Bird Box (2018)

[ccphilly]

I LOVED this book...

[MaggieG]

So everyone sees a different fear? Looks interesting

[WritinMan]

The book was really good. I'll be curious to see how this is adapted.

[raven]

I really liked the book so was looking forward to this; unfortunately it was pretty bad. 

I thought the book was a pretty tight psychological examination of Malorie and her kids and how they survived.   The book did a good job of showing how Malorie struggled and adapted. 

The movie didn't really do any of that.  I didn't mind jumping right into the crisis, but we needed more of Sarah Paulson and what it was like for the two sisters together.   For me, the suicide scenes were kind of silly rather than horrific.    The house set was gorgeous but there was no closed in feel like in the book.  The main actors did their jobs - Bullock, Malkovich, BD Wong and Trevante Rhodes.    The "Gary" episode in the movie blew by so quickly; never mind that the guy has "crazy" written all over him, but Tom comes downstairs, see Gary's creature drawings, sees Malkovich's character locked in the garage, screaming at him about Gary being dangerous and....doesn't let him out of the garage??  The Gary scenario played out over more time in the book, upping the dread.  Here, everyone just looks kind of dumb, though Gary's actions were tense and horrific, I'll give the movie that.

I didn't mind the Malorie/Tom relationship fleshed out but that leads me to one of my biggest peeves about the movie, which is Malorie's characterization.  After Gary's actions, in the book Malorie is on her own with two newborns.  Having Tom be there changes everything about her character.  Movie Malorie seems unnecessarily harsh with the kids, rather than being tough to be protective.   Maybe the movie couldn't get decent child actors, but the kids essentially working with Malorie in the book to survive was interesting to me; they became very good at discerning sounds, for example. 

I didn't like the obvious malevolence of the movie creatures - I liked the possibility that they could be having these consequences on people unwittingly.  I also really disliked having random crazy people driving around - been there, done that in apocalypse movies.

I did LOL at having to shoot the rapids ! in their little canoe and everyone surviving, even the birds in the box!! 3 birds for Malorie and the two kids, all miraculously surviving.

Pretty disappointing overall.

[ScullyinApartment4]

I read the book (admittedly, way earlier this year or late last). This film is such a mixed bag. Sandra Bullock is such too old for the Malorie role, much too old. This was particularly apparent when she was crying or was frustrated. In the initial obstetric appointment scenes, they dressed her in that ridiculous nineties coat and silk pajamas (because what else would you wear to the doctors') it was ridiculous. Agree with those who said we needed more of Malorie's sister, and of Gary. Those 15 minutes of evil were the only thing that kept me interested. Though they left out the scariest/most nauseating part of the book.

 

Also Olympia was the nicer of the two aunts from The Chilling Adventures Of Sabrina, which plucked me right out of the story.

 

Can anyone explain to me, both in the film and the novel, how some can see the thing/shadows/apparition and not die? The ones who are touting it as beautiful, and a great world cleanse? How do they not die? It makes no sense.

 

I gave the novel three stars. Mostly for that terrifying Gary scene. And I've read other Malerman novels that leave a fairly average impression.

Edited December 22, 2018 by ScullyinApartment4

[raven]

1 hour ago, ScullyinApartment4 said:

Can anyone explain to me, both in the film and the novel, how some can see the thing/shadows/apparition and not die? The ones who are touting it as beautiful, and a great world cleanse? How do they not die? It makes no sense.

People who are already insane can see the whatever-it-is and not commit suicide.   In the movie, Gary was almost certainly an escapee from the asylum for the criminally insane that he talks about and in the book, he was just a regular guy who happened to be insane, though not criminally IIRC.

[ScullyinApartment4]

18 minutes ago, raven said:

People who are already insane can see the whatever-it-is and not commit suicide.   In the movie, Gary was almost certainly an escapee from the asylum for the criminally insane that he talks about and in the book, he was just a regular guy who happened to be insane, though not criminally IIRC.

Oh, gotcha! I kinda of hand waved the asylum stuff as a sob story to get his foot in the door. But that does make sense.

[cambridgeguy]

This would have been the greatest movie in the world if Rick was played by Andrew Lincoln. 

[WritinMan]

Well, that was disappointing. The book is much better. Don't really understand why they changed it so much.

