A Quiet Place: You can't make noise. Bird Box: You can't see. Tremors: You can't touch the ground. What's next? A movie where you can't breath air? The Happening: You can't breath air.
my fav scene in da phappening is when marky mark n the group see a slow gentle breeze n they all run for their lives 😀 how high were they when they wrote n filmed that shit! a gentle breeze is the villain in the happening spoiler alert 😁
In the book they didn't have names because she was raising them basically to survive because she knew at some point they would have to make the journey, so names was a luxury she thought they couldn't afford, and knew that the chances of them surviving were slim anyway Then getting names at the end was suppose to mark an optimistic ending, like they were finally somewhere safe, they were going to be okay, they could have names And the movie went "nah lol"
@@remyfinkelstein7036 cause in the book, Olympia never had any presuggested names for her baby, that convo never happened so they had her name her after Olympia like in the book They basically made yet another oopsie cause then your like "uh, she told you what names she likes" so yeah movie she should have named her Ella or something
Reminds me of the Phineas and Ferb episode where they built a giant tree house on an island. Phineas said something like "there's surviving, and then there's living" while revealing his tree house.
I remember getting pop ups and mails from netflix to watch birdbox and well, even if it made me decide to not watch it until today, they obviously decided to mass promote it
I have so much to say about this damn film. I was looking forward to it because of the clout. I had to read the novel first, so I did that and watched it yesterday. The book was amazing. In fact, most of the issues you (and I) have are non existent in the novel, which is a short 250 page and could have easily been adapted to film just like A Clockwork Orange was. They added characters that ultimately killed character development of others. They rushed every event and shoved romance into the story. The kids should have served an important role in the travels that was not even implied. The pacing in the film was awful, and they ruined the suspense. The climax was utter shit, and I ended up being angry once the credits rolled. They really changed 90% of what was supposed to happen, and did it like amateurs. 2017's "IT" didnt stay true to the book but still managed to be an amazing film, so I'm not just being a purist. Anyway, I could write a whole dissertation about this so I'll just stop. Everyone do yourself a favor and read the book.
@Xyre154 Oh shut up there's more to the book than that one thing King wrote when he was strung out on coke and doesn't even remember writing and even he regrets
It’s because the stomach stuff wasn’t a sexual thing?? It had to do with love familial or romantic and finding connection. It’s brought up more than once because of the underlying themes of family and life. Touching a pregnant woman’s stomach isn’t sexual. Additionally the touching was probably symbolically related to how they couldn’t see. And honestly I’m much more concerned that you found two little kids cuddling in cold and fear remotely hinting of something sexual. It was all about family ties but whatever.
Hannah Rose I agreed with everything he criticised about the movie except this one. To me, it symbolises family love and that’s it! I don’t understand how he concluded his confusion with incestuous relationship.
No, from an artistic perspective, there is only one conclusion that edit could ever imply. It's completely sexualized. It reminded me of some kind of Adam and Eve reference, where, if the world really was started by two people, their children would be forced to procreate with one another.
It’s even a theme we see early on in the expositional scenes: connection. Touching establishes a physical connection and can deepen emotional connections, likely even more so when you can’t see a majority of the time. It’s not about romance or sex, it’s about the human need for emotional connection and physical closeness.
Apparently, people think (though a small amount) that Netflix "created" the Bird Box meme trend to inflate the viewership and trendiness of the movie. Sure they didn't make ALL the memes, but they might have started it, and people just caught on. It is smart advertising if you think about it.
@@-nelson-514 dafuq... After like 15 minutes I was bored (not because nothing was happening lol) and after 23 I quit. It just failed to make me care about anything in the movie...
Bruh, it's obvious! They live in a building that's for the blind. ....Which is deep in a forest.. and the only way in is through a small hidden door... wait.
Taste is subjective. Editing is sloppy undoubtedly, but non-film makers or editors dont notice things like that. To each their own. I disagree with a majority of your criticisms, but I can see where you're coming from.
Briana Scott I can point out if I try too. But I just watch the film casually bashing the film while you watch it won’t change the quality of the movie so I couldn’t care less and just watch it to have fun.
@@francogiobbimontesanti3826 if you're referring to this movie, I didn't watch it. Maybe it takes a real effort for you to try, but as someone who watches things with appreciation and a mind that naturally can observe if something is shit or not, it does effect the film and most definitely the quality 😂 Bad acting? That effects at least MY enjoyability. Bad casting? Directing? Music? Script? Cinematography? A movie is more than motions on a screen for us to mindlessly stare at without noticing flaws.
@@breezy921 ofc there are moments when people can notice it regularly but i think it makes a bit of a difference in our viewing since we're also the people viewing videos like this hhh ,op maybe shouldve just said 'people who dont care as much about film making and editing' lol
@@leejee88 does this mean I can send a script to Netflix and make millions with stars, even though the script is a piece of filth? I better get started! 😉
@@CrewVienna You can't claim there to be any intelligent or intentional editing in the movie at all if you discount shots like the hand on belly transition. lmfao that was blatant parallelism.
@@CrewVienna It was definitely intentional. It was too obvious of a cut to not have been. Even though they're not genetically related, it was still kinda weird since they've been raised like siblings for at least 5 years and they're probably going to grow up as step/adoptive siblings with the same mother raising them both. So yeah, its kinda cringey to see that cut.
It seems like a lot of people casually liked the film. However, some people are out to bury it because it is "an affront to film" that appears to be more popular than it actually is. It's not critically acclaimed, just the flavor of the month that will undoubtedly fade out of relevance. Not everything has to be either an A+ or an F.
"Why does he put on pants to answer the radio" 🤣🤣🤣 I feel like I agree with everything you said. I was very disappointed in this film even though I love Sandra Bullock. I'm mad I was tricked into watching this movie. It was definitely hyped up.
or how about how two five year old children were able to SWIM to a rock / the shore when they have literally never even seen a body of water in their entire lives.
The river was flowing quite fast. They could have washed up against the shore/rock. And also just because a person doesn't know to swim, it doesn't mean they cant escape from drowning. Instincts will kick in and If you're lucky you'll live. Use your brain
when caught in rough waters, fighting it is the worst thing to do. the kids were practically catatonic the entire time, so they probably swept along with the current and washed up.
'sniceverything I just think A Quiet Place did this type of concept a lot better lol. The emotion in A Quiet Place was one of my favorite things about it and I felt genuinely sad when one of the characters died at the end. I didn’t really feel sad about anything in Bird Box (except that they were name Girl and Boy poor kids). But yeah. I’d say it was like a 5/10 for me? And A Quiet Place is a 9/10 :P
@@imsentinelprime9279 'sniceeverything: I thought the dialogue was ver- You: *CALm ThE fuCK DowN i SweAR To fuCKinG gOD peOpLE LiKe YoU!!1!!!1! I haTE yOu!!*
in defense of Sandra Bullock taking the birds, she gets a hint that animals are unaffected by the creature when she sees a horse running on the news, seemingly unaffected. I also did wonder how the birds manage to survive, but I think you could possibly assume that the grocery store clerk who locked up the store in the first place left out a lot of food for them. Whatever food was in the house probably didn't last very long for the several people living there, especially because a few of them are particularly selfish and could have presumably eaten more than their share. I think Sandra Bullock taking the birds was more of a hunch, based on the horse behavior
@@Gabs705 ever heard of a double entendre? Where one action or phrasing or an imagery can have layered meanings all pointing at different aspects of forshadowing?
