suspiciouscoffee
Well-known member
- Messages
- 631
- Reaction score
- 16
- Trophy Points
- 33
Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request
TVs Frink said:Well the movie spent two hours shitting on the main (female, which is relevant) character, so it was plenty violent for me. The actual violence was the just the icing on the cake.
And hard pass at all the directors claims of "what it meant."
thecuddlyninja said:The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
I kept waiting for the strange, fucked up premise to come, this being a Yorgos Lanthimos movie, and it did not disappoint. Like his previous films, the premise was both otherworldly yet allowed for the exploration of some basic, human truths, ones which we would rather not confront.
This time, it's the hierarchy within a family that is explored. In real life, children compete for their parents' attention, affection and love. Spouses worry about their place in the hierarchy now that there are kids. This movie makes that shit LITERAL, which is a thing I enjoy about Lanthimos' work. I thought the flat affect work by Colin Farrell was great yet again, and really played into his cowardly character. The moment when he FINALLY breaks down, accepts what is happening and more importantly accepts his accountability, was some beautiful acting. However, this time I thought that same flat affectation hurt the film when it comes to all the other characters. I did not enjoy Barry Keoghan or Nicole Kidman's performances much. I thought the Martin character could have been a lot more interesting. I understand the focus is on the family, but if that's the idea then don't have him kidnapped by them. I think the film lays bare some ugly human thoughts we have about our family, and that's commendable. But this was not nearly as engrossing a watch as the first half of the Lobster, and well below the Favourite. I wonder if I'd seen this film first if it would have gotten an extra half star, but because I just saw a brilliant Lanthimos film, the comparison hurts this one. Also, for the record the wife and I debated the end of this one and we both definitely would have shot Martin first, just to see if that would break the curse. He appeared to have some control over it, so that's what I would have done, if I'm being honest about child murder. I also thought the movie let Colin Farrell's character off the hook. He was able to kill one without choosing. I thought the better ending would have been to have the whole climax go down the same way. I love the irony of the family member that debased themselves the least being the one who got killed. But, if Martin's curse required Dr. Murphy to CHOOSE, then that wouldn't lift the curse. So because he did it in a cowardly way which avoids holding himself accountable, the curse continues. So after that, when they're at the diner, the last shot should be a drop of blood coming out of the daughter's eye.
suspiciouscoffee said:I kinda thought of it that he did choose, and that the one he killed isn't the one he chose. It seemed to me that the boy was definitely his favorite and that he wanted to kill one of the others. It's been about a year since i saw it, but if i remember right, he did narrowly miss the others with his first two shots and, either by sheer bad luck, dizziness, or maybe part of the curse, he killed the one he loved most.
suspiciouscoffee said:Yes, that's what I meant.
jrWHAG42 said:I just watched the movie adaptation of The World According to Garp, it was not good. So many unnecessary additions and changes, important aspects removed or shortened, it really shouldn't have been made into a movie.