[QQQQ]

17 hours ago, ScullyinApartment4 said:

Also Olympia was the nicer of the two aunts from The Chilling Adventures Of Sabrina, which plucked me right out of the story.

Olympia was played by Australian actress Danielle Macdonald (mid 20s). I think you're referring to English actress Lucy Davis (mid 40s). 

[Straycat80]

I didn’t read the book but I thought this movie was OK. I didn’t think it was scary at all. 

The actress who played Olympia (Danielle MacDonald) also played Willowdean in the Netflix movie Dumplin’. She’s a good actress. 

[Chaos Theory]

Wow I came here expecting people to AT LEAST like the movie because I thought it was really well done.  I guess its another case of reading the book vs not reading the book.  I didn't read the book or even know it was a book so I had no frame of reference.  I love thrillers and thought this was a really good one.    Might have liked a little more Sarah Paulson but then I always do.  

[ursula]

2 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

Wow I came here expecting people to AT LEAST like the movie because I thought it was really well done.  I guess its another case of reading the book vs not reading the book.  I didn't read the book or even know it was a book so I had no frame of reference.  I love thrillers and thought this was a really good one.    Might have liked a little more Sarah Paulson but then I always do.  

I also enjoyed the movie but as a book Stan, I definitely understand the frustration of an adaptation that misses the mark.

The movie was intense. I also agree that it would have made more sense if there was a time gap between Tom's death and the trip down the river.

[IDreamofJoaquin]

I'll have to read the book.

I felt like the script was cheap. They just happen to be with a guy who studies this phenomenon?  I feel like in other similar movies they find out a little bit about it at the time and there are reasonable explanations.  Instead it's all shoved into the first day.  I just don't see people having their shit together enough to be able to survive and figure this out.  I don't understand how it can't come inside a building if it can go through a monitor.  And why was the school for the blind in the middle of nowhere?  And that doctor just happens to be there and remembers her name?

I totally get why she was so strict with the kids.  She must have felt stressed constantly.  

I also wanted Andrew Lincoln to be Rick.

I was excited to watch this because it was filmed in my state at a place my family likes to hike and camp.

[Anela]

14 hours ago, Chaos Theory said:

Wow I came here expecting people to AT LEAST like the movie because I thought it was really well done.  I guess its another case of reading the book vs not reading the book.  I didn't read the book or even know it was a book so I had no frame of reference.  I love thrillers and thought this was a really good one.    Might have liked a little more Sarah Paulson but then I always do.  

I read the book, and thought the movie was okay, but I couldn't remember everything about it. Some people spoiled the ending on twitter. I don't remember the book ending being so hopeful, I thought she was horrified that some people had blinded themselves (I need to look it up, to see if I'm remembering that correctly). 

In googling, I've seen this called a rip-off of A Quiet Place. Not so: the book was out several years ago. I was actually wondering if John Krasinski had read the book. 

[raven]

3 hours ago, Anela said:

I thought she was horrified that some people had blinded themselves (I need to look it up, to see if I'm remembering that correctly). 

Yes, there were people who blinded themselves but it was told to Malorie that they don't do that anymore, it only happened right in the beginning of the apocalypse.

The book ended pretty hopeful as well, with Malorie and the kids finding the safe place.

[QQQQ]

This reminded me of The Mist (even a grocery store scene!). Some tense moments, some boring moments, and a feeling of "That's it?" at the ending.

[dkb]

On 12/23/2018 at 9:09 PM, Chaos Theory said:

 I didn't read the book or even know it was a book so I had no frame of reference.  I love thrillers and thought this was a really good one.    Might have liked a little more Sarah Paulson but then I always do.  

^^^ I thought this was pretty good as well. I like Sandra Bullock and thought she did great and the kids were pretty good for child actors. I called Gary being one of the escapees from the insane institution though. 

I'm assuming that Felix and Lucy probably died.

Will add the book to my 2019 TBR pile though, it will be interesting to see how I feel about the story after watching the movie.

[ursula]

Just wanted to add that I watched the movie thinking that Malorie's sister was Emily Blunt. 🤦🏾‍♀️

[JessePinkman]

On 12/26/2018 at 5:59 AM, ursula said:

Just wanted to add that I watched the movie thinking that Malorie's sister was Emily Blunt. 🤦🏾‍♀️

I started the movie fully expecting for SB and Sarah Paulson to be lovers.