Honestly i complained all the way through with my gf, its got dead ends no matter where you look. I thought i was overreacting but thank god ppl out here actually have standards
Some of the points you made were really good, but its seems like you were so out to hate this movie from the beginning that you made mistakes, misinterpreted things and missed things throughout this whole analysis. Its fair if you didnt like the movie but I think you made up your mind too quickly to give it a fair analysis. You have to play devil's advocate a little and give things the benifit of the doubt sometimes to give a fair look, otherwise you miss things as you did.
My biggest issue was that they kept alluding to our main character having to ride a horse. Her friend or sister or whatever was saying that everyone is gonna need horses, she saw a horse walking outside, and she said she learned her shotgun trick at some horseback riding camp thing... then she never actually rides a horse. It's like there was so much foreshadowing then nothing.
I don’t get it. I watched this movie twice and it was just a fun thriller. It’s not perfect, but I think we can all agree we were entertained while watching it. It’s not even close to be the best movie, but it’s definitely not the worst either. Idk y this topic got so much buzz
idk it was really hard to get into for me, it was so slow and the timeline just made it worse for me, i had to skip through it to make it through the movie
@@mxz25305 Which is fine but I'm trying to explain that most viewers don't put that much attention to detail and it's bothersome that he doesn't get that.
Honestly I could see that. Death note was bad yea but it was bad in comparison to the anime. On its own it’s still decent and entertaining, it just failed as a death note movie. This movie is just bad
@@AllegoricSiren I dont get it. You said it was bad then proceed it was bad in comparison to the anime, so is it bad as a movie or just when compared to the anime?
birdbox is literally just entertaining.... thats it. thats why everyone loves it. the one second shots keeps you interested and so does the classic storyline thats asks "who will survive?" i usually cant sit through a whole movie at once but i could with birdbox because the editing is so fast-paced or whatever. and i think the entertainment value is what clouds people's judgement on whether its actually a good quality movie or not
I couldn’t find it entertaining. I was legit falling asleep to it. I wasn’t scared or felt suspense because I felt it was pretty predictable. I watched it to see how it would all end but it had too many plot holes to fully be like “wow...this movie was crazy”
I agree, but some things are obvious already, like who survives. The movie’s first moments show the mom and her kids, and it shows flashbacks from 5 years ago showing who used to live in the house before anyone died. And how the girl was Olympia’s daughter. And some other stuff. Those were some of the small problems I had with the movie but overall, I actually did enjoy the movie
I'll start by saying it was not a "good" movie. It's just another horror/thriller/end of the world movie that Netflix loves to put out, but one of their award-bait movies with known actors instead of the normal no-name casts. But your critique is so off-center and just wrong that it's hard to not want to defend it. The critique about the monsters (why some people commit suicide and others become servants) was your misunderstanding that also leads into you misunderstanding the conveyance of loving family connections for Malorie (not incest). That THEN leads into you missing the ENTIRE theme of the film, which is Malorie struggling to connect or be close with anyone, NOT a "parental theme" (what? How did you even come to that conclusion?). That's why she named the kids "Girl" and "Boy". She does it to protect herself and them. They aren't her children (to her), she is only trying to help them to survive. She is blatantly blocking any kind of connection with them, so if they die she won't have to deal with the pain and if she dies they'll be able to survive without her. So, yes, she IS trying to dehumanize them on purpose. This is broken down over the course of the film, culminating in her screaming, "stay away from my children" at the (very belated) climax, after which the monsters actually break away. Which is the biggest case of IN YOUR FACE SYMBOLISM in the entire film, Malorie has made a connection with the children by taking up the role of their mother, which causes the monsters to flee temporarily. Malorie's "monster" is being unable to connect with people and she defeated it by finally accepting the children, that was her character arc. You'd have to be wearing a blindfold (har har) to not be able to see that symbolism and theme. Malorie struggles with connecting with people for the *entire* film. Her sister (that is CLEARLY her sister and not her lover, I can't imagine how you came to that conclusion unless you know that little about how siblings interact) is trying to encourage her to be close with people and tries to present a warm environment for her. For most of the film, it's fairly clear that Malorie's sister is one of the only people she's comfortable with to let her guard down and joke about things, as she spends a lot of time later on actively pushing people away from her and keeping her distance. Malorie developing a relationship with Tom is showing her breaking down in the face of someone trying to connect with her, a foil to her later on connecting with the children on her own. It's a development of her character arc from recluse that is only close with her sister > loses sister and protects herself by pushing others away (blatantly represented by her pushing away Olympia) > develops a relationship with Tom because he's kind and protective of her > Tom dies protecting her and the kids, whom Malorie has not connected with yet (who she pushes away to protect herself and them) > Malorie finally connects with the kids because they need her to survive and she is protecting them like Tom protected her. The comments about there being some sort of "incest" themes with Tom and his sister on top of thinking that Malorie's sister was her lover are just entirely wrong and I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how you got there so I'm not going to comment on that. The monsters represent being alone, disconnected, being unloved or having no one to love or losing everything. That's why people who DO have those things, loving families, spouses, children, etc, go insane and kill themselves. The monsters show them their greatest despair and they can't handle it. Why do you think the characters we see committing suicide having visions of deceased relatives or people they were close with? The people that become servants of the monsters are the ones who have nothing to lose, already lost everything, were psychopaths or without any sense of love or connections, or insane. Which is made pretty clear when the movie practically beats you over the head with it with Gary, who was captured by people that came from a mental institution for the criminally insane that were forcing people to look. There are a ton more things wrong or missed, themes on Malorie being like the trapped birds and that kind of thing, but I already wasted way too much time and thought on this as it is. I feel like this entire critique can be summed up with, "I barely paid any attention and wanted to hate it before I even saw it". Also, some kind of pretentious comments about thinking famous authors have "better taste" than this because you thought it was bad.
It's not defending hack filmmaking. It's encouraging critics to think harder. After all, how will hack filmmakers get better if their critics don't even know what's wrong with the movies?
The book was fantastic and a lot of your questions are answered in it. It sounds like it didn't translate well to the screenplay. It's a shame I loved the book and will probably avoid the movie.
Yes, the book was much, much better and way more horrifying. It was a true horror novel, not a action-thriller like the movie became. The atmosphere was much creepier and the story had so much more dread and true suspense. Also the writing was sharper with less plot holes.
@@KayS471 sounds like what happened with I am legend and many other novels like it. it often doesn't translate well because how directors are concerned the audience will respond and they''ll go in a slightly different direction, and will have a hopeful or optimistic ending as opposed to a more cutting edge one.
I didn't look too deep into the movie. It was just entertaining. But whenever a person tells me about the problems in a movie that I didn't care to catch on to, they act like I should've sat there and nit picked about everything like them.
This may shock you, but there are people called "film critics" out there whose job it is to pay more attention to movies than the average bear. This is usually so they can be detailed in their review.
@@Xaixiu Clearly you didn't get the sarcasm, so let me be frank. You and the people you talk to don't watch movies in the same way critics do. The fact that he looked into it farther than any of you means he did what he set out to do.
"How can the public... not realize when they are being fed a rehash of stuff they have seen a million times?" They do, they just like it. Look at Star Wars. Look at pretty much every Tom Clancy espionage thriller. Human beings basically have four original stories that we like to hear over and over and over again.
@@diamondwave100 dude read the comment properly... it just said people like this stuff. It's not saying that makes it bad or good. You mongoloid inbred fuck.
"How can the public... not realize when they are being fed a rehash of stuff they have seen a million times?" Ironic part is that it is said by cookie-cutter pretentious hipster with Star Wars and Pulp Fiction posters on the wall, god damn youtube public not realize when they are being fed a rehash of stuff they have seen a million times?
Appallingly terrible? That's incredibly hyperbolic. Bad? Sure. Contrived? Definitely. But it's far from "appallingly terrible." The Nun, Robin Hood, or Slender Man are all significantly worse than Bird Box, and are actually terrible. I don't get the mass appeal either, but you're coming off as way too pretentious.
