Posts by Kevin Evans41

cosmiccobra2 said:Were the theaters absolutely packed for Spider-Man?
I get the feeling kids might have slept through it since the first one came out ages ago.

Nah, they didn't move on; those kids just grew up, got jobs, and started families in the meantime.

On the contrary, that "Woman" character—flawed and messy just like any other human being—is absolutely vital to the story, because she gives the Daughter a chance to get a "firsthand" look at what a typical representative of the old human race actually looked like, a species that basically nuked itself out of existence thanks to its own ego, aggression, selfishness, dishonesty, and all those other lovely little traits that used to define us.

For some reason, you’re stuck in this weird middle ground where you take the plot way too literally on one hand (claiming the apocalypse is undefined or unrealistic based on the visuals) while simultaneously pushing this heavy-handed "metaphorical" angle on the other.

Mother isn't cruel; cruelty is a human trait, whereas she’s just incredibly efficient as she chases that ultimate, lofty goal.

And why on earth are you reaching for a forced word like "omnipresent" when there's perfectly good English right there? 😁

dustyfalcon122 said:I just can't agree with that.
The Woman feels totally unnecessary, and the apocalypse they show isn't even defined—it just doesn't feel real based on what we actually saw on screen.
And the whole idea of breeding a new race and colonizing a new planet? It’s way too oversimplified and practically impossible under those conditions.
The film doesn't work at all unless you view it strictly as a metaphor. "Mother" is everywhere, an absolute force of control, whose only motivation is supposedly love for humanity, yet she's simultaneously capable of such massive cruelty toward them.

You're pushing this whole "metaphorical vision" angle when there's zero need for it, basically just overthinking things and trying to read tea leaves where none exist.

The movie works flawlessly exactly as it is, holding up perfectly fine on its most straightforward, surface-level level.

dustyfalcon122 said:You guys are overthinking this way too much.
I mean, look, Mother is God, Daughter is Adam / Eve—and the Woman is just the serpent that drives them out of paradise.
The movie's sequence actually makes total sense from start to finish. I’ll admit, I didn't totally vibe with the motivations or the behavior of the "Woman" character, but honestly? It works because it serves the metaphor.

Hell no, absolutely NOT! Her role is crystal clear in this movie, and she was designed specifically to serve a purpose that’s laid out right there on the screen ("Untill now!").

No ... it's pretty obvious you just got tripped up by that female character, which honestly isn't a particularly difficult feat to pull off.

If nothing else, since you're clearly lost, you actually fit perfectly into your own theory about how her whole purpose is just to leave the audience confused. 😁

bluecanyon643 said:🙂
The story isn't even remotely complete, because in the last quarter, there's a twist that basically boils down to what you described—which is pretty bad, I guess. It could have gone in a much better direction, maybe exploring human intelligence versus AI and what actual AI intentions might look like in reality, but for some strange reason, the producers decided to turn the whole thing into a Biblical parable instead (where Mother ends up being some sort of futuristic Noah 😁). And that whole "rebel" character introduction turns out to be a total miss in the end, since her role seems to be nothing more than confusing the audience, I suppose. Just feels pointless...

Is it, though? Wikipedia uses sources, citations, and has editors. I'm talking about the American wiki.

To be blunt, he didn't grasp a single thing about it (let alone the whole picture).

Brian Gray5 said:Actually, the ending is as logical as it gets. It’s incredibly realistic. You obviously missed some key points.

Here’s a little something for you: the physical build for the "Mother" android isn't just some digital trickery or CGI bullshit; the whole thing is actually a practical suit rigged onto the actress, featuring a ton of 3D-printed components that were hand-finished and painted to perfection, which is why it looks way more convincing than any cheap computer graphics ever could.
The actor and the animators really went through hell to make sure those movements felt authentically robotic and unsettling.

Look, I'm pretty sure most people just skim the body of a post and completely miss the subject line, so putting a
spoiler
warning right in the meat of the text is way more effective.
Quote:. As far as I'm concerned, my post is strictly for the folks who've already seen the movie.

goldenhound32 says: Well, I tagged it as a spoiler

There’s honestly zero reason to bother with a sequel; "I am Mother" works perfectly well as its own thing, standing alone as this incredibly tight, well-defined piece of cinema.
The way everything works nowadays—this constant, mindless vacuum of creativity where studios just milk tired franchises until they bleed—only ends up churning out piles of high-budget, unwatchable garbage.
Just like how "Moon" didn't need a follow-up, "I am Mother" should be allowed to remain what it is: a solid, self-contained sci-fi flick with a plot that’s sharp, concise, and actually sticks with you.