This is surprising since Netflix is so reluctant to release concrete numbers.

[slf]

I'm always up for a post-apocalyptic movie or show with a woman in the lead and I love Sandy B. so I gave this a show earlier. It was slow in some places and too fast in others, imo, and the birds surviving the rapids was unrealistic but it got more right than wrong. The cast is solid; the only weak links were the actor and actress playing Felix and Lucy but their parts weren't large enough for it to be an issue. I'll cop to not caring for the Gary character or that aspect of the film - that insane people can see the creatures without killing themselves - but it didn't bother me.

I wish Jess had survived for a little while longer. Jess and Malorie had a lovely sibling relationship (even tho I had expected them to be a couple, lol) and Bullock and Paulson had fantastic chemistry. Speaking of chemistry and characters I wish had survived longer, I think Tom should have made it. Rhodes is a very charismatic and compelling actor and I loved the tenderness Tom had for Malorie. (In most movies, the woman is the tender one who keeps her broody/prickly male love interest going so it was nice to see that dynamic flipped.) I feel like Tom was killed to force Malorie into sole caretaker role and eventually embrace being a mother in a specific way. Motherhood, how women experience it and feel about it, has been explored a lot in recent years in scifi and horror movies (Grace, The Babadook, Hereditary, Arrival, etc) and I think horror has done it better than scifi in that horror movies allow the women to feel what they feel without judgement whereas scifi tends to, as I already said, be about women learning to embrace motherhood in a certain way. That's just how I feel, tho, maybe they were going for something completely different.

I think part of why this worked for me is that we didn't really get a look at the creatures. Not only does it make sense - when most people "see" them they are actually seeing their worst fear so of course they wouldn't really be seeing the creatures' true form - but honestly, what could they make the creatures look like that people would actually find scary?

On 12/24/2018 at 3:31 AM, IDreamofJoaquin said:

They just happen to be with a guy who studies this phenomenon?  I feel like in other similar movies they find out a little bit about it at the time and there are reasonable explanations.  Instead it's all shoved into the first day.  I just don't see people having their shit together enough to be able to survive and figure this out.  I don't understand how it can't come inside a building if it can go through a monitor.

Charlie didn't really study that phenomenon so much as he was just a mythology geek. If I had ended up in a similar situation at 12-15 I might've been able to give the same speech given my brief obsession with Celtic, Greek, and Egyptian mythology. In the end none of his information was really useful and it clearly wasn't the "end times" or Judgement Day. 

The creatures didn't come through the monitor, just seeing them on the camera was enough to affect Greg.

I liked them utilizing the suv sensors to drive blind, so to speak.

[shrewd.buddha]

The circumstances reminded me of the movie The Happening by  M. Night Shyamalan - where a phenomenon causes people to commit suicide immediately. Who can forget the classic scene of  Mark Wahlberg trying to have a conversation with a tree? 

Bird Box was entertaining for the most part. The mystery of the title was pretty straightforward, but the bird warning system did not really seem to play a major part in the story. 
It felt like a twist on the zombie apocalypse scenario, but with Sandra Bullock and her family issues ... which never really seemed as if they were explored. Did she have an emotional detachment problem, or did she think she was not good mother material? 

The two main parts were engaging:  1)the river trip and 2)the start of the apocalypse with a group of survivors getting picked off one by one. I guess that is where all the excitement was. But the child rearing years were only implied - so Malorie's emotional attachment issues with her kids on the trip did not carry a lot of weight (for me). 

Malorie's (and Tom's) decision to risk a journey to a sanctuary based on a very, very brief walkie-talkie conversation with very, very few details was hard to believe. But, okay..

An issue I have with most of these type post-apocalyptic tales is that after years of surviving, none of the characters seem interested in figuring out what is causing the phenomenon and trying to study the problem. Was there anything that could repel the creatures? Were they safer at night?  I suppose that would be considered boring in a movie.

But after five years (!) of surviving, the blindfolds they were using seemed incredibly flimsy and so easy to unwrap on their own. I guess they looked more stylish.. 