This one is worse bc it THINKS it's good. I'm sure the director thinks he made something amazing. But it's hot trash and makes no sense with the worst unsatisfying ending ever.
@Ornate Orator its okay to hate one character, but the whole movie? Really? I thought the old guy was a stupid and hamfisted character but i wouldnt hate an entire movie for one political message. Also there was an asian bad guy at the end btw
I actually really liked the film. But one of the things I didn't get was the "insane" people's obsession with children, like why did Gary wait until the babies were born? Was it deemed better in their 'group' to convert the young? And if he was trying/did succeed to make the babies look as well, how would they have even killed themselves because they're immobile
"You don't think this movie is good? YOU'RE PRETENTIOUS!" "You have movie posters in the background? YOU'RE PRETENTIOUS!" This comment section man, goddamn.
I don’t get it. He’s making a good point here, calling out cliches, bad habits, and running errors in this movie. Oh, but everyone likes it, so they just go with everyone else saying “IT’S NOT TRASH, UR TRASH” just because of a few movie posters and saying things that oppress like, 3 people?
@@echo-wj6ls mostly it's the way he talks about it, Almost every criticism has a toxic insulting tone, or just plain insult attached to it, Then the review itself has a lot of nitpicks that are only "problems" of the movie because he put a negative twist and acts like it makes no sense, Like at the part where the old man's wife dies , the reviewer says "all he does is just stand there after seeing his wife get blown up" Too him that's what happened, But what really happened Is that the old man saw the love of his life Casually walk into a burning car that blows up, He doesn't do anything because he is in complete shock of seeing his wife(who we later find out was the opposite of him and happy in every way) would commit suicide, If you wanna go even deeper to how it makes sense, on top of being in plain raw shock His character is the type of old man that learned to bottle up emotions from a young age.
The comments are full of bird box fanboys who take its critique as a personal attack. But it's not just this guy who thinks it was a horrible movie, just about every established critic has said so, on top of the countless viewer reviews. It's a shitty film. You're allowed to have enjoyed it, I'm glad it took up an afternoon for me, but it was not well made.
Could also be they take the personal attacks of this video as personal attacks. He made this video from the angle of "Anyone who liked it is an idiot" and he seems personally offended by the movie aswell... So I guess he could be chalked up as a hater then. I'm by no means a fan lf the movie, but his "I know better" attitude annoyed me enough to not give his opinions much credit. Had he discussed his opinions without being judgmental from the get go, yeah I think he would've had alot more respect from the viewers of this vid
I haven't read the book but I like the whole story. It is true Lovecraftian horror in every sense and I like the whole concept . Bird Box movie does earn 5/10 from me and it can thank the original story for it. The writing in this movie is so terrible that I can easily pinpoint book changes. Characters who make ridiculous decisions that only some mentally challenged child would make. Googled a bit about it, that crazy guy wasn't allow to enter the house without permission from the group, they realised that he is crazy later when they checked his belongings, kicked him out, but his charisma and charm managed to persuade one guy to keep him hidden in the house. Much better than what we saw....characters don't need to be complete idiots in a horror film for it to work, not unless you are a failure of a writer. Dialogue is the same basic copy+paste from ever other horror film with few changes, like how lazy can a writer get? Just googling about the changes, it is obvious that every thing that bothered me in the movie didn't happen in the book. The ending was cringeworthy and ruined the whole movie. The book ending wasn't nearly as bad, because in the book it is clearly established that there is no hope, humans who want 100% chance of survival need to blind themselves. And blinded humanity cannot survive forever. This is one of the cases where I didn't even read the book and yet I can already see that it must be superior. As for the fanboys....well, the movie is my guilty pleasure, despite of what I have written above. However, angry responses from many fans can be summed up as "2deep4u"....
The movie acted like it has tension when none exists. What's the point of putting character in life or death situations when we know their alive at the end if the movie.
Wasn't Birdbox a book before The Happening was a movie? 🤷🏾♀️ I respect others opinions but this whole review really was a reach man. I'm a subscriber so I'm not hater. But you sound pretentious And like you're trying to convince people they're stupid for liking this movie. And it's not called Bird Box because of birds being in a box. Simple Google could of solved that. Plus the many questions you had about this movie ...
Does it really, really matter how original the concept is anyway? Did it really take away from the experience? I understand if it was an original movie but it wasn’t, so I don’t get why people care so much about it not being original. It didn’t take anything away from the movie in my opinion.
I’m only a few minutes in and I’m already rolling my eyes and probably won’t finish this video. Not only does he sound pretentious and irrationally angry that people enjoyed it, but it sounds like he’s nitpicking. He’s complaining about their reactions not being intense enough because I guess they should’ve ALL been screaming hysterically? Even though they’d seen it on the news for some time. Even though Malorie was supposed to be in shock when her sister died. Even though people process traumatic events and grief differently. It’s not like in the Happening where people literally weren’t acting like actual humans and we’re doing terrible reads of terrible dialogue. This was just “they aren’t reacting exactly as I think they should which makes it bad.” If this is how the entire video will be I’ll pass.
Also you fail majorly at reading the subtext: The stomach thing was comforting because for Tom it represented new life and not just death. It comforted Tom because it showed new life was good and not a hindrance, it was his only sense of hope. And the kids were likely repeating what they saw from their 'parents' so many times. It wasnt about romance. It was about comfort, in all relationships. 2. Bullock disassociates, names the kids boy and girl, and refuses to let herself be called mom, because of her conversation with the asshole. The asshole was right, and proven to be right, and she found that the only way to live was to be uncaring. And she felt if the kids didnt care about her or each other, their chance at survival would increase, because its caring about others that got so many killed. This is reiterated when she tells the girl that she has to forget about her and fend for herself if something were to happen. Something you can only realistically do if you dont care about someone. Her arc is then realizing the fault in her logic after Tom's death. Him caring about her and the kids, and her caring about the kids is what kept them alive for so long. Them working together. Sacrificing for each other. So caring isnt as bad of a thing as she thought. Albeit its a weird arc because she kind of already goes through it when her sister dies, but reverts back once the asshole was proven right. But the arc is still very evident. For all of your nuanced critique of sound editing, CGI, and camera angles, your critique of story elements, which i would argue is the most important part, are severely lacking.
People don't feel the urge to survive purely to prolong their lonely existence until they ultimately die of old age (alone)... it makes absolutely no sense for anyone to be so desperate to stay alive without anything to live for (loved ones, intimacy or caring). It's one thing for her to be emotionally detached prior to all the traumatic events - but when your entire existence is three other people and to your knowledge the world is over, you don't hang on to some bullshit emotional hang-ups about having kids... it's pretty much the same point you JUST FINISHED MAKING im the first part of your comment.
@@everyhandleistakeneventhisone except those are two different characters. Tom recognized that living for others was a good thing. She didnt. Her arc is finding out that she in fact did, that her bonds with other people was keeping her alive not putting her in danger. That's her character arc, realizing the same thing Tom did.
It amazes me how you managed to nitpick and read so deep into things that you found incest subtext, yet somehow failed to understand why some people were able to see the creatures, when the latter was directly explained in a hamfisted exposition scene.
@@thelittleredhairedgirlfrom6527 The criminally insane people that were affected in another way had already imagined or lived through their worst fears or traumas, hence not affecting them in the same way. It takes a few seconds of thought to see that with all the hints from Fish Fingers to Gary.
@@freder1c What would be your backstory for it? I would love to hear. I think it makes sense that the demons/spirits in the movie want to use their body as a vessel to get others to take their blind fold off.
hm she names them "boy" and "girl" not from her not wanting kids, but bc she doesn't want to allow herself to become attached to them. and obviously, whether she wanted kids or not she's going to feel a stronger bond towards her own child than someone else's so it makes perfect sense.
