Trigger warning/ Content Warning: discussion of sexual assault.
Assorted thoughts from watching this with extra added bonus CAPSLOCK. Consider this my almost-but-not-quite liveblogging of this movie:
Man, that building (from the first movie) STILL has the power to send a shiver down my spine. A++ for location on the first film, movie makers.
Oh lord, I am already bored with the “damsel in distress and her rescuer” storyline. This dude is seriously rubbing me the wrong way. So HELP me if this thing turns into a romance... (They did that already in [Rec 3] loved it there. Will NOT love it here. Sidenote: [Rec 3] is a departure from the style and tone of the other movies, and I still loved it.)
Are they trying to make this awesome character from the first two movies as useless as possible? UGH! Come on writers, ANGELA IS NOT USELESS. I really enjoyed that in the first movie, she wasn’t that stereotypical STRONG! BADASS! WOMAN! character, but she fought really hard for her survival.
So, THAT’s how we’re gonna tie the 2nd and 3rd movies in the universe together, huh? All right, we’ll go with it. Poor old lady.
Ew. This “dude as peeping tom/voyeur” thing as a matter of course is just...ew. So very tired of seeing this EVERY. FREAKING. WHERE. In horror, in comedy, just stop. Dudes like looking at naked girls, ESPECIALLY without their permission, we get it. IT IS LAZY WRITING AND ALSO GROSS STOP USING IT.
Okay, that monkey looks fake, AND the way they filmed it was...exceptionally cruel. Cruelty can definitely be used as a tool, especially in horror, but that was just REALLY gratuitous. I understand that sometimes in horror, there is an urge to film stuff just because “hey, we can, and it looks cool,” but, once again, it looked REALLY FAKE. (this is when elder child “noped” out of watching. Put the people through terrible things, but you start being mean to animals? Absolutely not.)
Why wouldn’t you want the creepy thing OUT of you? I’m not sure I get her logic here. But...this bit has definite themes about bodily autonomy. There were definite sexual assault overtones in the way they chose to film it and...not sure how I feel about this. at all. (I’m okay with “uncomfortable” in horror. Sexual assault is something that many of us deeply fear, so exploring it in a horror context makes sense. It just seems that, once again, instead of being really thoughtful about how it’s filmed, it’s once again ALL about the shock value. UGH.) Also the "carrier" vs "infected" thing got a little muddy.
I guess we can SORT OF forgive the creepy voyeurism thing earlier since it was an actual plot point later. Kind of. I’m sure you could have found different way to foreshadow that though, I still stand by IT IS LAZY WRITING STOP USING IT.
Oh, thank god that dude’s a bad guy. Seriously, I have never been so RELIEVED to find out someone is a villain.
We’re really working the gross body horror/analogues to sexual assault here aren’t we? Still not sure how I feel about this. FREUD WOULD HAVE A FIELD DAY WITH THIS. (Even though his theories are mostly bunk.) Had a fascinating conversation with the younger child about this one after the movie, though. (He was not a fan. I was not a fan either, but I argued that it DID go along with what they were doing with the rest of the movie.)
Eh, you were creepy peeping tom guy, but at least you’ve sort of become more likable over the course of this movie. SORT OF. I guess it’s okay that you’re probably going to live.
Apparently zombies can’t swim. Wonder why none of them even seem to be falling off the side of the boat. IS THE OCEAN SECRETLY FULL OF ZOMBIE REPELLANT?
Oh, don’t you dare not let her survive this movie. DON’T YOU DARE. Okay, the soundtrack REALLY BETTER NOT BE LYING TO ME about the hopeful ending in store.
Huh. Well, that was...something. I STILL DO NOT KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT THIS MOVIE. Other than, of course, it was nowhere near as good as the original [Rec] (Haven’t seen [Rec]? YOU NEED TO GO SEE IT. YES, the original Spanish version, NOT the US remake “Quarantine.” EMBRACE THE SUBTITLE, PEOPLE.)