Why are we even debating this just two weeks after the premiere?
By the way, Mother didn't just drop out of the equation halfway through; you clearly missed the mark because the whole point of the movie is something else entirely.

goldenhound32 said:To put it bluntly, humanity basically orchestrated its own downfall, leaving a machine to step up and shoulder the burden of restarting the species.

The logic follows that it cultivates embryos, waiting indefinitely for that one specific embryo destined to become the mother of all mankind.

Once that biological progenitor is finally identified, the machine’s purpose is fulfilled, leading it to effectively remove itself from the equation entirely.

And just like that, the narrative reaches its conclusion.

It was actually a solid film—remarkably well-rounded in its execution.

This flick hits that same heavy-hitting sweet spot as "Moon" (2009), which is basically a masterpiece across the board.

Even after you've sat there and really chewed on it, I am Mother still leaves you with plenty of headspace to wrap your mind around.
If you actually give a damn about high-tier sci-fi, you need to see this.

JUST A HEADS UP: If you're only into those big-budget, flashy space operas filled with mindless explosions—stuff like Prometheus or Covenant—then look elsewhere, because this definitely isn't your cup of tea.

Honestly, this is some seriously solid minimalist sci-fi; it’s such a breath of fresh air compared to all that overproduced, big-budget sci-fi garbage they’ve been shoving down our throats for years.

WARNING:
Do yourself a favor and steer clear of the trailer because it basically spoils the entire plot.

I don't get why everyone is acting so shocked that they swapped out the Arab cast for Black actors in this movie.

Lately in the US, for whatever reason, Arab characters aren't exactly getting the spotlight, so...

Besides, we've seen white actors playing Black roles more times than I can count, so there's really no reason to act surprised now. 😁

This script is a total train wreck, basically following that old-school method of "making it up as they go along" by pulling ideas straight out of thin air.
You could call this movie whatever you want, but there is absolutely no way it earns the title Gladiator 2.

nimblemarlin6 said:I'm holding out for a Thelma & Louise sequel.

Yeah, right. That'll happen right after he finishes cranking out Titanic 2... and 3.
If James Cameron isn't interested, I'm sure there's plenty of other directors out there hungry for the job. 😁

So, where can I actually catch this thing, or... what's the deal?

Look, quit cluttering up this thread; honestly, nobody cares about your little conspiracy theories or whatever doubts you're nursing.
The whole point of this movie is the life story of Neil Armstrong... not the rambling opinions of some random conspiracy nut.

Jeffrey Wood said:That’s assuming he actually walked on the Moon, which I highly doubt.

Richard Wilson4 said:The guy deserves a biopic, but I’m not exactly sold on Gosling.

Look, Gosling isn't a bad actor by any stretch, but I have my doubts about him pulling off the Neil Armstrong role specifically. The real kicker is how they decide to package Neil's personality for the big screen. See, Neil Armstrong wasn't your run-of-the-mill American astronaut. Back then, these guys were treated like literal gods in the USA—they were constant media fixtures and basically heartthrobs for half the country, which meant they had plenty of opportunities to stray from the path.

Neil was (just like every other top-tier American astronaut back in the day) a killer military pilot, a total pro through and through, but he was also incredibly private, almost introverted, and dodged the spotlight whenever he got the chance. That's a massive contrast to most of his peers who lived for the cameras, the fame, and that constant rush of being the center of attention.

NASA picked Neil Armstrong to lead the Apollo 11 mission because he was simply the best of the best; they chose him because he had this uncanny ability to stay ice-cold and collected when everything was going sideways. Throughout his entire career as a pilot and an astronaut, it was that specific mix of expertise, grit, and insane self-control that pulled him through a dozen near-death situations during combat sorties, space missions, and high-stakes test flights.

You can dig deeper into that here:

http://curious-droid.com/279/neil-ar...-times-apollo/

So, I just really hope Hollywood doesn't try to give Neil's personality a "makeover"—polishing him up or making him look "cooler" just to make him more palatable or "relatable" for the average moviegoer today.