MovieChat Forums > Aries > Replies
Aries's Replies
It's open to interpretation - you could argue for either possibility. I think the dad was too shocked to do anything, which is why he walked out, collapsed and screamed upon realizing his autistic son had devoured his mother.
You could also make the case that he did that because he killed the boy, but the movie wasn't exactly squeamish about gore and I think they would've shown him killing his son if he had done it.
I'm leaning towards him not killing the boy.
Same way the autistic son suddenly started talking and acting like a regular person - possession. The girl was possessed (contracted from the dog) and could probably heal like Wolverine as a result lol. Dead people reanimate, walk and talk (due to the demon inside using their body like an avatar driver) once possessed, so enhanced healing isn't too much of a stretch in this scenario.
I just finished watching the movie. Re-watched the end after reading your post and there is definitely NO sound of a knife being stuck in flesh (I checked thrice with my headphones on full volume). Only sound you hear is the door squeaking when he shuts it as he comes outside.
So the fate of his autistic son is ambiguous at best.
<blockquote>the melting ice cream covers up what looks like a child's figure on the table</blockquote>
The child's figure thing that drowns in the ice cream is the pendant from his mother's necklace. You can see her toying with it while she explains the 7 rules to her grandson in the car, when the 5 of them are driving away from the kid's mother just after she gets killed.
In the scene prior to that, the brother talks to the boy in the barn, who says that he ate his mother and that is then shown to also be the case with Pedro's autistic son eating his grandma, which is why he was throwing up her hair, flesh and pendants. Ridiculous to imagine a boy (or even an adult) eating a whole human being, clothes, necklaces and all, but then this movie isn't exactly based on a true story anyway.
Haven't seen AGS, will check it out.
And yeah, Rocky didn't lose even though he lost the fight. Mason not winning it unanimously and with ease can be seen as a victory of sorts to Rocky. Mason wouldn't have stood a chance against a prime Rocky.
Yes, great list!
<blockquote>I would have liked to have seen Ludmilla and Mary-Ann have a moment</blockquote>
Ditto. I would also liked to have seen Rocky in the funeral, but understand that they wanted to move the Creed character and movies away from his enormous shadow.
Yeah, Drago training him wouldn't have been a bad idea. But at least we got to see them be amicable to each other and that was satisfying for me to watch.
Each to their own, but to me, Creed 2 was the logical, necessary and perfect sequel to Creed. It was the Aliens to Creed's Alien IMO.
Creed set up the stage by establishing the Adonis character and his becoming Rocky's padawan perfectly.
Once done, the best course of action they could take was to do what they did in Creed II - to rekindle the rivalry all the way back from Rocky IV and giving it a more satisfactory closure than Sly's fight with Dolph at the end of the movie. Drago's son was dangerous and bests Adonis the first time, so we get to see him avenging his father's death symbolically and redeem himself with a little help from Rocky.
Creed II for me is the 2nd best movie (counting just the fighting scenes) in the entire Rocky + Creed series. The fights were amazing, Victor was a more menacing beast than Ivan ever was (and without all the campy Russian high tech BS from Rocky IV) and he bought out the best fighter out of Adonis. But yeah, I can also accept that others don't like it as much.
Spielberg (like Greta Thunberg, Leo DiCaprio, AOC, John Kerry, Al Gore, Blowjobama and the rest of the climate alarmists) knows as much about climate change as the flies buzzing around a pile of dog shit know about advanced calculus.
Every one of the fear mongering a**holes I've mentioned above and their leftist colleagues have zero integrity and a bigger carbon footprint per year than 100 average people put together (not that carbon footprint is necessarily as big a factor as it's made out to be in the mass hysteria, if at all). These are people who'd sell their mother's soul for more fame and money, so it's hardly surprising that they are recruited to be mouthpieces to spread propaganda about an issue that none of them have the slightest clue about.
Case in point, Blowjobama, who has been saying that most coastal areas will be underwater within 5-10 years, for over 2 decades, bought a huge beach front property in Martha's Vineyard a few years ago. John Kerry, Leo DiCaprio and doom goblin Greta all fly private to climate conferences numerous times a year when they are not lazing around on their huge diesel sucking yachts to wind down.
