Welcome to Thunderdome

Yay Netflix!

Sandra Bullock is trying to lead two kids down a river to safety while all three of them are blindfolded. Why? Well, that story gets told as well and involves John Malkovich. Although, be aware that nothing else gets explained.

I would go into more detail, but I don't want to spoil a different movie.

See A Quiet Place FIRST, then see this one.

A Quiet Place is done much better, but this one is still ok.

Better than meh, but since it's almost a clone of A Quiet Place, not sure I can call it good.

I read an argument that suggested this was a direct sequel to Cabin in the Woods. Like, next day.

CitW spoilers:


So because of stoner guy, the "Ancient Ones" get released from their eternal slumber. The end of the movie shows one escaping. So, they're out.

It was hinted that these are like Lovecraft's "Great Old Ones," Cthulu ajnd the like, who would drive you mad if you even looked at them.

And then look at what was happening in this story.


That being said, I didn't care for this movie all that much. The entire "bird box" gimmick was completely pointless, since every single time the birds went apeshit, the humans already knew they were in danger. So what was the fucking point? It's like a fire alarm that only works when you already know you're on fire. Only at the end, with the guy's throwaway line, did it suggest that birds were useful.

I dunno.

Overrated.

Also I don't think you could navigate a river, blind. I've canoed many rivers. You constantly are making course corrections. Constantly.

GORDON wrote: I read an argument that suggested this was a direct sequel to Cabin in the Woods. Like, next day.

That's a bad argument made by someone who didn't understand Cabin in the Woods.

GORDON wrote: The entire "bird box" gimmick was completely pointless

RIGHT!?!!?

GORDON wrote: Only at the end, with the guy's throwaway line, did it suggest that birds were useful.

And even that line suggested they were only kinda, sorta useful.

I watched this because of all the hype I'd been seeing on social media.

The rumor is starting to gain steam that this movie is mediocre, and all that social media hype was actually aggressive marketing, and it worked.

GORDON wrote: That being said, I didn't care for this movie all that much. The entire "bird box" gimmick was completely pointless, since every single time the birds went apeshit, the humans already knew they were in danger. So what was the fucking point? It's like a fire alarm that only works when you already know you're on fire. Only at the end, with the guy's throwaway line, did it suggest that birds were useful.

Aside from the moment the birds are realised to be useful, yes, they were worthless.

GORDON wrote: Overrated

Also, yes.

GORDON wrote: Also I don't think you could navigate a river, blind. I've canoed many rivers. You constantly are making course corrections. Constantly.

And hell yes. I kept thinking there was no way they could do it blindfolded. Even minor rocks can tip you over.

GORDON wrote: I watched this because of all the hype I'd been seeing on social media.

The rumor is starting to gain steam that this movie is mediocre, and all that social media hype was actually aggressive marketing, and it worked.

If people think this movie was good, it's because they watch too much Netflix, and are too used to mediocrity and terribleness.

It occurred to me while responding to Catt's FB post.... how fucking emotionally abusive was she? Didn't want to get attached to those babies, so she never even named them. Then she fucked them up on the river by telling one of them she was going to sentence them to death, she just hadn't decided which, yet.

GORDON wrote: It occurred to me while responding to Catt's FB post.... how fucking emotionally abusive was she? Didn't want to get attached to those babies, so she never even named them. Then she fucked them up on the river by telling one of them she was going to sentence them to death, she just hadn't decided which, yet.

I was fine with her not being able to let her kid volunteer, but at the same time struggling with condemning the other child. I thought that was actually one of the better things in the film. Kill your kid or live with the guilt of killing someone else's child. A real Sophie's Choice.

However, the naming of them as "boy" and "girl" was fucking ridiculous and served no purpose.

There must have been more off-screen than that. "Girl" was afraid of her.

Leisher wrote: I was fine with her not being able to let her kid volunteer, but at the same time struggling with condemning the other child. I thought that was actually one of the better things in the film. Kill your kid or live with the guilt of killing someone else's child. A real Sophie's Choice.

Me: This is just Sophie's Choice. It added some tension, but also, nothing new here.

For the record, it would never have occurred to me to sacrifice a kid to save some time on-river. Fucking park the boat and walk, if it's a problem.

That's why she was a psycho abuser.

GORDON wrote: Fucking park the boat and walk, if it's a problem.

Literally, what should have taken place from the get go. No way they could make it in a boat over rapids IRL. Walk along the river and use its sound to guide you. Plus, its noise would cover the sound you make keeping you safe from the crazies.

It also really bugged me that there were actual entities doing the "possessing". How many of them were there because there are something like 8 billion people, and if there aren't a metric fuckton of baddies, it would take a while to get all the people.

GORDON wrote:
That's why she was a psycho abuser.

Holy shit, what if that's the secret.

From the beginning she was in denial about being pregnant, and becoming a parent, and bonding with the child. What if she was borderline insane from the beginning.... and what if she actually HAD seen the monsters from the beginning, but they didn't affect her, like the rest of the crazies.... and while she didn't go full "You must look at the monsters, they are beautiful" psycho, she was still a little psycho to the point of not even naming her child. Who does that? I'll tell you who... a crazy person.

Besides, as I am fond of saying, being female already makes her like 49% insane.

"We've lost kids on the rapids before, they are very dangerous. Just follow the sound of the birds when you get to the bottom of the rapids. Btw, I'm blind and not impacted by these creatures."

"Uh, what if you, who are blind and unaffected, just met us at the top of the rapids?"

"Oh, yeah, that's a much better idea, let's do that"

GORDON wrote: From the beginning she was in denial about being pregnant, and becoming a parent, and bonding with the child. What if she was borderline insane from the beginning.... and what if she actually HAD seen the monsters from the beginning, but they didn't affect her, like the rest of the crazies.... and while she didn't go full "You must look at the monsters, they are beautiful" psycho, she was still a little psycho to the point of not even naming her child. Who does that? I'll tell you who... a crazy person

You know, we don't really know that she never looked. She was in the car next to her sister, she was there when John Malkovich's wife was possessed, when the crazy guy tore down all the window stuff.

Yep. SHe'd been faking being "normal" from the beginning, even before the happening.

And for the record, that's an original speculation, from me. Haven't seen it anywhere else.

I actually liked most of this movie. The river was dumb. The ending was dumb.

The rest was ok.

Oh, I didn't think this was ANYTHING like The Quiet Place. Introducing the humans-turned-evil gave it a totally different element. The twisted humans ended up being worse than the monsters.

When I heard about the "they're beautiful" part I thought of the Silo series.

[video][/video]