Also it was pointed out to me by the person I watched it with that she named them Boy and Girl because it really fucked her up whenever the monster said her name to get her to take off her blindfold.
I heard from an explanation video that This was also her acting like a survivor and not a mom. Towards the end of the movie, she turns into a mom. lots of character development that made this movie loveable for me.
But that's also another thing that's pretty dumb. You're probably right that's why they did that in the film, kids you're taking care of she's going to become attracted to them no matter what and 5 years is unreasonably long for her to finally name them and then there's the point of, if she didn't want to het attached she should've just killed them herself not letting them live in such a fucked up reality cause she wasn't too fond on having a kid in the first place right? Idk maybe I'm stupid.
I thought he was totally off about that. When Tom was talking about touching his sister's belly, that was about human connection. Then he talks about touching Mal's, that's about connection. He's craving that in this time when he doesn't have anyone he's really close to. Then, when it's mirrored with the children, that shows that even though Mal won't let herself get close to them and discourages connection, humans still find connection with others. So much media is relationship focused, so I understand why this guy got his analysis totally wrong, but this was a film about genuine human connection and i thought that was a great way to display it.
I just want to say this cause no one else ever does: It bothers me that she named the girl "Olympia" even though Olympia told her the name she picked out if she were to have a girl. Why didn't she name her that? I really thought it was foreshadowing.
Ok I can see how you could mistake those certain scenes for being “ incestuous” but Tom only touched his sisters stomach to get close to the baby and it is YOUR mistake for thinking they were lovers not sisters and even if the scene where boy and girl are sleeping together is meant to be romantic THEY ARE NOT RELATED they were born on the same day from different parents and they were sort of raised as siblings and it would be weird for them to be in love but it wouldn’t be incest
I think you misunderstood the whole 'boy' 'girl' thing - she doesn't name them because shes scared of losing them. It's like on farms where they don't name the animals because they will inevitably die She was scared to name them and connect with them because she feared them dying Also this was a very eloquent video - COMPLETELY disagree with you about basically everything you said but great video
That didn't come across in the movie though, her hating children doesn't make sense and her suddenly loving the children doesn't make sense either. Stop looking at the movie through the book lense.
@Gen Eric do you have a source? Sounds like bs to me. I can't find a swedish source for that, on the other hand I found a PDF from a history school book saying newborns who were deemed strong we're named while the weak were left to die, are you thinking about that?
@@rico8673 Netflix isn't "free". And like, even if it was, that wouldn't be a good argument anyway. I wouldn't say "free" things are usually of any quality.
It's one of those films that you could tell a girl to come watch with you at home since its trending right now, only to have it in the background while you make out
the worst part is that they almost died on the way to the grocery store and then they just skipped to them being back in the house when they were going home again
the way they reacted or (didn't react) to her sister dying or his wife dying is actually a pretty standard way to act when you're in shock lol that's how i read into it at least
Haven't watched the video yet but I can say with second hand experience and somewhat with personal experience that it's true. Grief can start much much later.
Ali Grace he’s just shitting on the movie extra hard for views. But if he wants to grow, he should be more like FoundFlix where he does point out what’s bad without throwing away the movie entirely
It was a flimsy criticism. But the rest of his video is valid. I personally enjoyed the film, but his points about the editing/ lighting , and pacing - is spot on. Doesn’t mean it will bother everyone though.
Malarie named the kids Boy and Girl and talked to them meanly because she didn't want them to get attached to her, so that the monsters couldn't hold anything against them if they ever see them.
I agree! And also the whole thing was about how scared Malorie was from being a mom and how she had problems to connect with people, we were presented to that by a VERY exposive dialogue with her sister at the beginning, lol ♡
@@willparker8498 And that's where topics like 'forced motherhood' and 'not being ready to be a mom' enter in the movie, we see that Malorie was hands down not ready to be a mom, she wasn't even accepting it, she was viewing it as a problem that would go away soon, she wasn't ready to deal with it, the moment she accept the girl as hers is when she notices that she's ready with that idea now, at least that's how i understood it (not trying to say that what she did was nice, tho)
@@willparker8498 YES! And i'm in no way saying that what she did was nice, or that she's a good person, but that was the way the movie deal with the topic, she has lost a lot of people, i believe that not naming the kids was a way of not getting attached~
glad i can finally find someone who agrees. Everyone is singing this films praises and i honestly just don't get it. I couldn't remain engaged in the film not only because the plot was just super lacklustre but because the editing was just headache inducing and mind numbingly boring. This film takes itself so seriously but has some terrible terrible performances that initially i thought had to be artistic choices like the guy who worked at the supermarket and the man whose wife throws herself into the burning car but as the film progressed i realised that this film genuinely thinks it's just something that it's just not. It's really not thought provoking or interesting and i get what it's trying to say but it just doesn't pull it off. The whole deal of "overcoming your inner demons to combat the real ones" and the main character's inability to connect to the world around her and then her finally overcoming that bla bla bla bla it just doesn't do anything for me. Anyway thank you for this vid couldn't agree more!
Your point at the end really just summed up my feelings for the movie. Although I understood the themes the film was going for and I do like those themes in general, this film did nothing to make it resonate with me.
Honestly all the critics destroyed it. But the public praised it. I think the only amazing thing about the movie is Sandra Bullock's performance. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't good either
Horror films are seemingly the genre at the moment that has the most disconnect between the opinion of the masses and that of the critics and more serious film fans. There's a shit ton of awful horror films that are made on the cheap and then make 10 times their cost at the box office. I don't get it.
They accept it so quickly because it happened in Russia first, and it was only a matter of time before it came to there, so they had already dealt with the thought previously.
I feel you had a good video in the heart of this, but it felt egregiously subjective rather than quantifying your claims effectively. A lot of your points are very petty and feel half-cooked. This could be personal taste, but I feel doing some objective research and comparison could have made this more compelling. As it is, this feels closer to "this is stupid and you should know why" rather than an unbiased deconstruction/review, which is what I feel you were aiming for. Wishing you a happy new year and best of luck with your new videos.
You also appear to have missed some of the explanations/reasons; perhaps try a more neutral watching and see if you've missed something, rather than it's "dumb". A quick example: The children weren't named not because of her disinclination to being a mother, but because she was scared of attachment, which is contrasting to her beginning position of being scared/apprehensive/pessimistic about not bonding with her unborn child. As another commenter accurately paralleled: this is similar to how someone may not name their consumable livestock as to take a first step to not connecting on a personal level with the creature. This is because sooner or later, one feels or knows that the unnamed will be gone, and it is easier to cope if they are dehumanised.
@@slayer-22 a critique that is subjective rather than objective, whilst presenting itself as an analysis or deconstruction is simply a shame. There was a great piece to be had here. Maybe the creator will discover more objectivity in the future.
Charlotte Roberts So yoj wanted him to, instead of giving his own opinion, just churn out technical flaws and facts that could be actually proven? What an *awfull* idea for a video. Please, don't TH-cam. Opinions lead to actual thought provoking discussion, not just circlejerks over why lightsabers wouldn't technically work or why Spider-Man's DNA wouldn't change due to a bite.
@@slayer-22 you criticize everyone's opinion that goes against this dude. If he can have an opinion and express it, so can everyone else who didn't like his opinion. You're on everyone's friggin comments. Chill.
ThatChainmecha Your insult would be okay (i guess) if it made any sense... most people liked the movie, he's going against the grain. At least learn what an NPC is before you use the dead meme incorrectly.
