, sorry.
Go down as in "crash and burn" or go down as in "let's see what happens"?go down