OH MY GOD! The brutal part about this is it starts out good and then the last half is unbearably bad. How did this movie get 90% on Rotten Tomatoes? I will never trust that site again. I'm not sure how it is possible for anyone to give this ridiculous movie a positive review.
shareI am not being rude but how old are you? Just curious.
shareNo, OP is right. It starts out fine enough but devolves into ridiculousness. I really liked "You're Next" and was looking forward to "The Guest". Well, it sucked. It's biggest mistake...taking itself seriously, which is what "You're Next" did not do. I also thought actor who played the main character (David) was pretty awful, as was pretty much everyone in the cast. And before you start questioning my age or my taste in movies, save your breath. What worked really well in "You're Next" almost never works in "The Guest".
Someone on here said the first 40 minutes of this movie is some of the best filmmaking in years. HOW?????? I don't see it!!!!!
"I also thought actor who played the main character (David) was pretty awful..."
- ... What?
You heard me correctly.
shareI thought I did... That's just... crazy.
shareI'll give him credit for fooling me into thinking he's American. Okay, he had some good scenes, so I'll take back the "awful" remark. But something about his performance and the way he talked really annoyed me. You might accuse me of backpedaling, but I would call it re-evaluating.
shareI understand. I consider it a very complex performance. An English guy playing an American soldier who is pretending to be someone he's not, while really being a programmed supersoldier (brainwashed/cyborg) on the run, who has no choice but to kill anyone who discovers he's not who he pretends to be, even if he really doesn't want to. I thought it was a great performance. He was charming when he needed to be, funny when he needed to be, and scary/intense when he needed to be.
shareI have a feeling that he won't kill the kid, they have a "connection". I think that David trusts the boy. (assuming there will be a squeal)
shareI'm noticing that it hasn't occurred to a lot of people that the first half of the movie plays itself out in a more, "serious" tone so that they can go ballistic with it in the final third of the movie.
It's almost like, "Oh! This isn't how I expected this movie to be at all. It sucks!"
You all just look pretty green by making these uninformed comments here. I liked how berzerker it gets after he kills the gun dealer and his buddy.
My thought as the last scene was happening was, now, these teenagers are going to get blamed for all of these deaths because the guy that they are going to say did it gets away.
But from what the fire fighters said they have the burned body but no teeth so no ID. So everyone will think "David" is dead. Officially. I mean he pulled it off once before at the army base.
The only one who thinks, or saw him I should say, in the firefighters outfit is the daughter. But she just saw his eyes. So was it really him? The limp gave him away, too.
As cool as a sequel might be I do not see it being "The Guest II" as he'd have to be a "guest" again to fit that title. Plus the impulse to make "David" more Terminator-like and ultimately cartoonish would be ever present. I'd just assume they not.
Like another film that pretty much begged for a sequel called "No One Lives", another go round would have, again, turned the anti-hero\killer into a unstoppable cartoon. Thankfully, at least so far, they have left the film be.
You all just look pretty green by making these uninformed comments here. I liked how berzerker it gets after he kills the gun dealer and his buddy.
Hmmm. Maybe it is you who is green and uninformed about film.
Read up on suspension of disbelief please. Suspension of disbelief isn't something that is usually controlled by the viewer. There might be the odd person or two (like my mother) who can't accept anything in a film unless it is verifiably 'real' in the sense that it could happen or would happen in reality. Most people aren't like my mother. Most people watch films and can enjoy the premise, invest in the characters, believe a film while not actually thinking it's real or becoming disgruntled that it "couldn't possibly happen IRL". That is the whole purpose of skillful film making though - to overcome inherent disbelief, to 'suspend' it with ease, to move and impress the audience who know none of this stuff really happened. See also the "Paradox of fiction" on wiki:
1. Most people have emotional responses to characters, objects, events etc. which they know to be fictitious.
2. On the other hand, in order for us to be emotionally moved, we must believe that these characters, objects, or events, truly exist.
3. But no person who takes characters or events to be fictional at the same time believes that they are real.
The paradox shows how difficult it is for film makers to keep audiences invested, entertained and emotionally attached to the character while watching events which will usually be way outwith their normal lived experience.
As for The Guest. The filmmakers were obviously not skilled or talented enough to have most viewers suspend disbelief when they wanted you to believe the guy was suddenly not a Good Decent Buddy but actually a murderous cyborg.
When people complain that a movie is not realistic or that they thought they were 'watching a different movie" for the second half, for example - usually what you're seeing isn't ignorant viewers, but film makers who didn't obey basic rules of suspension of disbelief. Not only did they switch from tone and context, they actually switched genre of film! From a downbeat social realism tale of war to a blood red gore fest with robots, etc. It is pure nonsense and no wonder people who thought they were watching a true-to-life tale about war vets felt cheated.
His performance was one of the most enjoyable in recent times. I can't understand what you don't like about it.
Ha-ha! I threw that *beep* before I walked in the room!