Ok, after fully watching it and gathering my thoughts You were out for this film And no, it's not a cliche to say that because theirs people who genuinely hates a very hyped up product. You say at the end how "I don't understand what the appeal of this film is" but how is that the case? Sandra Bullock is one of the most popular and talented actresses in Hollywood, and she's lending her talents to a Netflix movie. It has a an interesting plot It had thrill Romance And even action. So it's gonna target at Least one of those audiences. And you're seriously gonna say how this movie isn't groundbreaking? Dude, they promoted this movie as a whole meme That's the main reason people were drawn to this thing Not because they wanted a nuance masterpiece, but a fun and enjoyable film. People go crazy over this film? Nah, most people agree it's a "fun" watch, not the second coming of exorcist or something. It has a 60% on RT and I think a 7.5 on idbm which is a fan poll. So yeah, pretty average. I might just dissect your video's opinions so I can complety destroy your argument put it's 5:18am and I'm tired as hell. I thought I could understand your points fully, and try to respect them, but damn you're making it hard
lol, what a great combination. You combined the "you just wanted to hate it" cliche with the "I'm not even going to explain why you're wrong because you're so wrong" cliche. Imagine having your head up your own ass, lol
Yeah i enjoyed it. I wasnt expecting it to be great and it was solid. Im sure uf i had read the book and was more invested in it that would have affected my view on it.
@@DDChorror i can understand many of the issues with this movie but hard for me to follow that one. Most of the movie wasnt in the house and while there was bickering the movie was more than that.
I'm the kind of person that highly pays attention to detail when watching a movie, but Bird Box was actually different. The fast pace and the abrupt shots keeps you interested and it's really good at keeping people entertained. In fact, it was good enough to cloud the audience's criticisms with its plot. You honestly just hated the movie.
@@culturezoneculturezone9071 and you're just some dumbfuck black dude who likes jpop? See what I did there? Making an argument about your person to trash your opinion? Its a logical fallacy, and you probably have no idea what that means, but it means your argument has no merit.
I thought the opening was strong but it got slightly boring later on, plus the ending was disappointing, nothing really happened and there wasn't a good twist or anything
I thought the movie was just fine. Horror/Thriller movies aren’t my thing anyway because logic most of the time has to be thrown away to create drama. What disappointed me about the film was the monster itself and the concept of the whole thing. In every description they push this “it shows your greatest fear” that leads them to suicide. Like a physical form of depression or something. I thought it was the character’s conscious choice to commit suicide. But no it was just the Happening’s logic where you’re forced to commit suicide, it’s no different than the monster coming and killing you itself. I don’t know I just thought the suicide angle was going to be more uniquely explored and the psychological aspect of it but it’s just explained by some line by a character to happens to studying that very thing and happens to be trapped with our protagonist. lol that’s a weird complaint but i just think what they went with has too many plotholes.
Diego Rodriguez and it was released right around Christmas it’s not that hard to see why it is popular a lot of popular shit sucks idk why some people are so up in arms about this
Yeah except he was incorrect because the movie explains insane people can safely look at the monsters and worship them then they go on to try and force others to look at the monsters. I don't think that it's crazy for insane people to drive.
@@VeronicAM313 Yea, it's people like this that give cinema buffs a bad name. Most of us just appreciate nice cinematography and handy use of a metaphor or dialogue. We don't go out of our way to shit on films that aren't art house. Unfortunately, because we don't make 20 minute rants about _insert flavour of the month here,_ we don't garner as much attention.
@@Cernunnnos I'm sorry that a structured video pointing out the flaws over an overhyped movie makes you butthurt. The movies promise is stupid and is average. I rather have seen the nun again though because at least in the nun there was good action and chemistry even if it was littered with jump scares
I liked the film because of the acting sandra bullock did. I watched this with my mother who hates sandra bullock but even she thought sandra bullock was the best part of the film. However we thought it was overall like, super weirdly convoluted where it didnt need to be. These kinds of movies are best when things are vague as possible with a clear cut goal. The only parts i really liked of the MOVIE were the "present" day stuff on the river with the kids, and even then it was a little rough. Not even the author of the book the movie is based on knows what the fuck the creatures are. All in all it was a good way to spend a weird Friday with my mom but a bad movie, and some of it we were straight up laughing over how weird it was. She turned to me multiple timed like "wait, what just happened? Why are they doing this?" And i had to try and pull out what they MAYBE wanted to allude to but even then it made like, the tiniest thread of sense. Idk. Wack. 3/7 boxed birds.
For me, what took away from Bullock's performance was the full-on makeup she had for every scene. I have trouble getting past that when we're considering an apocalypse.
The birds don't freak out around affected people. They only freak out around the monsters. At the supermarket, the monster was right outside the door with an affected human, which is why Charlie died pretty much immediately after sacrificing himself pushing the affected guy outside.
I feel like with a lot of the points you make here, You either are looking into things too much, when the filmmaker isn't really intending for there to be any sort of metaphor or meaning (eg. When there is a shot of the hand on malorie's belly switching over to 26 (?) hours on the river Where girl's hand is on boy's belly... maybe it's just a cool shot change of similar positions just for a little bit of segue). You also nitpick a lot of the situations for not giving enough sense of reason for playing out, or having no real sense of time past. I didn't notice any of these things when i watched it. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and thought that the scene tension dropoff of switching between 5 years ago and current day on the river was really cool, and the movie for me managed to raise suspense with every switch. I wouldn't say the movie is perfect but after watching it and finding out it's based off a book, I immediately wanted to read it and discover more about the real lore this movie is based off. To be fair, never watched your videos before and I'll chuck you a sub and a like for good measure but yeah, this review made me sad dude.
Thank you. There were so many things wrong with this movie, but the character development was by far the worst whiplashing between ham-handed (in the case of Bullock's character) and non-existent (the cop hates the druggie, the cop fucks the druggie, the cop falls in love and runs off with the druggie...for some reason). This was really a C-grade direct-to-video type horror film with some big names attached to it. Really laughably executed.
I agree with just about all of your points and was extremely disappointed with this movie but there is one thing you talked about I want to touch on. The fact that she called the children Boy and Girl instead of giving them proper names. The dehumanization that it inflicts could be why she didn't give them proper names. The kids have to understand that you can not slip up at any point or else they will die. Not giving them names and barking at them takes away their humanity and part of feeling human is freedom of choice. The children are not aloud to have any freedom to choose because that will inevitably lead to their death. They aren't aloud to be children and make mistakes. If I remember correctly, it isn't until they are safe in that blind people place that she finally gives them names, not because she finally excepts them as her kids but because they can finally be children. Honestly I think my explanation is just a reach on me trying to find SOMETHING somewhat clever in this movie. Chances are she called them boy and girl because of your explanation, I just wanted to insert this view as it makes at least one part of the movie not so dumb.
A Quiet Place: You can't make noise.
Bird Box: You can't see.
Tremors: You can't touch the ground.
What's next? A movie where you can't breath air?
The Happening: You can't breath air.
Well, the book it's based on came before A Quiet Place and The Happening.
That's pretty much OI
This comment is on every video to do with this
Are we meant to give you props or something ?
Douche
A film where you can’t smell or taste things. That would be quite boring.
my fav scene in da phappening is when marky mark n the group see a slow gentle breeze n they all run for their lives 😀 how high were they when they wrote n filmed that shit! a gentle breeze is the villain in the happening spoiler alert 😁
"Accepting them as her own by finally giving them names"
Names the girl after the other character, further cementing that she's not her own.
In the book they didn't have names because she was raising them basically to survive because she knew at some point they would have to make the journey, so names was a luxury she thought they couldn't afford, and knew that the chances of them surviving were slim anyway
Then getting names at the end was suppose to mark an optimistic ending, like they were finally somewhere safe, they were going to be okay, they could have names
And the movie went "nah lol"
But like why did she name her Olympia and not one of the names olympia herself had said she would name her daughter.