Edited January 2, 2019 by shrewd.buddha

[MisterGlass]

I thought this was fine.  Not great, not bad.  I put it on a similar shelf with Cargo, the post apocalyptic zombie Netflix did with Martin Freeman.  I haven't read the book, but I did notice similarities with other post apocalyptic films, including A Quiet Place.  I thought that was a better movie, though. 

I agree with you @shrewd.buddha, it was hard to completely understand Malorie's relationship to the kids with the five year jump.  I would like to have seen less of the early apocalypse and a bit more of that.  They did a lot with the little time they had in the present, but more time would have helped.  The resolution with the kids felt a little forced as a result.  And I agree with other posters that it would have helped to see more of her sister.

I absolutely thought Rick Grimes for the voice on the radio. 

[topanga]

On 12/30/2018 at 12:38 AM, slf said:

I'm always up for a post-apocalyptic movie or show with a woman in the lead and I love Sandy B. so I gave this a show earlier. It was slow in some places and too fast in others, imo, and the birds surviving the rapids was unrealistic but it got more right than wrong. The cast is solid; the only weak links were the actor and actress playing Felix and Lucy but their parts weren't large enough for it to be an issue. I'll cop to not caring for the Gary character or that aspect of the film - that insane people can see the creatures without killing themselves - but it didn't bother me.

I wish Jess had survived for a little while longer. Jess and Malorie had a lovely sibling relationship (even tho I had expected them to be a couple, lol) and Bullock and Paulson had fantastic chemistry. Speaking of chemistry and characters I wish had survived longer, I think Tom should have made it.

Thumbs up to your entire post. The movie was just okay, but it held my interest till the end. 

I also wish Tom had survived -- because he was a nice guy and was very easy on the eyes.

I also with Lil Rel had survived (the mythology nut who worked in the grocery store and got attacked by Fish Fingers). He's a comedian, so I liked seeing him play a mostly straight character--with bits of humor thrown in. It saddened me that he was the one who helped the group get food, and then he sacrificed himself so they could all stay alive. 

 

On 1/1/2019 at 10:18 AM, shrewd.buddha said:

The circumstances reminded me of the movie The Happening by  M. Night Shyamalan - where a phenomenon causes people to commit suicide immediately. Who can forget the classic scene of  Mark Wahlberg trying to have a conversation with a tree? 

<snip>

An issue I have with most of these type post-apocalyptic tales is that after years of surviving, none of the characters seem interested in figuring out what is causing the phenomenon and trying to study the problem. Was there anything that could repel the creatures? Were they safer at night?  I suppose that would be considered boring in a movie. 

It's funny that I'd just watched The Happening the week before in preparation for a podcast review. And yes, the two are very similar. 

I also get frustrated when people stop asking why or stop looking for a solution for a major global crisis. A simple throwaway line like "A virus..." or "After the war..." will satisfy me. At least in this movie, people were asking questions in the beginning. 

The Quiet Place started in the middle of the crisis. So I couldn't figure out when the family stopped asking why the monsters were out there. I certainly never stopped asking, and it disappointment me that I never got an answer. 

[millennium]

Terrible movie.   I think the tropical birds would have died from the cold during the canoe trip.

And if you can't look at the aliens without going suicidal, why is it okay to kinda-look at them through the gauzy part of the blindfold?  

The little girl was excellent despite the lousy film.

Edited January 8, 2019 by millennium

[slf]

On 1/1/2019 at 9:18 AM, shrewd.buddha said:

An issue I have with most of these type post-apocalyptic tales is that after years of surviving, none of the characters seem interested in figuring out what is causing the phenomenon and trying to study the problem. Was there anything that could repel the creatures? Were they safer at night?  I suppose that would be considered boring in a movie. 

I think any effort to understand what they were dealing with was hampered by not being able to see the creatures. They couldn't see them and so couldn't capture or study them. If just looking at them on a computer monitor is enough to drive you mad then there's no way the dark would protect you. Only the insane could really study them and...that's probably a non-starter.

I do wonder if the blind could hear them or if the creatures don't bother with someone once they realize that person is blind.

[ursula]

9 minutes ago, slf said:

I think any effort to understand what they were dealing with was hampered by not being able to see the creatures. They couldn't see them and so couldn't capture or study them. If just looking at them on a computer monitor is enough to drive you mad then there's no way the dark would protect you. Only the insane could really study them and...that's probably a non-starter.

