PS these are huge spoilers so don't click before seeing it:

-Vader

Also

The idea that is not really novel or interesting to me. The thematic implications are kind of intriguing but when one is doing this kind of story, one is by default inviting that question from the very beginning and it's not surprising, yet the film acts like it is.

2/3rds through the film I was just wondering randomly 'I wonder if they'll go with this angle'. And then they did and the fact that the dialogue was often not really natural did not help with the fact that the film was not really scary at all. I get that the implications are supposed to be frightening but the film is not able to make it frightening to me because, among other things, the film feels the need to hammer home themes through dialogue: show, don't tell.

Bacon wrote: ↑

March 25th, 2019, 2:38 am

Also

How was Jason able to control his tether when others weren't? This plays into how any tether is able to willingly breakfree of their forced behavior. They never explain any of this. What bugs me most is not about clone surrealism, it's the contradictory logic across the same project.

literally unwatchable


-Vader

Vader182 wrote: ↑

March 25th, 2019, 2:47 am

Bacon wrote: ↑

March 25th, 2019, 2:38 am

Also

How was Jason able to control his tether when others weren't? This plays into how any tether is able to willingly breakfree of their forced behavior. They never explain any of this. What bugs me most is not about clone surrealism, it's the contradictory logic across the same project.

literally unwatchable


-Vader

That's certainly one way to give up on having a legitimate discussion after someone elaborates on what you asked them to.

i'm taking the piss, mate. that's one tiny part of one short scene, so making that the crux of your point kind of weakens your overall point, no?

I don't actually have an answer to that, though. I'll have to rewatch it. There's a few other things i'd like to clear up on additional viewings. But these type of banal logic issues are, to me, the least interesting way to watch movies.


-Vader

Going with my drama group on Friday, so hyped, zero spoils so far.

Vader182 wrote: ↑

March 25th, 2019, 2:56 am

that's one tiny part of one short scene, so making that the crux of your point kind of weakens your overall point, no?

I don't actually have an answer to that, though. I'll have to rewatch it. There's a few other things i'd like to clear up on additional viewings. But these type of banal logic issues are, to me, the least interesting way to watch movies.


-Vader

But it's not one tiny part of one short scene. And it's not the crux of my post was either.
Like...dude. Don't react this way or write me off when I'm bringing up legitimate issues (these issues are widely being talked about right now online, and I'm not the only one). I've already admitted they bother me more than most as well. No need to get hostile. I liked the film, and I intend to see it again relatively soon, I'm literally seeking counter-arguments to prove myself wrong about it because I dug the core concept so much.

What's most likely is that Jordan Peele had a neat concept but in the execution, he might not have considered that people would be asking how the story would be able to even start in the first place the way he explains the concept.

movies are dreams and ambiguities are inevitable. Just because something isn't explained doesn't mean it doesn't make sense or it's a plot hole. We don't need all the answers tidied up for us. This goes for every movie of every genre. This goes twofold for works of satire and surrealism.

i can't imagine a less important aspect of what makes art great, in literature or film. nolan's movies are full of this stuff.


-Vader