Check out Truth or Die.
shareThe Guest doesn't take itself seriously...and btw nobody is right, nobody is wrong. If you think the movie devolved into ridiculouness at some point it's your opinion. I personaly really liked the movie for more reasons than just the plot...most people only see the plot when they watch a movie, nothing else. Cinema is an art. It's more than just a text.
"No trouble, kids stuff..."
I think you guys are wrong. The movie started off okay, but not good enough to be taken that seriously, so when it became completely over the top and ridiculous it was fine, because I didn't care that much about the characters earlier. Then the last few seconds of the movie were great.
shareThere's a reason why "You're Next" got a theatrical release and this on I'd never heard of until I was browsing Red Box. And if I'm mistaken and I somehow missed it coming out (which I doubt), I don't think it played for more than 2 weeks.
share[deleted]
I wish I was as young as you think I am. With all due respect this movie was not meant to be a parody. The fact that it came off as one proves my point.
shareI said a homage. A parody is different from a homage. The film did a great job of having that 80s action/slasher vibe. I don't think you understand what this movie was suppose to accomplish. Then again you laugh at gang rape jokes on the sons of anarchy board so I can't take you too seriously.
shareThis is probobly a stupid question, but can u tell me what the meaning of the film is rushroadie2112? :p
share
This is probobly a stupid question, but can u tell me what the meaning of the film is rushroadie2112?
I love 80's thrillers and action flicks. This film is worse than any 80's thriller I can think of, and I've seen hundreds, no parody, throwback, self-aware or whatever excuse can excuse this film for ever being made. Please don't belittle a great movie era by saying this is an 80's throwback. Awful, awful film.
shareYou enjoyed the movie. I think the movie is terrible. You will not convince me otherwise. Now move on with your life.
shareYou enjoyed the movie. I think the movie is terrible. You will not convince me otherwise. Now move on with your life.
"How did this movie get 90% on Rotten Tomatoes?"
I suppose people liked it. That is usually how it works. And you are in the 10% who doesn't like it. Not sure what the problem is.
Thank you Captain Literal
share"You don't agree with me, so I'm going to question your age and action movie knowledge!" What a moron. I agree this movie sucked and no one will change my mind either.
shareWhy in the hell would we care what your opinion is on this movie? You watch and then review poorly direct-to-video horror movies, as if you expect them to be Oscar-worthy. There is a reason those movies don't get theatrical releases. It's difficult to take your opinion with more than a grain of salt when you seem to only watch bottom-of-the-barrel Netflix fodder.
shareHey we can leave indy horror out of this. There are actually great horror films that go straight to video but that's how the genre is now.
sharePlease, can we not pretend that 'theatrical release' and 'Oscar-worthy' are actually hallmarks for quality in film making when we all know that 95% of the Hollywood releases that you were referring to are capitalism-on-speed superhero franchises like the gutter level Deadpool.
And the Oscars are not much more than a group of old white men who indulge in so much crony back patting and patting of their own' backs that they have arthritic snapped off wrists.
First half was really solid. Loved the bar scene and I couldn't wait to see how it played out.
But then the tone completely changed and the movie became a lazy, conscious ripoff of John Carpenter. The deaths weren't even played dramatically which conflicts with how the movie was initially set up. The mother was in great pain mourning her son. Had to excuse herself from the room when Stevens said her son loved her. (SPOILER)
Then when she was killed, it was almost campy. Fine if you want to be campy, but be consistent about it.
I am remarkably surprised at the 90% rating as well. While it is not as bad as most films with a similar premise (read "Universal Soldier" or something of that ilk), the pacing is rather screwed up. Initially it is a suspense thriller, but devolves into a combination of slasher/action flick, moving way too quickly (lots of killing and changing of scene). Finally, the last sequence of events slows to a crawl, with virtually no emotional payoff for the pace change.
I kinda felt like it deserved a barely fresh rating, simply because it's the best example of this type of film in a long while.
Just my opinion though.
The movie had a somewhat serious tone for about the first 5 minutes. It quickly became very apparent what sort of tone the movie was setting and it was not a serious, straight-forward tone at all. It was obvious something strange was up with the main character very early on with him just looking straight ahead and sitting/standing motionless accompanied by eerie music. I thought he was probably some sort of sleeper assassin and it turned out he was.
One of the earliest scenes in the movie is the main character asking the son about how he got the bruise on his face and then showing up at the school and following the bullies to the bar where he proceeds to beat the ever loving crap out of them and it was fully established at that point the sort of over the top and outlandish movie The Guest was.
The Guest was a great throwback to the over the top action and horror movies of the 80s and 90s which I grew up on so I really liked it.
7.5/10
I agree, I was shocked to see it given 6.7 on here, I was expecting around 4! An absolutely terrible film!
shareIn my opinion it falls in the "it's so ridicule you enjoy the hell out of it".. i really liked the movie, i was entertained during the whole movie
shareRotten Tomatoes is pretty much worthless. i stopped consulting it a long time ago, after getting badly burned too many times by rave reviews for rancid mediocrities.
share