 

Plus they were just figuring out how to survive the Monster and its... Disciples (for lack of a better word). If they had stayed with large numbers, they might have eventually got round to figuring out an offensive strategy but since their numbers kept dwindling, it made sense they concentrated on defense. 

[ribboninthesky1]

On 1/7/2019 at 5:19 AM, millennium said:

The little girl was excellent despite the lousy film.

I agree that the little girl was really good. 

On 1/4/2019 at 3:58 PM, topanga said:

I also wish Tom had survived -- because he was a nice guy and was very easy on the eyes.

It was really a shame that Tom survived for 5 years, but couldn't make it the two days to get down the river. And hells yeah, Trevante Rhodes is eye candy and deserves to be in all the things. 

[WritinMan]

Apparently they tried to create the monsters for the movie, and they looked ridiculous....

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/monsters-bird-box-apparently-looked-205527618.html

Good idea to leave them unseen.

[ursula]

Narratively, never showing the monsters was genius. I wish more media will realize this: not every question needs to be answered and nothing can ever equal morbid imagination.

[snickers]

Seeing this movie makes me want to read the book now

I thought this movie had the potential to be great-i thought it was pretty decent, i think the problem was that the director has stated herself she can't really do horror

problem number 1 i thought

problem number 2-making a love interest out of the Tom character (i hear in the book he dies when the rest of them do during the Gary massacre)

but i get why they wanted her to have a love interest, and i liked them as a couple, i just think they way they did the flirting in the beginning was a little off

i also think it was a little unrealistic with having them have Tom survive he just allowed Malorie to keep calling the kids "boy and "girl" LOL

it's one thing when you are by yourself, but with a partner? really?

i was okay with them not showing the creatures as well and until i saw on the internet that they were in fact supposed to be creatures i took them to be an entity....not something with a physical form by the way they portrayed it in the movie

[ursula]

So I'm confused about the controversy about the movie using stock footage from a Canadian rail disaster: doesn't that happen all the time? I mean, maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't every disaster/apocalypse-y movie spin out these doctored footages of real-life disasters all the time? What's different now?

[Chaos Theory]

2 hours ago, ursula said:

So I'm confused about the controversy about the movie using stock footage from a Canadian rail disaster: doesn't that happen all the time? I mean, maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't every disaster/apocalypse-y movie spin out these doctored footages of real-life disasters all the time? What's different now?

I think people are insanely easy to trigger.  It’s almost....triggering 😂 

I think people are looking for reasons to be upset  and find controversy.   But I also think we are on a slippery slope with our fear of offending people.  We’ve tried this morality clause bullshit wih Hollywood before and it gave us the Hays Code and personally (and with only a few restrictions) when it comes to a Hollywood movies I would rather have something then not have it.  You don’t have to watch it.  And it was a two minute scene.  There is a fast forward button.

Edited January 18, 2019 by Chaos Theory

[thomasdown92]

I quite liked it. The ending was especially nice and made a lot of sense. Instead of enjoying the movie and moving on with life, people found a way to use the movie as a cheap trick to go viral on the internet. I am talking about the Bird Box challenge here. The level to which people can go for a few seconds of fame is just insane! 

[supposebly]

On 1/18/2019 at 8:26 AM, ursula said:

So I'm confused about the controversy about the movie using stock footage from a Canadian rail disaster: doesn't that happen all the time?

Maybe it helps to get a sense of the scale of the Lac Megantic train disaster. It wasn't just any old train derailment. The downtown of a 5000-6000 town was completely destroyed, 45 people dead and were 5 never found.

The environmental destruction will take forever to clean up. It was a bit over five years ago and people in the town are still suffering the after effects. So, no this isn't a "snowflake "triggering". It's the fourth-worst train derailment and the worst in non-passenger trains in Canada's history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-Mégantic_rail_disaster

[ursula]

4 hours ago, supposebly said:

Maybe it helps to get a sense of the scale of the Lac Megantic train disaster.

But isn't this belittling of every other tragedy? Whether it's 5,000 or 50, it's still a personal tragedy to someone. If one disaster is sacrosanct then all disasters are.

[NoWillToResist]

I didn't hate it but...I...have questions?

