I believe Cube Zero explains odd events that shouldn't be in Cube 1. The Military guy in Cube Zero who was resurrected by a microchip in his head, and became the eyes and ears of the people behind the scenes, explained The Cop's death and resurrection in Cube 1. Technically, when a person bleeds THAT much from the head, they are not going to be able to move, much less find the right cubes to go to get to the people at the end of Cube 1. Cube Zero kinda explains how that's possible. Razan from Cube 1 may not have gotten out at all, but was incinerated like the escapee in Cube Zero, because of the familiar white room. The thing that bugged me was the slight difference in numbers and letters from both Cube 1 and Zero, even though it still had the 26x26x26, with an escape room added in. Quentin from Cube Zero shows us how a seemingly autistic person can enter The Cube. The Cube had Razan, who was probably a genius that was considered dangerous, so they had to lobotomize him before putting him in the Cube, or he'd just escape within a few hours to safety.
As an autistic person I am wondering why you say that Quentin was "seemingly autistic"? Did the film say that the character was not autistic ? I will be honest, I saw the film before I was diagnosed as autistic, so that element escaped my recollection.
I think every movie technically ends with someone getting out alive, but I think who they choose and why almost always is purposely vague and random, since is sort of like a human version of a rat maze. We choose rats at random, so why wouldn’t we choose humans the same way - but the 2nd film made a little bit more sense as to why these specific people were chosen. The 3rd basically said they volunteered to be there, but the company outside basically claimed those volunteering may be forced to volunteer anyway. It’s interesting.
One of my creation. I rate several things and it adds up to 100 possible points. Acting Characters Casting Importance of the characters Chemistry Dialogue Balance/Pacing Story Depth Originality Concept Visuals Cinematography/camerwork Editing Advertising Music/Sound Introduction Inciting Incident Obstacles Climax Resolution Rewatchability How much of a good time watching Impulse to buy or own Impulse to talk about or recommend How engaging (do I feel like I'll miss something if I look away) And 4 specialty questions that change for each film, which often deal with the specific genre and if it's part of a series. Sometimes director or actor specific The point is to not just ... Give it a score all Willy Nilly. I want to back it up and make sure to give credit where it's due.
@@InterpretingEverything I like that you have a very detailed and technical system for your ratings. I have no idea how you can end up with a higher rating for either sequel than the original. IMDb gave the original a 7.1 and the sequels a 5.5 and 5.6. I remember watching Cube 30 years ago in highschool when it came out. That's how powerful and memorable the movie is. The sequels are confused and lost, nowhere close to being one of a kind unique experiences. Like the movies, pure hard cold math does not mix well with humanity, emotion, and artistry. With all due respect, cause you made a really good video... I think you need to reexamine your system... And check your math. 🤷🏻♂️🧮📝🎞️
Each sequel is very different than the original. Same concept but very different execution. Just like with adaptations or remakes, people get so hung up on loving the original that if other narratives don't match it, they suck. I see it constantly. There's elements I enjoy out of each one. And when my end score is split into a technical and biased score - you'll noticed the third film received the lowest score out of all of them. Meaning I personally enjoyed the first the most. But technical areas of this third film were better than technical moments of the third, and thus...it ended up on top.
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.83[1/2] เปิดแคมป์หลอนต้อนรับ 2 ตัวพ่อแห่งวงการผี!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2uPuHYHgwiI/mqdefault.jpg)
I believe Cube Zero explains odd events that shouldn't be in Cube 1. The Military guy in Cube Zero who was resurrected by a microchip in his head, and became the eyes and ears of the people behind the scenes, explained The Cop's death and resurrection in Cube 1. Technically, when a person bleeds THAT much from the head, they are not going to be able to move, much less find the right cubes to go to get to the people at the end of Cube 1. Cube Zero kinda explains how that's possible. Razan from Cube 1 may not have gotten out at all, but was incinerated like the escapee in Cube Zero, because of the familiar white room. The thing that bugged me was the slight difference in numbers and letters from both Cube 1 and Zero, even though it still had the 26x26x26, with an escape room added in. Quentin from Cube Zero shows us how a seemingly autistic person can enter The Cube. The Cube had Razan, who was probably a genius that was considered dangerous, so they had to lobotomize him before putting him in the Cube, or he'd just escape within a few hours to safety.
As an autistic person I am wondering why you say that Quentin was "seemingly autistic"? Did the film say that the character was not autistic ? I will be honest, I saw the film before I was diagnosed as autistic, so that element escaped my recollection.
@@clarissanavarro2762 He got the names wrong. Kazan was the autistic dude, Quentin was the a-hole cop.
Amazing video keep it up yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great video just maybe close your blinds next time, every time you move your hands it's like a mirror putting the sun into the camera
Thanks for the tip! Also, thanks for stopping by. I'm aware of the problem, which is why I moved to a different spot for later reviews.
Do any of these movies ever say why or who they choose to go into the cube and does anyone ever get out alive or is getting out alive a possibility?
I think every movie technically ends with someone getting out alive, but I think who they choose and why almost always is purposely vague and random, since is sort of like a human version of a rat maze. We choose rats at random, so why wouldn’t we choose humans the same way - but the 2nd film made a little bit more sense as to why these specific people were chosen. The 3rd basically said they volunteered to be there, but the company outside basically claimed those volunteering may be forced to volunteer anyway. It’s interesting.
Interpreting the Stars thanks man I appreciate it.
I’m curious about this series because of your reviews. Gotta check them out.
Definitely! Thanks for watching man!
What deranged rating-system are you using?
One of my creation.
I rate several things and it adds up to 100 possible points.
Acting
Characters
Casting
Importance of the characters
Chemistry
Dialogue
Balance/Pacing
Story Depth
Originality
Concept
Visuals
Cinematography/camerwork
Editing
Advertising
Music/Sound
Introduction
Inciting Incident
Obstacles
Climax
Resolution
Rewatchability
How much of a good time watching
Impulse to buy or own
Impulse to talk about or recommend
How engaging (do I feel like I'll miss something if I look away)
And 4 specialty questions that change for each film, which often deal with the specific genre and if it's part of a series. Sometimes director or actor specific
The point is to not just ... Give it a score all Willy Nilly. I want to back it up and make sure to give credit where it's due.
@@InterpretingEverything I like that you have a very detailed and technical system for your ratings. I have no idea how you can end up with a higher rating for either sequel than the original. IMDb gave the original a 7.1 and the sequels a 5.5 and 5.6.
I remember watching Cube 30 years ago in highschool when it came out. That's how powerful and memorable the movie is. The sequels are confused and lost, nowhere close to being one of a kind unique experiences.
Like the movies, pure hard cold math does not mix well with humanity, emotion, and artistry.
With all due respect, cause you made a really good video...
I think you need to reexamine your system... And check your math. 🤷🏻♂️🧮📝🎞️
Each sequel is very different than the original. Same concept but very different execution. Just like with adaptations or remakes, people get so hung up on loving the original that if other narratives don't match it, they suck. I see it constantly.
There's elements I enjoy out of each one. And when my end score is split into a technical and biased score - you'll noticed the third film received the lowest score out of all of them. Meaning I personally enjoyed the first the most. But technical areas of this third film were better than technical moments of the third, and thus...it ended up on top.