@@remyfinkelstein7036 cause in the book, Olympia never had any presuggested names for her baby, that convo never happened so they had her name her after Olympia like in the book
They basically made yet another oopsie cause then your like "uh, she told you what names she likes" so yeah movie she should have named her Ella or something
@@remyfinkelstein7036 She should have been named Kitty because of the Hello Kitty.
070 hi....
Flash forward: those memes were made by netflix
In WALLE the captain also said "I don't wanna survive, I wanna live" lol
Barry B Benson I LEGIT WAS THINKING THE SAME THING!!
they also used that line in the croods. like that fucking caveman movie made for children
@@hazelnoot2865 hey don't knock the Croods, it's a decent film.
@@HeloisGevit Yeah it was pretty good
Reminds me of the Phineas and Ferb episode where they built a giant tree house on an island. Phineas said something like "there's surviving, and then there's living" while revealing his tree house.
It's winter vacation, people are bored, and when you open Netflix, a giant advertisement for Bird box pops up.
Boom, explanation.
SemiSolid Snake Yeaaah, that’s about it. Nothing too deep
lol tru
I remember getting pop ups and mails from netflix to watch birdbox and well, even if it made me decide to not watch it until today, they obviously decided to mass promote it
Plus the devil is strong with this one. @Netflix
Thank you
I have so much to say about this damn film. I was looking forward to it because of the clout. I had to read the novel first, so I did that and watched it yesterday.
The book was amazing. In fact, most of the issues you (and I) have are non existent in the novel, which is a short 250 page and could have easily been adapted to film just like A Clockwork Orange was.
They added characters that ultimately killed character development of others. They rushed every event and shoved romance into the story. The kids should have served an important role in the travels that was not even implied.
The pacing in the film was awful, and they ruined the suspense. The climax was utter shit, and I ended up being angry once the credits rolled.
They really changed 90% of what was supposed to happen, and did it like amateurs. 2017's "IT" didnt stay true to the book but still managed to be an amazing film, so I'm not just being a purist.
Anyway, I could write a whole dissertation about this so I'll just stop. Everyone do yourself a favor and read the book.
Xyre154 R rated films are on the up and up y’know
@Xyre154 Oh shut up there's more to the book than that one thing King wrote when he was strung out on coke and doesn't even remember writing and even he regrets
Stephanie Barnes Why are you so mad?
did he have his pills yet?
Completely agree. Very good book, horrible adaptation!
sorry i have my blindfold on i cant hear you
But...That wouldn't...Nevermind.
Whoosh
The Haven r/Woooosh
@@grantwilliams2650
r/whooooooooosh
r/ihavereddit to all of you.
SO MANY TIMES IN THIS MOVIE I WAS JUST LIKE...
BUT WAIT HOW DID THAT EVEN?
LIKE HOW DID THE BIRDS SURVIVE THE ENTIRE BOAT ARC I DONT UNDERSTAND
HeyShadyLady calm down the caps lock please. It’s annoying
cgi makes everything magic
Um 😐 Sandra feeds them with water
@@turtlefan5372 WHATS WRONG WITH CAPLOCKS?
I LOVE CAPSLOCK,
CAPSLOCK IS YOUR FRIEND,
WHY DO YOU HATE YOUR FRIEND,
ARE WE STILL FRIENDS? 😒
‘Boat arc’ 😂😂😂😂
Taylor: "WHAT KIND OF INCESTUOUS EDITING IS THIS?!!"
The Star Wars poster behind him: 👁 👄 👁
At least with the OT we didn't realize it was incestuous for like, years
Dude, you look like 1970s George Lucas... I dig it
“WHAT KIND OF ..INCESTUOUS EDITING IS THIS!!?”
"Gee isn't all this mass suicide thing awful."
Ten minutes later.
"It's here now."
Well, that's how the pandemic felt for me
It’s because the stomach stuff wasn’t a sexual thing?? It had to do with love familial or romantic and finding connection. It’s brought up more than once because of the underlying themes of family and life. Touching a pregnant woman’s stomach isn’t sexual. Additionally the touching was probably symbolically related to how they couldn’t see. And honestly I’m much more concerned that you found two little kids cuddling in cold and fear remotely hinting of something sexual. It was all about family ties but whatever.
Hannah Rose I agreed with everything he criticised about the movie except this one. To me, it symbolises family love and that’s it! I don’t understand how he concluded his confusion with incestuous relationship.
No, from an artistic perspective, there is only one conclusion that edit could ever imply. It's completely sexualized. It reminded me of some kind of Adam and Eve reference, where, if the world really was started by two people, their children would be forced to procreate with one another.
well, people can have different opinions, but I agree that it was a symbol of family and connection
It’s even a theme we see early on in the expositional scenes: connection. Touching establishes a physical connection and can deepen emotional connections, likely even more so when you can’t see a majority of the time. It’s not about romance or sex, it’s about the human need for emotional connection and physical closeness.
@@KenzLovesMovies pretty sure there are better ways to show human connection than rubbing someone's belly.
Apparently, people think (though a small amount) that Netflix "created" the Bird Box meme trend to inflate the viewership and trendiness of the movie. Sure they didn't make ALL the memes, but they might have started it, and people just caught on. It is smart advertising if you think about it.
I think there were even more forces at play that explain why this movie gained mass appeal like it did. It just came out of nowhere.
Kaitlyn And I definitely believe that.
Guerilla advertising.
The reason I watched bird box was because I saw a few memes and wanted to know what they were about
Kaitlyn And that's how shit like minions get millions of dollars
i dont think it was that bad, but it was:
1: too long
2: unoriginal
3: unsatisfying
this comment section is cancer.
Imo it was too short xD i would've preferred a Mini series
@@-nelson-514 dafuq... After like 15 minutes I was bored (not because nothing was happening lol) and after 23 I quit. It just failed to make me care about anything in the movie...
unoriginal? what do you mean??
@@mrandreix9753 just watch the happening and the quiet place
@@-nelson-514 i guess it couldve worked, with a tv series pacing and all
but watching 2 hours in one sitting was kinda dull for me
And why the hell are the blind people living in a Forest so far away from civilization 🤣 like, did they went there? Did they always lived there?
Bruh, it's obvious! They live in a building that's for the blind.
....Which is deep in a forest.. and the only way in is through a small hidden door... wait.
cuts to your roommate watching birdbox.
Hello, Devyn 👀
@@devynlyman2947 hello :)
Taste is subjective. Editing is sloppy undoubtedly, but non-film makers or editors dont notice things like that. To each their own. I disagree with a majority of your criticisms, but I can see where you're coming from.
Not a film maker or editor and can point out bad editing a mile away. It's not a skill, it's just paying attention to what you're watching 🤷
Briana Scott I can point out if I try too. But I just watch the film casually bashing the film while you watch it won’t change the quality of the movie so I couldn’t care less and just watch it to have fun.
@@francogiobbimontesanti3826 if you're referring to this movie, I didn't watch it. Maybe it takes a real effort for you to try, but as someone who watches things with appreciation and a mind that naturally can observe if something is shit or not, it does effect the film and most definitely the quality 😂 Bad acting? That effects at least MY enjoyability. Bad casting? Directing? Music? Script? Cinematography? A movie is more than motions on a screen for us to mindlessly stare at without noticing flaws.
Briana Scott I guess it depends from person to person.
@@breezy921 ofc there are moments when people can notice it regularly but i think it makes a bit of a difference in our viewing since we're also the people viewing videos like this hhh ,op maybe shouldve just said 'people who dont care as much about film making and editing' lol
Am I the only one who didn’t realize that Machine Gun Kelly was in this film?