 

I keep reading that seeing the creatures made people see their worst fear and kill themselves but I did not get that from what I saw. Most seemed to go into a trance and then self-harm. Mallorie's sister seemed to see something awful/scary but Malkovich's wife started speaking to her (dead) mother before she sat in the burning car. Can't recall anyone getting all screamy and freaked out...they seemed to zombify and seek death like some kind of lemming. Would have loved if the show had been ballsy enough to let one of the newborns look out the window. Does there have to be a certain degree of intelligence to be affected? Babies don't have the means to self harm, so what happens then?

 

Could the creatures have actually interacted with humans? Could they have taken off the humans' blindfolds? I ask simply because everyone freaks the fuck out when the creatures (i.e. the wind) appear and I was all "ok, so the creatures are there...so? Your eyes are covered, so you're good, aren't you?"

 

As with almost all apocalyptic movies, it's the humans who are the real evil and, I must confess, I'm kind of over it. I blame The Walking Dead.

 

I rolled my eyes too many times when the group was secluded in the nice suburban house. BD Wong chooses to see if watching the creatures on screen would be safe and all these fuckers do is tie him to the chair before they not only LEAVE the room, but CLOSE THE DOOR, and then GO DOWNSTAIRS?! My jaw hit the floor. Like, was there any particular reason not a single one of those assholes either stayed in the room with him or waited outside the door?

 

I laughed way too much at them using the GPS to otherwise blindly make their way to the grocery store. I'm supposed to believe that the only impediments were a couple of bodies that they could easily drive over? Really? And much as I loved Tom, yeah, he was WAY TOO CHILL when the truth about Gary was being yelled at him by John Malkovich. I mean, he comes downstairs and sees those disturbing drawings and is all 'la-la nothing to worry about'? Why didn't Tom let John out once he realized that the dude tried to kill the birds? I felt bad for Malkovich's character; he fucking warned them. And he got killed by their kindness.

 

Kind of felt ripped off that they flash forwarded five key years. I would have been interested to know how Tom and Mallorie travelled with newborns and survived all that time.

 

I didn't really feel that the ending was very hopeful. I got the sense that I was supposed to but...aren't they essentially trapped? Never mind the utter implausibility of a school for the blind being tucked away in a fucking forest (how the fuck did that work before everything went to shit?)...the creatures and crazies are still out there and apparently have a hard-on for harassment/murder. For how long can the people in the school be safe? Why is the school only accessible from one direction? Dude's all "gotta come by the river, don't bring kids (even though they already have a ton of 'em there), take off your blindfold at the rapids, and then follow the sound of the birds" and I'm watching all "what in the everlasting fuck? Is this a trap? It seems like a trap? This is ridiculous."  I mean "follow the sound of the birds?" IN A FOREST? Did they trap all the birds and keep them under lock and key? That Mallorie was able to outrun the wind while clutching on to two kids, running full tilt, and somehow ended up right at the door of the school was just...sigh. And the wind/creatures were right on top of them so can they really not enter a building or something? Ugh.

 

Also, if they are radio-ing an invitation to all and sundry, how long before the crazies roll up? How do they plan to feed everyone? There are in the middle of ass nowhere. And a world of fuck off for Mallorie's OB/GYN being there. That's more contrivance than I can handle, I"m sorry. I felt that this whole thing was just to make Mallorie find joy in and embrace motherhood and that's just doesn't do it for me.

 

As with most apocalyptic movies, I'm more interested in how people try to recreate communities and whatnot. The brief glimpse we were given of how Mallorie and Tom were training the kids to not rely on sight etc. were more interesting to me than large parts of the "story".

 

Wow, this was a lot of complaining. Eek. The acting was fabulous. There, that's a silver lining... :D

[supposebly]

"But isn't this belittling of every other tragedy? Whether it's 5,000 or 50, it's still a personal tragedy to someone. If one disaster is sacrosanct then all disasters are." (sorry the quote function doesn't work for me properly).

Well, I do think it's disrespectful to use easily recognizable footage. I wonder how Americans would feel if the Twin Tower disaster was being used as a few second clip in a movie. Or Katrina footage in a movie that has nothing to do with it. Or the California wildfires. Just a thought.

