Gothika

Sam James4 · 2004-04-17T16:42:51+00:00

So, I finally sat through this absolute garbage yesterday. Anyone else catch it? Honestly, the movie is a total train wreck—just a messy, failed mashup of sixt…

Sam James4 NewcomerOP

9 messages
joined Apr 2004

#21 · Apr 29, 2004

Way to go, big guy!
I’ve been scrolling through the web, from IMDb to basically every other movie forum out there, and you’re the only one who actually had the guts to defend the logic behind this absolute masterpiece of modern cinema. Honestly, I can't wrap my head around how movies like *21 Grams* or *Gothik* are being charged the same price... but hey, I guess there's a sucker born every minute, right? Let's stay optimistic about that.

hiddeneagle42 Newcomer

3 messages
joined Apr 2004

#22 · Apr 29, 2004

Man, I was honestly pretty bummed she didn't end up behind bars. I mean, you aren't even supposed to kill slugs 😁 ...ugh. Back when American movies actually made sense...

hollowviper72 Regular

268 messages
joined May 2004

#23 · Apr 29, 2004

Man... under US law, if you commit a murder while in an insane state, you don't just get tossed into a standard prison cell—instead, you're sent to a psychiatric facility (which, let’s be honest, often feels like a prison anyway). As for being released or how much security you need, that’s entirely up to a board of doctors. It creates this bizarre reality where a cold, calculated "humane" killing—you know, a single shot to the head—could land you a life sentence, whereas someone who goes on a complete rampage with an axe, a chainsaw, or even a spoon due to a psychotic break might actually walk free "eventually." Of course, this doesn't apply to serial killers, since they're defined by their premeditation.

Personally, I thought the movie was solid. They actually managed to catch me off guard with the plot development—there was a twist that I truly didn't see coming, which is a rare find these days, especially when it comes to the thriller genre.

Anonymous Veteran

3.6K messages
joined May 2005

#24 · Apr 30, 2004

Sam James4 said:Congrats, seriously!
I've been scrolling through the web, from IMDb to basically every other forum out there, and you're the only one who actually stepped up to defend the logic behind this undeniable modern cinematic masterpiece. Honestly, I can't wrap my head around the fact that movies like 21 Grams and Goth cost the exact same at the box office... but hey, I guess everything has its niche audience, which is a pretty optimistic way to look at it.

Read it again—I never said the movie had good logic. Very few horror flicks actually do 😁. Using "bad logic" as a John Doe is just an excuse to call the movie trash. I don't believe in a lot of things either, but damn honey, c'est la vie. 😛 😁
And besides, you can't argue with taste. 😛 👋

And like hollowviper72 mentioned, the legal system in the US can be pretty "flexible" and weird. The movie doesn't explicitly show what happened to her or if she was destined for it, etc. Maybe she was, or maybe a jury just acquitted her. That would actually make perfect sense. Juries acquit actual killers all the time and let innocent people face the electric chair instead. But to me, that’s not even the point of the film. I think the core of it is about what feels realistically possible: the haunting, the raw energy of a crime victim. There's evidence for that. That's likely the foundation the film was built on. I find the concept of the "anima sola" in the movie really interesting; it fits perfectly—a soul in agony that hasn't found peace yet... I watch movies through a different lens. Sure, it could have been better, and I agree the pacing gets a bit frantic at one point, but whatever. Everyone sees "something" different in a movie, and that's why some people love it while others hate it. Thank God censorship hasn't reached our opinions and tastes yet 😁

Anonymous Veteran

3.6K messages
joined May 2005

#25 · Apr 30, 2004

hiddeneagle42 said:Ugh, I was actually pretty bummed she didn't end up behind bars. I mean, you aren't even supposed to kill slugs (sadly 😁)... but man, remember when Hollywood movies actually made sense?

Honestly, though, her walking free makes total sense. If the whole plot is driven by power, reputation, and money (which is basically how everything works in the USA), then her staying free is the most logical outcome. Think about it:

1. She took out psychopaths and abusers who had been terrorizing local girls for years. Who could really blame her? Most people would probably just be grateful she did it. Plus, one of the victims was the daughter of one of the lead psychiatrists, who ends up being the main guy in charge. He’s going to pull every string possible to help her out.
+ A standard American jury wouldn't touch her with a ten-foot pole; they’d likely give her an award instead 😁

2. It wasn't like she was in her right mind. When you factor in all those unexplainable ghost sightings and paranormal stuff, plus having a top-tier lawyer on her side, I don't see any issue with her getting off. Even if she did kill one person, the rest was clearly self-defense.