Assorted thoughts from watching this with extra added bonus CAPSLOCK. Consider this my almost-but-not-quite liveblogging of this movie:
Man, that building (from the first movie) STILL has the power to send a shiver down my spine. A++ for location on the first film, movie makers.
Oh lord, I am already bored with the “damsel in distress and her rescuer” storyline. This dude is seriously rubbing me the wrong way. So HELP me if this thing turns into a romance... (They did that already in [Rec 3] loved it there. Will NOT love it here. Sidenote: [Rec 3] is a departure from the style and tone of the other movies, and I still loved it.)
Are they trying to make this awesome character from the first two movies as useless as possible? UGH! Come on writers, ANGELA IS NOT USELESS. I really enjoyed that in the first movie, she wasn’t that stereotypical STRONG! BADASS! WOMAN! character, but she fought really hard for her survival.
So, THAT’s how we’re gonna tie the 2nd and 3rd movies in the universe together, huh? All right, we’ll go with it. Poor old lady.
Ew. This “dude as peeping tom/voyeur” thing as a matter of course is just...ew. So very tired of seeing this EVERY. FREAKING. WHERE. In horror, in comedy, just stop. Dudes like looking at naked girls, ESPECIALLY without their permission, we get it. IT IS LAZY WRITING AND ALSO GROSS STOP USING IT.
Okay, that monkey looks fake, AND the way they filmed it was...exceptionally cruel. Cruelty can definitely be used as a tool, especially in horror, but that was just REALLY gratuitous. I understand that sometimes in horror, there is an urge to film stuff just because “hey, we can, and it looks cool,” but, once again, it looked REALLY FAKE. (this is when elder child “noped” out of watching. Put the people through terrible things, but you start being mean to animals? Absolutely not.)
Why wouldn’t you want the creepy thing OUT of you? I’m not sure I get her logic here. But...this bit has definite themes about bodily autonomy. There were definite sexual assault overtones in the way they chose to film it and...not sure how I feel about this. at all. (I’m okay with “uncomfortable” in horror. Sexual assault is something that many of us deeply fear, so exploring it in a horror context makes sense. It just seems that, once again, instead of being really thoughtful about how it’s filmed, it’s once again ALL about the shock value. UGH.) Also the "carrier" vs "infected" thing got a little muddy.
I guess we can SORT OF forgive the creepy voyeurism thing earlier since it was an actual plot point later. Kind of. I’m sure you could have found different way to foreshadow that though, I still stand by IT IS LAZY WRITING STOP USING IT.
Oh, thank god that dude’s a bad guy. Seriously, I have never been so RELIEVED to find out someone is a villain.
We’re really working the gross body horror/analogues to sexual assault here aren’t we? Still not sure how I feel about this. FREUD WOULD HAVE A FIELD DAY WITH THIS. (Even though his theories are mostly bunk.) Had a fascinating conversation with the younger child about this one after the movie, though. (He was not a fan. I was not a fan either, but I argued that it DID go along with what they were doing with the rest of the movie.)
Eh, you were creepy peeping tom guy, but at least you’ve sort of become more likable over the course of this movie. SORT OF. I guess it’s okay that you’re probably going to live.
Apparently zombies can’t swim. Wonder why none of them even seem to be falling off the side of the boat. IS THE OCEAN SECRETLY FULL OF ZOMBIE REPELLANT?
Oh, don’t you dare not let her survive this movie. DON’T YOU DARE. Okay, the soundtrack REALLY BETTER NOT BE LYING TO ME about the hopeful ending in store.
Huh. Well, that was...something. I STILL DO NOT KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT THIS MOVIE. Other than, of course, it was nowhere near as good as the original [Rec] (Haven’t seen [Rec]? YOU NEED TO GO SEE IT. YES, the original Spanish version, NOT the US remake “Quarantine.” EMBRACE THE SUBTITLE, PEOPLE.)
RSS Feed
