Don't Breathe - Okay, Movie, Whatever You Want
- Thread starter Marter
- Start date
This movie is a skip for me. I love the concept of getting chased by a blind psycho. However, it's hard to feel sympathetic to the people who being hunted by the "monster". When they are burglars trying to steal from a blind man. If the victims were more sympathetic, I would check this movie out.
By all accounts, that's what the movie wants you to think.KissingSunlight said:
...and then by the end, you're so messed up on who the "good guy" is that it becomes part of the moral.
KissingSunlight said:
From what I hear, this goes beyond 'self defence' into 'hell yeah, I'm going to enjoy making you suffer though you're no actual threat to me', plus some hints that 'The Blind Man' is significantly more twisted than he appears to be.RaikuFA said:
Dumb Question Time: Is Stephen Lang actually blind, or did they just really like him in Daredevil?
He has the build and look to play Cable, and the movies I've seen him in totally show he can at least get something out of the role.Remus said:
"What is going on with 2016? While overall movie quality has taken a dip, for whatever reason we've gotten an astounding (relatively speaking) number of good-to-great wide-release horror movies."
Can't comment on the horror genre, but when did this happen? I'm not commenting on Mater (judgement of quality is subjective), but I've seen this popping up everywhere, and I can't reconcile it with my personal experience. Looking at the films I've seen in cinemas this year, bar TFA (which I first saw in 2015, so I don't count a second viewing), I've seen 6 bad films, 21 average films, 14 good films, and 2 excellent films. Judgement of those individual films aside, that does seem to fit the standard bell curve format of rankings. I'd personally call that a decent ratio.
Thoughts? How would people say this year has been so far?
(Caveat in that I may have missed some films in those numbers given or accidentally counted ones I saw outside cinemas.)
Edit: So, went back over the films I saw in 2015, which gave me the results of one bad film, 14 average films, 13 good films, and one excellent films. Applying the formula of:
-Terrible=1/5
-Bad=2/5
-Average=3/5
-Good=4/5
-Excellent=5/5
And converting this into the average quality of movies released in cinemas per year, I get the results of (rounded up to two dp):
2015: 3.48
2016: 3.28
So, in the scope of personal experience, I will concede that 2015 was a better year than 2016 has so far been this year, but only with a difference of .2 on the above scale. Of course, both lists are based on films being released over here in different years than their country of origin, but regardless, well, yeah.
Anyway, that was fun. Question still stands though.
Can't comment on the horror genre, but when did this happen? I'm not commenting on Mater (judgement of quality is subjective), but I've seen this popping up everywhere, and I can't reconcile it with my personal experience. Looking at the films I've seen in cinemas this year, bar TFA (which I first saw in 2015, so I don't count a second viewing), I've seen 6 bad films, 21 average films, 14 good films, and 2 excellent films. Judgement of those individual films aside, that does seem to fit the standard bell curve format of rankings. I'd personally call that a decent ratio.
Thoughts? How would people say this year has been so far?
(Caveat in that I may have missed some films in those numbers given or accidentally counted ones I saw outside cinemas.)
Edit: So, went back over the films I saw in 2015, which gave me the results of one bad film, 14 average films, 13 good films, and one excellent films. Applying the formula of:
-Terrible=1/5
-Bad=2/5
-Average=3/5
-Good=4/5
-Excellent=5/5
And converting this into the average quality of movies released in cinemas per year, I get the results of (rounded up to two dp):
2015: 3.48
2016: 3.28
So, in the scope of personal experience, I will concede that 2015 was a better year than 2016 has so far been this year, but only with a difference of .2 on the above scale. Of course, both lists are based on films being released over here in different years than their country of origin, but regardless, well, yeah.
Anyway, that was fun. Question still stands though.
If you'll indulge me (and it's Marter, not Mater ;p).Hawki said:
I keep relatively extensive records of the films I watch, and this is what I've got when comparing this year and last year (theatrical films only; VOD releases have been excluded).
2015 overall: 211 films, 5.42/10.
2016 so far: 111 films, 5.02/10).
With just those, we've got the same drop (if you halve mine to get down to a rating out of 5).
But there's more to it than that, I think.
For 2015, 23.44% of the films I saw were ones that I gave a 7/10 or higher to. That's actually lower than 2016's, which is at 24.53%. However, it's the films that I gave a 3/10 or lower to where there's a big difference. Last year was at 21.20%, while this year sees it at 30.82%.
Looking even further into it, on a month-by-month basis, 2016 is still worse. The "Summer Movie Season," as far as I'm concerned, is May-August. Counting only the wide-release movies (AKA the ones most people see), here's what we've got:
2015: May (5.20/10, 10 films), June (5.63/10, 8 films), July (5.57/10, 14 films), August (5.00/10, 12 films)
2016: May (5.38/10, 8 films), June (5.45/10, 11 films), July (4.77/10, 13 films), August (4.90/10, 10 films)
The weighted averages for the two years are: 2015 (5.34/10) and 2016 (5.10).
So, it's worse. And it is significantly worse, relatively speaking. 2016 is the lowest theatrical year I have from the 2010s, and that .40 gap between years is a big drop. Most years wind up somewhere around 5.30, and when you're playing with numbers like this, a .40 drop is significant when it's a large sample size. I think the feeling, though, that it's been utterly dreadful, is that 30.82% "terrible" film rate, which is higher than any other 2010 year I have by more than 6%.
With that said, it isn't fair to evaluate a year on the whole prior to the year finishing. Statistically speaking, it's due to have some correction. The "awards" movies are still to come, after all. It'll likely end up closer to 2011 (5.17/10) than last year, but it will improve. It's just that there's been a lot of garbage, and many of the big movies have disappointed.
Obviously the ratings are all subjective, and not perfect for everyone, but it's a much larger sample size and comparing year to year should remain rather constant given that it's all my ratings.
I wonder, you mention a startle scare at the start of the movie, but does it have a lot of those? Because I like horror, but I hate jump scares so I end up barely watching horror movies.
At first I thought you might be referencing Caligula rather than Fun Size, but a more apt one for Caligula would be "mashed potatoes". I was going to watch that scene again to see whether or not a drumstick was involved, but then I realized I didn't want to watch any part of that movie again.Marter said:
Hmm, okay. Follow-up question; are they accompanied with loud sudden noises? My Asperger's makes kinda sensitive to that. I hope not because I'm really interested in this movie.Marter said:
Windknight said:
I got that hint of that being a plot twist from watching the trailer. Still, if you break into someone's house. You deserve whatever bad thing that happens to you. Regardless, if the person is a good, normal person or a raging psycho.lacktheknack said: