MovieChat Forums > McQualude

McQualude (2439)


1984 = worst season Anyone else find the first half dull? [spoilers] It's a good movie until Sammi Curr [spoilers] S3 starts Nov 1st S2 starts Nov 4th S2 Starts Oct 15th. Trailer looked bad, is it bad? Why is the politics board in 2 places? Why save Mateo? Ep2 was better View all posts >


Spoiler in the title is not cool. The trailer is poorly done and the movie looks dumb. Bad trailer = bad movie. I only know one autistic person in real life and his family, mom especially, treat him like a child even though he's a grown man, so he acts like a child. He's only mildly autistic and I wouldn't even think of him as autistic if his family didn't act like he's broken. I believe he could live on his own and have a normal life but his mom is overprotective and treats him like he can't do anything so all he ever talks about is himself because that's all anyone talks about while with him. Roanoke was bad but this is worse. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there were no writers and no script, the actors made it up as they went along. It's not. I watched a bunch of 80's slashers in anticipation of the season and this isn't an 80's slasher nor a parody of one, it isn't anything. Jeff Bridges in Iron Man That seems strange to me. People touching is normal, terms of endearment are normal. Were you socially isolated as a child? His self centeredness may have nothing to do with autism. Plenty of people are. I use a 4 point system and generally consider 5 attributes: 1) technical (which I know the least about but enough to know when something is well made, or not), 2) writing, 3) acting, 4) entertainment, 5) level of success at what it wants to be (if it wants to be a horror film, is it scary? if it's a love story, do I identify with the characters emotionally?) 1. Sucks, all attributes fail, probably will not finish the movie. 2. Works on some levels, some attributes are successful. Not likely to recommend the movie. If genre, only the most hardcore fans will appreciate. (most remakes) 3. Most attributes are competently achieved. The film is entertaining but for most people a one time viewing, except to fans of the genre or franchise. 4. All attributes are adequate or better, some are above average. The film will be influential. It appeals to it's intended audience and is likely to get repeat viewings. So while I'm considering the overall objective quality, I'm also considering if the film is successful and appealing to it's intended audience, so it's a relative score, not an absolute. Movies that hold themselves as high art will be judged more critically. A low budget movie that is competently but simply shot with enthusiastic but unskilled actors and has an interesting story may score a 3. And if I were actually reviewing movies in some form that mattered, I would use a 2 part rating system that would first give a score based on technical merits and second score based on its subjective effectiveness with intended audience. The aforementioned B movie might get a score of 2|3, below average technically, above average in entertaining to its intended audience. This show keeps getting better. View all replies >