This is something that has rattled Canadian society considerably and if you can actually recognize the footage where your relatives or friends have died a few years ago and which has devastated a town, maybe it's not a good idea to use in a movie. 

So, I wish people would stop trying to "belittle" this one. Or make assumptions that 

On 1/18/2019 at 9:30 AM, Chaos Theory said:

...people are looking for reasons to be upset  and find controversy.

There is plenty to be upset about. 

Edited January 22, 2019 by supposebly

[ursula]

28 minutes ago, supposebly said:

Well, I do think it's disrespectful to use easily recognizable footage. I wonder how Americans would feel if the Twin Tower disaster was being used as a few second clip in a movie. Or Katrina footage in a movie that has nothing to do with it. Or the California wildfires. Just a thought.

Firstly, easily recognizable is a vague and, with all due respect, elitist specification. If it's recognizable to one person then that's enough. There's no metric that can ethically prioritize one person's tragedy over another.

Secondly, 9/11 and Katrina footages are used all the time. As well as footage of JFK's head being blown off. Hiroshima. That was my first statement - that it's done all the time. This just smacks of performative outrage, with a bit of contraniain-ism thrown in.

Edited January 22, 2019 by ursula

[Chaos Theory]

News footage from American disasters are used all the time in television and movies.  They are often used as a measuring stick simply to say....yeah this take place here.  

[scarynikki12]

57 minutes ago, NoWillToResist said:

 

I keep reading that seeing the creatures made people see their worst fear and kill themselves but I did not get that from what I saw

I have the same question. I watched the movie before seeing any promotion so I just thought the creatures were invisible most of the time and then revealed themselves when they wanted to make someone kill themselves. Mallorie saw no sign of a creature at the hospital when they walked past the blonde slamming her head into the window. Jess said “what is that?”, which prompted Mallorie to look in the same direction and she didn’t see anything. I figured they showed themselves and their victims felt compelled to kill themselves. Jess looking back at Mallorie before stepping in front of the truck seemed to support my theory and then I see the actors saying “you see your greatest fear and it makes you kill yourself”. Ok, maybe, but how does that explain Lydia seeing her dead mother? Is that a hint that her mom was a monster and Lydia feared her death being faked or something? Why didn’t anyone else give an indication that they were seeing their fear? 

1 hour ago, NoWillToResist said:

Could the creatures have actually interacted with humans? Could they have taken off the humans' blindfolds?

I don’t think so otherwise they’d have tried to get inside or remove the blindfolds themselves rather than have their disciples do it. I think they weren’t corporeal and that’s why they weren’t a threat as long as the blindfolds were in place and no disciples were around. 

I also thought that maybe the kids would turn out to be immune to the creatures power from having seen them at birth. I’m glad they went the other way since it showed Mallorie choosing to care about her kids and not sacrifice one but I was ready for that to be a huge twist. 

[ursula]

31 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

I see the actors saying “you see your greatest fear and it makes you kill yourself”.

I think that was just the Walmart guy's theory. The people who actually killed themselves seemed happy? weirdly at peace? to do so. 

 

31 minutes ago, scarynikki12 said:

Mallorie saw no sign of a creature at the hospital when they walked past the blonde slamming her head into the window. Jess said “what is that?”, which prompted Mallorie to look in the same direction and she didn’t see anything.

Ooh, I noticed this! And I had this theory that Mallory was immune because she was pregnant. And later, when Octavia showed up, apparently unscathed, I thought that confirmed my theory. In fact when they were getting ready to drive to the store, I kept saying "just send the pregnant ladies already!" 

(I just realized that technically, my theory could still be valid. Octavia wasn't exposed until after she gives birth. For all we know maybe Gary chose that time to strike for precisely that reason. 🤔 Can anyone who's read the book confirm/deny?)

Edited January 22, 2019 by ursula

[scarynikki12]

Bullock's interviews have her saying that the characters see their worst fears and then kill themselves when they see the creatures so I think she got that from the author or director. 

Gary's move to expose everyone to the creatures did seem to be timed to the babies births so I also thought the pregnancies/babies would have a major connection to the overall story.  Unless they do a sequel I guess that theory's false.

[ursula]

6 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

Bullock's interviews have her saying that the characters see their worst fears and then kill themselves

That's fair enough but somewhere along the line, something changed because the affected seemed to be possessed with eerie serenity, not fear. The deaths were all violent but their attitudes before they died seemed to be at peace. 