But that's not even the point of the movie. I honestly don't get why everyone is obsessing over the logic 😁

Brian Gonzalez7 Member

35 messages
joined Feb 2004

#26 · Apr 30, 2004

Honestly, if you think this movie was actually good, you probably drifted off halfway through...
That ending was hands down one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen—totally giving off those cheap, straight-to-VHS 80s action flick vibes. And don't even get me started on the scenes; they were so predictable it actually hurt. It felt like a really bad, watered-down mashup of Sixth Sense and Ring...
The only place this thing might actually find an audience is in a small town in the Midwest somewhere like Suvag 😢

...Or maybe in some tiny suburb outside of Chicago, because people there might cling to the crazy idea that if they see ghosts, they aren't alone, especially since apparently high-profile doctors in the US see them too...

Jeremy Flores10 Active Member

58 messages
joined Dec 2010

#27 · Apr 30, 2004

Well, you guys have officially convinced me! I really need to go see this. It actually scored four stars in today's The New York Times, even though most people here seem to hate it. I'm curious to see what the catch is—I rarely find myself trusting professional critics anyway.😕

Anonymous Veteran

3.6K messages
joined May 2005

#28 · Apr 30, 2004

Brian Gonzalez7 said:Honestly, if anyone actually thinks this movie was good, they were probably fast asleep during the whole thing...

This flick would only find an audience in a tiny town like Suvag 😢

🙄 🙄 Are you seriously insulting Suvag, (and even Vrapč)?
That's pretty low, 👎

Look, let's try to be a little more tolerant and stop labeling everything. I’m totally fine with you and everyone else thinking the movie is absolute garbage—that's your take, and I respect it. But I also have every right to say I enjoyed it. The end.
Long live diversity.
(There are definitely much better movies out there, but compared to the rest of today's Hollywood blockbusters, this one isn't actually that bad)

P.S. So, what kind of movies do you actually like?

Sam James4 NewcomerOP

9 messages
joined Apr 2004

#29 · Apr 30, 2004

One line like "sotona ja poj..." from Chloe and all that garbage... honestly, this person on the forum hit the nail on the head. This whole thing feels like some low-budget indie flick from the late 80s, but even those cheap productions would be embarrassed by this trash. And that girl's spirit? Total joke. If she’s whining through the entire movie, why did her muse need Halle Berry's body to fix her up? She could've done it herself. But hey, she was probably as dim-witted as the script. And that kid at the end... absolute chaos. I have no idea why The New York Times gave it such a glowing review; meanwhile, Beat and Click were saying the script has more holes in it than a block of Swiss cheese. It's rare for me to agree with critics, but they're right on this one. Seriously, that kid at the end was just pure mayhem. The only horror movie stupider than this is Prognoiti with Catherine Zeta-Jones. Such a shame because that haunted house actually looked pretty cool...

Sam James4 NewcomerOP

9 messages
joined Apr 2004

#30 · Apr 30, 2004

@Oleander, what kind of movies are actually good in your opinion? BTW, you’re going a bit overboard with the emojis. You know how it is—less is more. Stylistically speaking, it's getting a bit much.

Anonymous Veteran

3.6K messages
joined May 2005

#31 · Apr 30, 2004

Ugh... look, all I was saying is that unlike most of those other mindless American flops, this one was actually decent enough to watch, even with the plot holes. I don’t go into movies expecting them to be cinematic masterpieces. I didn't realize everyone had to share my exact opinion or bow down to your critiques. So call me clueless if you want, I really don't care. :P You can just block me. Actually, please do—even though we don't even hang out in the same threads or subforums anyway. It'll probably make you happier.

I'm not cutting back on the emojis,(you could always use one, Mr. Grumpy-Face) this is just how I am, in person and online—and feel free to report me to the moderator😛 (since you're clearly such a wannabe thought-policeman)

🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🎉 🙂

See ya never, buddy.