And they don't even have to hide the hypocrisy, cause they have an army of low IQ "I support the current trend" soy warriors aka leftists to take up the cause and defend it fiercely, who keep screaming that we should trust the science, which is "settled" (oh brother). The same science which also tells us (according to them) that Elliot Page is a man and that eating bugs & paying more taxes will make the climate "gooder" LMAO!
I found it very unpleasant to watch at times and the husband was one of the most annoying characters of all time - a weak, emasculated, sniveling, cowardly, pathetic fool who breaks down and cries like a child when intimidated. He reminded me of the character Bjorn from 'Speak no evil', which was also a very unpleasant and infuriating movie to watch.
Men being weak and literally crying under stress seems to be getting normalized lately - I've seen it in at least 3 or 4 movies just this year alone. The movie did have some good parts and I liked the Red Caps. But it was also absurd and inconsistent, like the guy getting shot with a shotgun point blank and he just carried on with the cleanup with his arm in a sling instead of bleeding out to death.
6/10 for me and won't be watching again.
Everyone is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty by law. Saying that is not the same as supporting the person who has been accused.
So you just want to get rid of due process and automatically assume everyone (men only, going by your statement) is guilty and should be sentenced without any need for proof or conviction? You think women never lie about being assaulted or raped if it suits their agenda for whatever reason?
JR seemed a little cold and detached, even though she had a few close scenes with the kids, cuddling them etc. Just didn't find her very convincing there, although she pulled off the annoyed, frustrated parts well. Sandra Bullock's played a few warmer, more believable roles as a mom (like in The Blind Side and Bird Box) and would've been a better choice IMO.
I've also felt that EH is very similar to Bacon in some ways. EH's probably the better actor of the two, but it would've been very unconvincing if they'd switched roles, so the casting got that part right.
I was just drawing from the pool of movies released in the last 10-15 years, in the mainstream Marvel & DC productions. But yes, those are some solid contenders too (had forgotten about how shitty Fant4stic was).
Absolutely, I get that. Just wondering if anyone else thinks SB would've been a better choice (not that there is anything lacking with JR's portrayal of the role).
Can't expect anything less from Blowjobama.
Not sure if you're being serious, but Creatine is a(n OTC) supplement, not gear.
And don't load - waste of time and you'll just pee it all out. Just take 5g a day with water (before your workout on the days you train). Go off for 2-4 weeks after taking it for 6-8 weeks.
<blockquote>I don't see them as SUCCESSFULLY making fun of anything</blockquote>
Because they aren't funny (and can't meme). They are a joke, tho.
Only time a leftist is funny is when they're being serious (in arguments, political stances, POVs etc)
Marvel is mostly people trying to be gods while DC is gods playing people.
DC's biggest problem is the writers and the producers that are in charge of the cinematic universe. DC's animations are awesome, really well made and blow Marvel's out of the water, which is why they are very successful and well received.
You don't have to necessarily identify with a character for the movie to succeed. If you did, then Godzilla movies would be a flop. DC heroes and heroines exist and operate as "normal" humans in the same world that they save from the baddies. Being OP isn't a problem, as long as there is an equal (more or less) and opposite character or team to pose a challenge (e.g. Thanos vs the Avengers).
DCU's movies have failed because WB has failed DC, by making a clusterfuck out of the incredibly popular and talented pool they had to dip into, via re-shoots & re-edits, subpar writers & directors, changing players midway through projects and failing to put out polished end products. They should've followed their own playbook and taken their time to establish the Cavill Superman + Affleck Batman + Gadot WW team, instead of getting confused early on and trying to copy Marvel's formula unsuccessfully.
Cavill's SM and Affleck's BM could've been way more popular than anything from Marvel (or at least tied it for the worst case scenario), but WB dropped the ball and here we are today.
Good to hear, thanks.
Sounds a lot like Shin Godzilla. I never expect a Godzilla or Kaiju film that runs 90 minutes to have an hour or more of pure monster action and fighting, coz that would be stupid and overkill. As long as there are enough scenes featuring the Big G and the movie is good, I'm fine with it.
Haha I got paranoid when I saw the spoiler tag.
You gonna watch this? I still like the 2014 Godzilla movie more than the 2 sequels and thought Shin Godzilla was good too. Keen to watch this since it seems to be uniformly getting praise everywhere.
I'll read what you wrote in the spoiler tags after I've watched the movie, thanks.