I got the impression, especially from the person talking to their mom (her sister? Or Malkovich's wife? I can't remember whom) that they were lured to their deaths by a false vision of a dead loved one beckoning to them.

Edited January 22, 2019 by ursula

[Hanahope]

Haven't read the book yet.  I liked the movie.  Sure had some leaps there, though.  Like how the minions were able to find Mallory and Tom at the home they went to forage, and almost found Mallory in another one, yet never seemed to find them in the home they actually lived in.  Were the creatures telling the minions where to go, but somehow the creatures never saw M and T at the home?

And it sure seemed like there were a lot of the creatures, if they continued to hang around places that seemingly looked unhabitated.  And why did the cop and punker leave?  Really, they thought it was better to leave a place with food, shelter, etc?

Considering the boat they were in, even looking wouldn't have prevented their fall into the water, so good call Mallory.  Agreed that there was a bit of leap with both kids surviving (who presumably never had swim lessons) as well as the box of birds.

I don't know if the book went back and forth like the movie did, but I presumed the movie started with the later scenes so we knew what "bird box" meant.

Agreed that Tom kindof blew it by not letting Malkovich out of the garage first.  He did see the drawings, so he knew something bad was up with Gary.  I didn't realize that really was Malkovich at first.  I kept thinking, boy they sure got someone who sounds a lot like Malkovich for the show.  Hah!  I had assumed that Gary waited till the women gave birth because they'd be fairly incapacitated, so two less people to deal with right away.

I assumed that the Blind School had a front entrance with a road, and that the woods/river area where Mallory entered was the back door.  I did wonder how they got enough food for everyone there.

[BetterButter]

[Colorado David]

Well that was unsettling, but I enjoyed it. It reminded me a lot of the Mist (also an excellent movie.)  

The leaves blowing around when the creatures were near seemed really really Shyamalan-esque to me. Mind you by sheer coincidence I did watch the Happening last week, so that was still fresh in my mind.

I dunno if it's just me, but I love seeing Ms Bullock yell/cuss at people - she usually plays a nice character, so seeing her go off on people is very satisfying. 

[rmontro]

On 12/24/2018 at 11:47 AM, Anela said:

I've seen this called a rip-off of A Quiet Place. Not so: the book was out several years ago.

My impression was that A Quiet Place was Bird Box with sound.  There are similarities, such as having to suspend disbelief about certain plot holes.  But I didn't think either one was a rip off of  the other.

[Proclone]

On 1/13/2019 at 10:36 PM, snickers said:

problem number 2-making a love interest out of the Tom character (i hear in the book he dies when the rest of them do during the Gary massacre)

but i get why they wanted her to have a love interest, and i liked them as a couple, i just think they way they did the flirting in the beginning was a little off

i also think it was a little unrealistic with having them have Tom survive he just allowed Malorie to keep calling the kids "boy and "girl" LOL

it's one thing when you are by yourself, but with a partner? really?

4

I haven't read the book, but it really bothered me that the kids weren't named as I watched the film.  Malorie, I could buy not naming them, but Tom seemed like he would insist on calling them something other than "boy" and "girl," so it makes so much sense that he wasn't present during the five-year time jump in the book (I assume the book also cuts back and forth between time periods).  Calling them "boy" and "girl" seems like a way of Malorie distancing herself from them to avoid a connection with them so it wouldn't be as painful if she lost them.  But that only really makes sense if she doesn't have a connection with anyone else either.  In the movie she had what seemed like a fairly healthy relationship (at least as healthy as a relationship during the apocalypse can be) with Tom, so she's certainly capable of relatively normal human relationships.  If they really wanted to keep Tom alive, they could have gotten away with something like the kids having names, but Malorie not using them after Tom's death as a screwed up coping mechanism.  I really would have loved the little girl (who was an excellent actor BTW), not wanting to respond to "girl" and challenging Malorie to use her name.  Then finally after the ordeal of the river and realizing how much she loves and is connected to the kids she is, she can finally call them by their names again.  Then I think the end of Malorie introducing the kids by their names would have been actually poignant instead of what I thought was slightly hokey and a little too precious.

[BetterButter]