Sam James4 NewcomerOP

9 messages
joined Apr 2004

#32 · Apr 30, 2004

*Yawn.* Seriously, don't get all sensitive on me right away. I’m just saying those cheesy smiles are totally dated and way over the top. You know how it goes—once you cross that line, it just turns into pure kitsch. Whatever. It’s not like I’m putting you on my ignore list or anything; don't flatter yourself thinking your posts actually carry that much weight with me. Everyone’s entitled to their own take, I guess. Honestly, it’s probably good there are still people out there who dig movies like Goth. Keeps the B-movie industry alive, right? Those crews need to eat too. A "controller of thoughts and feelings"? Hahahaha, honestly, it’s not even surprising anymore that you think Goth is a good movie. Wake up. Or at least stop riding this massive ego trip. Anyway, maybe go find a real job, girl, and write a script for Gothika 2. Mozda you can actually pitch it in Hollywood.

Anonymous Veteran

3.6K messages
joined May 2005

#33 · Apr 30, 2004

Sam James4 said:*Yawn.* Don't get all sensitive on me just yet. I'm just saying those emojis are a bit dated and over the top. You know how it goes—once you cross that line, it just becomes tacky. Anyway, don't flatter yourself; I have zero reason to put you on my ignore list. It's not like your posts carry that much weight with me. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion, though, I guess. It's good there are still people out there who dig movies like Goth, right? Keeps the B-movie industry alive, and hey, those crews need to eat. A "controller of thoughts and feelings"? Hahaha, honestly, it's not even surprising that you actually liked Goth. Wake up. Or at least stop the ego trip. Look, why don't you go find a real job and write a script for Gothika 2. Maybe then you could actually sell something in Hollywood.

Listen, sugar, 🙂 if my posts didn't matter that much to you, you wouldn't be hovering over them three times a day. Come on, admit it—you care what I think. 😁 😉 That's exactly the vibe you're giving off. 😁
And who said I even like movies like Goth? 😕 (Maybe it's only "good" because there's nothing better on TV right now.)
Your perspective is totally warped.

Anyway, thanks for the entertainment 🙏.....and sorry if I bruised your ego a little 😢, I didn't mean to...

I've got room for two more emojis since I know how much you love them... 🤣: :🎉:

P.S. No offense, I totally get you critics—you guys practically live for the drama. 😉

hollowviper72 Regular

268 messages
joined May 2004

#34 · May 1, 2004

Yur... please, don't even get me started on Oleander. Honestly, I’d tie you to a chair and force you to sit through the entire Ed Wood filmography—and then, as a finishing touch, every single episode of "Green Hornet." Got it? 🙂

Moving on—the whole point of horror is to give you chills down your spine, not to wow you with some deep intellectual subtext. Maybe you were a bit hard on Ramb for not delivering a philosophical treatise on celebrity culture, or perhaps you expected Superman to actually follow the laws of physics?

When it comes to its actual goal, a movie should scare you using ghosts, atmosphere, sound design, and all that good stuff. Goth does a pretty decent job of hitting its mark as a horror thriller. It might not quite reach the level of a Sherlock Holmes mystery, but for a "ghost story," it’s a remarkably solid piece of filmmaking.

hiddeneagle42 Newcomer

3 messages
joined Apr 2004

#35 · May 1, 2004

Oleander said:Actually, it makes perfect sense. Provided she doesn't end up behind bars. If everything in the USA revolves around power, fame, and money, then her walking free is the most logical conclusion. Why? Because:

1. She took out psychopaths and tormentors who had been killing girls in that town for years. Who could blame her? People would probably just be grateful. Plus, one of the victims was the daughter of one of the lead psychiatrists, who is now the main guy. He’ll do whatever it takes to help her.
+ A normal jury wouldn't send her to prison for that. They'd more likely reward her. 😁

2. It was proven she wasn't in her right mind. Add in those inexplicable hauntings and other paranormal phenomena—plus a high-priced lawyer—and I don't see any issues with her being acquitted. Even if she killed more than one, the rest was clearly self-defense.