YourLocal TrashCan what? I didn’t watch the movie because I’m nuts and can’t deal with suicide. Was he good? Who did he play?
erin h He played a druggie in the film I forgot his name because he wasn’t really important. I guess he did exceptional
YourLocal TrashCan that’s so weird. I only know him from that one Camila Cabello song and a little Mix song he was on that was actually quite good.
YourLocal TrashCan wait a minute-
I kept referring to him as "Machine Gun Kelly" without realizing it actually was him
"this isnt cinima sins after all"
Immediately subs
I honestly love when people can separate the actors from the awful script!!!!! A very refreshing take on picking apart a film.
kind of tells you that actors can lift the crappy film.
Its called star power they use it to sell talentless writers scripts
@@leejee88 maleficent and angelina jolie is a great example
@@leejee88 does this mean I can send a script to Netflix and make millions with stars, even though the script is a piece of filth? I better get started! 😉
TheGrave10der you’d be surprised
I am sorry but I died at “incestuous editing” lol
yeah that was just a somewhat unnecessary match cut.. he was definitely overthinking that one..
yeah i was laughing bec they arent even related
@@CrewVienna You can't claim there to be any intelligent or intentional editing in the movie at all if you discount shots like the hand on belly transition. lmfao that was blatant parallelism.
@@CrewVienna You probably don't think enough. It was obviously a very odd choice of cuts.
@@CrewVienna It was definitely intentional. It was too obvious of a cut to not have been. Even though they're not genetically related, it was still kinda weird since they've been raised like siblings for at least 5 years and they're probably going to grow up as step/adoptive siblings with the same mother raising them both. So yeah, its kinda cringey to see that cut.
I thought of this movie more like a fun careless film, not really a serious cinematic masterpiece.
No we need a ever increasing standard of masterpiece from every movie made how dare anything be SUITABLE
Right, people expect every single thing to be art in its finest form. But like.... it’s never that serious.
It seems like a lot of people casually liked the film. However, some people are out to bury it because it is "an affront to film" that appears to be more popular than it actually is. It's not critically acclaimed, just the flavor of the month that will undoubtedly fade out of relevance. Not everything has to be either an A+ or an F.
Chris Johnson Exactly. These criticisms channels are getting on my nerves.
This here is the real tea ^
"Why does he put on pants to answer the radio" 🤣🤣🤣 I feel like I agree with everything you said. I was very disappointed in this film even though I love Sandra Bullock. I'm mad I was tricked into watching this movie. It was definitely hyped up.
or how about how two five year old children were able to SWIM to a rock / the shore when they have literally never even seen a body of water in their entire lives.
The river was flowing quite fast. They could have washed up against the shore/rock. And also just because a person doesn't know to swim, it doesn't mean they cant escape from drowning. Instincts will kick in and If you're lucky you'll live. Use your brain
when caught in rough waters, fighting it is the worst thing to do. the kids were practically catatonic the entire time, so they probably swept along with the current and washed up.
malorie trained the kids for 5 years stop reaching
I thought the dialogue was very stunted and no one seems emotional enough
Calm down fuck I swear people are so ungrateful like you
'sniceverything I just think A Quiet Place did this type of concept a lot better lol. The emotion in A Quiet Place was one of my favorite things about it and I felt genuinely sad when one of the characters died at the end. I didn’t really feel sad about anything in Bird Box (except that they were name Girl and Boy poor kids).
But yeah. I’d say it was like a 5/10 for me? And A Quiet Place is a 9/10 :P
So in case shit goes down you want to get all screamy, cry and panic? Wow, 10/10 wouldn't want to be near you. Would probably rip your blindfold off
@@imsentinelprime9279 'sniceeverything: I thought the dialogue was ver-
You: *CALm ThE fuCK DowN i SweAR To fuCKinG gOD peOpLE LiKe YoU!!1!!!1! I haTE yOu!!*
'sniceverything omg someone who thinks the same as me!!!! Thank you!!!!
in defense of Sandra Bullock taking the birds, she gets a hint that animals are unaffected by the creature when she sees a horse running on the news, seemingly unaffected. I also did wonder how the birds manage to survive, but I think you could possibly assume that the grocery store clerk who locked up the store in the first place left out a lot of food for them. Whatever food was in the house probably didn't last very long for the several people living there, especially because a few of them are particularly selfish and could have presumably eaten more than their share. I think Sandra Bullock taking the birds was more of a hunch, based on the horse behavior
You are absolutely right, I remember seeing the horse scene as well and knew it had something to do with the plot.
The horse on the news was shown to reminisce the dead sister who worked with horses
@@Gabs705 ever heard of a double entendre? Where one action or phrasing or an imagery can have layered meanings all pointing at different aspects of forshadowing?
Honestly i complained all the way through with my gf, its got dead ends no matter where you look. I thought i was overreacting but thank god ppl out here actually have standards
Some of the points you made were really good, but its seems like you were so out to hate this movie from the beginning that you made mistakes, misinterpreted things and missed things throughout this whole analysis. Its fair if you didnt like the movie but I think you made up your mind too quickly to give it a fair analysis. You have to play devil's advocate a little and give things the benifit of the doubt sometimes to give a fair look, otherwise you miss things as you did.
exactly.
Yes true
How is he playing devil's advocate by pointing out that this movie had so much wrong with it and hardly any redeeming qualities?
@@sidneymihecoby4703 read his comment again and I'm confident you will reframe your question. Also a tactic that can be used toward the movie.
What did he miss
It wasn't only you I was 100% sure that Sandra Bullock and Sarah Paulson were a couple at the beginning
Exactly!!!
My biggest issue was that they kept alluding to our main character having to ride a horse. Her friend or sister or whatever was saying that everyone is gonna need horses, she saw a horse walking outside, and she said she learned her shotgun trick at some horseback riding camp thing... then she never actually rides a horse. It's like there was so much foreshadowing then nothing.
I don’t get it. I watched this movie twice and it was just a fun thriller. It’s not perfect, but I think we can all agree we were entertained while watching it. It’s not even close to be the best movie, but it’s definitely not the worst either. Idk y this topic got so much buzz
Mr Klasik you must seriously be entertained easily or just have something wrong with you lmfao
Because people need something to talk about its simple people need to bitch about stuff and talk about how much they love other stuff
"but I think we can all agree we were entertained while watching it".
Well, obviously not.
idk it was really hard to get into for me, it was so slow and the timeline just made it worse for me, i had to skip through it to make it through the movie
Mr Klasik I found it really boring
It’s ironic that you say you’re not nitpicking when that’s exactly what you’re doing. Most people don’t notice the things you mentioned.
You just admitted to being stupid. Congrats.
@@mxz25305 Which is fine but I'm trying to explain that most viewers don't put that much attention to detail and it's bothersome that he doesn't get that.
@@JustADude2069 ….k
Jenny Penny Yeah, but he does. And he made a video on it. Stop whining.
@@slayer-22 I disagree, he doesn't.
You gave Netflix death note a 4 and bird box a 2? Come on. That’s just ridiculous.
Abigail Marsh why’s that?
@Derie Airy dumbass*
Fashionova Wigs AaaaaaAaaaAaAAaaaaaa
Honestly I could see that. Death note was bad yea but it was bad in comparison to the anime. On its own it’s still decent and entertaining, it just failed as a death note movie. This movie is just bad
@@AllegoricSiren I dont get it. You said it was bad then proceed it was bad in comparison to the anime, so is it bad as a movie or just when compared to the anime?
birdbox is literally just entertaining.... thats it. thats why everyone loves it. the one second shots keeps you interested and so does the classic storyline thats asks "who will survive?" i usually cant sit through a whole movie at once but i could with birdbox because the editing is so fast-paced or whatever. and i think the entertainment value is what clouds people's judgement on whether its actually a good quality movie or not
well doesnt whether or not something is a good movie hinge on its entertainment value. its kinda the most important part.
