CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Thomas Chavez8 › Posts

Posts by Thomas Chavez8

7 posts shown.

4 months, 3 weeks, and 2 days. in Movies ·
Larry Cruz51 said:What an absolute lobotomy of a movie. Honestly, the entire plot could have been condensed into ten minutes, or at least started with something halfway interesting... instead, I just sat there watching the clock, wondering how much longer I had to endure this...

We all sat through it and marveled at those wonderful, glowing reviews...🤷

Just like this one here:

So, tell me—how exactly would you have "spiced it up"? How would you have made this film actually worth watching?
4 months, 3 weeks, and 2 days. in Movies ·
Amanda Nguyen5 said:I mentioned the phone thing earlier, but honestly, the tension definitely lets up a bit. The "what's happening with the friend" subplot tries to be pushed to the background by showing us something else entirely, but it shouldn't work that way. For me, it worked, and honestly, the focus shifted more toward what's happening with them rather than "what's happening with her?". That question is still hovering in the air, like you said, but it’s definitely suppressed. Plus, when she returns to the hotel, we see that even the friend herself has suppressed her own "question," since she's basically half-asleep.
Can you make a movie tense at the exact same level the whole time? No, you can't. You go through a natural flow and slightly ramp up the intensity, but I've already said what I think about the tension in this specific film.
Don't get me wrong, I'll say it again: the movie is excellent.
And about what you said at the end, "once you realize what it's about." Man, I've seen so many times where people just skimmed over the plot and wrote things like "girls are aborting" and stuff, which is just stupid. The movie is intentionally made so that for the first thirty or forty-five minutes, you don't quite get what they want; instead, you see that whatever they want, they can't quite grab it (which is the whole point), all while the abortion theme is being shoved in our faces. It's unnecessary. It would have been better if nobody knew anything about the movie beforehand. Though, yeah, you really couldn't avoid that word.

Now I just remembered the beginning. Two genius little details: the main character first says she'll "handle everything with the conductors without any problems," and then when she gets back to the room and her friend asks, "Why did you come back?", she replies, "Don't be superstitious (you aren't a peasant, or something like that)."
Just three minutes later, she goes from being almost kicked off by the conductor to being saved by some nice people who give her a ticket. Then five minutes after that, when the guy tells her to buy 48 roses for his mom's birthday, she says with this slight hint of fear: "Why an even number? Never an even number."
Both those bits show she's screwed. Not heavily, but seriously screwed.
While the second one is deeply, seriously screwed (not regarding the abortion, but just generally regarding life decisions and behavior), but that's a different story.

Look, I'm not even worried about them, I'm just pointing things out.
Haneke is great, but don't go bringing up Haneke unless you want Xavi to ban you.

Either you're contradicting yourself, or you have no clue what you're talking about and you're just tossing out nonsense that cancels itself out.
I remember Wilde saying that fools contradict others while the wise contradict themselves, but honestly, there is no internal conflict here because there's simply no room for one. You almost hint at it later by mentioning a "lack of freedom" or "forced decisions," but I really don't get why you'd put two opposing ideas in the exact same sentence.
It's not that I care, I'm just saying.

Nice catch on that connection.
4 months, 3 weeks, and 2 days. in Movies ·
I don't think it's really about making the decisions themselves—it’s more about how you carry the weight of them, especially when they aren't even a matter of personal preference, but rather just navigating a narrow set of options and trying to make do with what you've got.
4 months, 3 weeks, and 2 days. in Movies ·
Amanda Nguyen5 said:Just go all in on the betting.
2. There aren't any options here. Once she decided to take that path at the start, she had to see it through to the bitter end. No choice. Just like their little fish (or fishes, whatever), sitting there alone after they all left—it wasn't by choice, but now that she's stuck, there’s nothing left to do but sit tight and starve for two days.
And just pray someone doesn't come along and fill her up.
Some kind of gust of wind.

Look, I never actually said she had a choice. Either of those two paths would have led to the exact same result... I was simply saying that the conflict and the internal struggle were happening within her.
4 months, 3 weeks, and 2 days. in Movies ·
You’re either 1) contradicting yourself, or 2) you have no idea what you're talking about, so you're just tossing out nonsense that cancels itself out.
I recall Wild once noted that fools contradict others while the wise only contradict themselves—but even then, there isn't an internal conflict within her, because there's simply no room for one. You almost sense this later through the references to a "lack of freedom and choice" or "imposed decisions," but I fail to see why you'd present two opposing theses in a single sentence.
It's not that I care; I'm just saying.


How can you say there's no conflict? She has been blatantly betrayed on multiple levels, and none of her dilemmas have an exit strategy... that entire stretch from the sex scene onward reeks of her tangled emotions—shame, guilt, anger, fear for her friend, and this desperate urge to see things through to the end. You can feel it in those long silences, the way she walks, the drives, the dinners. She had a choice: she could have been a total coward and screwed everything up, or she could play the naive saint who got played—and she knows exactly which one she chose. When she looks at her friend in the restroom mirror, or even when she says goodbye to head to dinner, she’s simultaneously livid over the betrayal and motherly in her concern. At dinner, she’s paranoid and fixated on Gabita, all while becoming increasingly aware of the looming impossibility of any future choices—options that just keep mounting (living with a boyfriend, the possibility of an abortion, the hypocrisy of the people at the table). Their conversations provide us with the echoes of her thoughts, which are only subtly hinted at through her facial expressions and movements... before she finally voices them in the room. That’s why I think it's unnecessary.
4 months, 3 weeks, and 2 days. in Movies ·
I agree—it doesn't quite land. In that specific segment, she really has to face two things: processing what actually happened and bracing for the fallout. To me, that’s the true heart of the movie—it captures that core internal struggle of an individual clashing with decisions forced upon them, essentially dealing with a total lack of agency. That dinner scene? Absolute peak. The part in the room with the guy is a bit weak—honestly unnecessary since it just explains what's already obvious. But from there, the pacing stays intense right until the end... pure adrenaline.
4 months, 3 weeks, and 2 days. in Movies ·
...absolutely stunning—it’s been a long time since a movie gripped me quite like this...
Set in 1989, during the final days of the Stalinist era. With perfect, deliberate pacing, Steven Spielberg unspools the narrative, subtly pulling us through the bleak, gray landscapes and suffocating interiors of a decaying America, amidst faces of people with zero options—where "finding a way under the radar" becomes the only way to survive.
I won't spoil the plot...
For those who have seen it, what are your thoughts?