But that’s not the point of the movie. I don't get why everyone is obsessing over logic. 😁

Well, actually, that isn't true. Not trying to be a pedant here, but the American legal system doesn't have a category for "acquitted because you killed a villain." I mean, wouldn't that be great to see in every law book? Except lawyers would start interpreting it however they wanted, and people would feel bold enough to kill anyone. 😁..and when someone is released on grounds of insanity, they have to go to treatment.
Fine, if we want to fantasize, we can just assume the defense convinced the jury her husband attacked her first, making it self-defense too. 😁 🙄 😁
Either way, the ending is stupid.

Look, I didn't find it to be an absolute disaster. I've seen much worse. Is it a good movie? Sure not. But honestly, it feels like it's been ages since anything decent came out of Hollywood.
At least it kept me somewhat interested since I wasn't sure how it would wrap up... maybe I just don't watch enough horror movies like this. 😁

Sam James4 NewcomerOP

9 messages
joined Apr 2004

#36 · May 1, 2004

Oleander, please don't call me "he." I'm a girl. Thanks.

Sam James4 NewcomerOP

9 messages
joined Apr 2004

#37 · May 1, 2004

Oh, so now I’m supposed to apologize for hurting your feelings? Nice try with those condescending posts of yours. "My heart is broken"? Seriously? Where do you even pull that crap from... give me a break...

Joseph Anderson15 Newcomer

6 messages
joined Apr 2004

#38 · May 3, 2004

hiddeneagle42 says:
Actually, that’s just not how it works. I don't want to be a pedant, but the American legal system doesn't have a category where you get off scot-free just because you killed a villain... though honestly, I wish it did! Though if we actually allowed that, lawyers would start twisting the rules so much that people would feel emboldened to kill anyone they disliked 😁... and besides, if someone is acquitted based on insanity, they aren't just walking free—they're sent straight to a psychiatric facility
. Fine, if we want to play pretend, we could assume the defense convinced the jury she was attacked by her husband and it was all self-defense 😁 🙄 😁

Look, that's exactly the kind of thing I want to see written into our systemic laws. Imagine if you were assaulted and you killed the monster responsible—if you could convince a jury that you were acting out of temporary insanity, or pure self-defense, or that you lacked any premeditated motive, then you'd likely walk free 90% of the time. But the second they realize you did it intentionally—that you decided he deserved it and you were just "cleaning the streets of a rapist"—then you're screwed. You had a motive, and nobody is going to look at you with sympathy; there's zero chance of acquittal. The reality is that the American justice system is built on certain Biblical principles—meaning regardless of what someone did or how vile they were (serial killer, rapist, etc.), you don't get to act as judge, jury, and executioner just because you feel like it. If you kill them, you're just a murderer in the eyes of the American system, not some hero cleaning up the trash like they make it look in movies—which is how most of us logically think it should work. It sucks, but it's the truth.😢

As for the movie itself... it was one of those films where you watch it once and forget it exists by tomorrow... 👎 though I will admit the tense soundtrack gave me the creeps—I actually had to turn the volume down at one point because I couldn't stand it anymore 😱
Then again, I've always been a bit of a scaredy-cat... so I guess I shouldn't be surprised 😉

northernfalcon30 Active Member

90 messages
joined Sep 2003

#39 · May 3, 2004

Ugh, honestly, such a mess. The movie actually starts off okay—some creepy bits that worked—but then it’s like the director just completely lost the plot. He had no clue where to go next, so he just rushed everything through a bunch of tired, cliché climaxes. Truly pathetic...
I think he overestimated his own "talent" a bit too much.
Kudos to people who don't touch ambitious projects because they know they aren't up to the task.

And don't even get me started on her husband. I mean, I get that love is blind, but those two should have stuck to being strictly platonic. It was the only way.🙄

I mean, seriously, what kind of movie are you expecting when you've got that loser Junior, a plain-looking Penelope, and—forgive my language—Halle Berry?!🙄

Jeremy Flores10 Active Member

58 messages
joined Dec 2010

#40 · May 3, 2004

So my buddy picked up *Divx Gothic* and *Texas Chainsaw Massacre*. (By the way, you definitely have to check out the latter—it's based on true events from 1973 and really highlights just how mindless some people can be.) Anyway, back to the point. The movie is decent, maybe even good. Aside from a few tired clichés, it’s a perfectly fine watch. If anyone is looking for deep philosophical themes, they won't find them here. It's pure popcorn entertainment. Not scary at all.