Ex E it’s almost like people watch movies for entertainment!
Jarron Williams nah, bad movies can be very entertaining
I couldn’t find it entertaining. I was legit falling asleep to it. I wasn’t scared or felt suspense because I felt it was pretty predictable. I watched it to see how it would all end but it had too many plot holes to fully be like “wow...this movie was crazy”
I agree, but some things are obvious already, like who survives. The movie’s first moments show the mom and her kids, and it shows flashbacks from 5 years ago showing who used to live in the house before anyone died. And how the girl was Olympia’s daughter. And some other stuff. Those were some of the small problems I had with the movie but overall, I actually did enjoy the movie
Yeah, even I was like "Oh, so it's basically just 'The Mist', but with a super lame ending."
I'll start by saying it was not a "good" movie. It's just another horror/thriller/end of the world movie that Netflix loves to put out, but one of their award-bait movies with known actors instead of the normal no-name casts. But your critique is so off-center and just wrong that it's hard to not want to defend it.
The critique about the monsters (why some people commit suicide and others become servants) was your misunderstanding that also leads into you misunderstanding the conveyance of loving family connections for Malorie (not incest). That THEN leads into you missing the ENTIRE theme of the film, which is Malorie struggling to connect or be close with anyone, NOT a "parental theme" (what? How did you even come to that conclusion?). That's why she named the kids "Girl" and "Boy". She does it to protect herself and them. They aren't her children (to her), she is only trying to help them to survive. She is blatantly blocking any kind of connection with them, so if they die she won't have to deal with the pain and if she dies they'll be able to survive without her. So, yes, she IS trying to dehumanize them on purpose. This is broken down over the course of the film, culminating in her screaming, "stay away from my children" at the (very belated) climax, after which the monsters actually break away. Which is the biggest case of IN YOUR FACE SYMBOLISM in the entire film, Malorie has made a connection with the children by taking up the role of their mother, which causes the monsters to flee temporarily. Malorie's "monster" is being unable to connect with people and she defeated it by finally accepting the children, that was her character arc. You'd have to be wearing a blindfold (har har) to not be able to see that symbolism and theme.
Malorie struggles with connecting with people for the *entire* film. Her sister (that is CLEARLY her sister and not her lover, I can't imagine how you came to that conclusion unless you know that little about how siblings interact) is trying to encourage her to be close with people and tries to present a warm environment for her. For most of the film, it's fairly clear that Malorie's sister is one of the only people she's comfortable with to let her guard down and joke about things, as she spends a lot of time later on actively pushing people away from her and keeping her distance. Malorie developing a relationship with Tom is showing her breaking down in the face of someone trying to connect with her, a foil to her later on connecting with the children on her own. It's a development of her character arc from recluse that is only close with her sister > loses sister and protects herself by pushing others away (blatantly represented by her pushing away Olympia) > develops a relationship with Tom because he's kind and protective of her > Tom dies protecting her and the kids, whom Malorie has not connected with yet (who she pushes away to protect herself and them) > Malorie finally connects with the kids because they need her to survive and she is protecting them like Tom protected her.
The comments about there being some sort of "incest" themes with Tom and his sister on top of thinking that Malorie's sister was her lover are just entirely wrong and I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how you got there so I'm not going to comment on that.
The monsters represent being alone, disconnected, being unloved or having no one to love or losing everything. That's why people who DO have those things, loving families, spouses, children, etc, go insane and kill themselves. The monsters show them their greatest despair and they can't handle it. Why do you think the characters we see committing suicide having visions of deceased relatives or people they were close with?
The people that become servants of the monsters are the ones who have nothing to lose, already lost everything, were psychopaths or without any sense of love or connections, or insane. Which is made pretty clear when the movie practically beats you over the head with it with Gary, who was captured by people that came from a mental institution for the criminally insane that were forcing people to look.
There are a ton more things wrong or missed, themes on Malorie being like the trapped birds and that kind of thing, but I already wasted way too much time and thought on this as it is.
I feel like this entire critique can be summed up with, "I barely paid any attention and wanted to hate it before I even saw it". Also, some kind of pretentious comments about thinking famous authors have "better taste" than this because you thought it was bad.
Yeah I'm wondering that myself where he get "partners" from.
I guess defending hack filmmaking is what we're doing now. Let's just keep letting our standards deteriorate.
It's not defending hack filmmaking. It's encouraging critics to think harder.
After all, how will hack filmmakers get better if their critics don't even know what's wrong with the movies?
The book was fantastic and a lot of your questions are answered in it. It sounds like it didn't translate well to the screenplay. It's a shame I loved the book and will probably avoid the movie.
What's an example of the answers? I want to know now lol
Sounds like a good book.
Yes, the book was much, much better and way more horrifying. It was a true horror novel, not a action-thriller like the movie became. The atmosphere was much creepier and the story had so much more dread and true suspense. Also the writing was sharper with less plot holes.
@@KayS471 sounds like what happened with I am legend and many other novels like it. it often doesn't translate well because how directors are concerned the audience will respond and they''ll go in a slightly different direction, and will have a hopeful or optimistic ending as opposed to a more cutting edge one.
Watch the movie it's also really good he just doesn't like it because he's a hipster
I didn't look too deep into the movie. It was just entertaining. But whenever a person tells me about the problems in a movie that I didn't care to catch on to, they act like I should've sat there and nit picked about everything like them.
Paying attention to a big budget Netflix film and noticing its flaws is not nitpicking.
This may shock you, but there are people called "film critics" out there whose job it is to pay more attention to movies than the average bear. This is usually so they can be detailed in their review.
@@XTheFall3nX these people I talk to don't even have jobs or work in a completely different field. And they don't watch movies religiously.
@@Armazillo bugging other people who don't care to pay attention to the problems doesn't help either.
@@Xaixiu Clearly you didn't get the sarcasm, so let me be frank. You and the people you talk to don't watch movies in the same way critics do. The fact that he looked into it farther than any of you means he did what he set out to do.
“They were sisters!”
Me: **chokes on drink**
"How can the public... not realize when they are being fed a rehash of stuff they have seen a million times?"
They do, they just like it. Look at Star Wars. Look at pretty much every Tom Clancy espionage thriller.
Human beings basically have four original stories that we like to hear over and over and over again.
@@diamondwave100 dude read the comment properly... it just said people like this stuff. It's not saying that makes it bad or good. You mongoloid inbred fuck.
get fucking fucked bruv @@diamondwave100
"How can the public... not realize when they are being fed a rehash of stuff they have seen a million times?" Ironic part is that it is said by cookie-cutter pretentious hipster with Star Wars and Pulp Fiction posters on the wall, god damn youtube public not realize when they are being fed a rehash of stuff they have seen a million times?
@@diamondwave100 That's fanart, not anime... It's pit... From that one Nintendo game I don't remember...
Iranian Super Hacker “Transformers”
Appallingly terrible? That's incredibly hyperbolic. Bad? Sure. Contrived? Definitely. But it's far from "appallingly terrible." The Nun, Robin Hood, or Slender Man are all significantly worse than Bird Box, and are actually terrible. I don't get the mass appeal either, but you're coming off as way too pretentious.
This one is worse bc it THINKS it's good. I'm sure the director thinks he made something amazing. But it's hot trash and makes no sense with the worst unsatisfying ending ever.
The nun pissed me off the most because the writers obviously didn't research the religion that the movie was based on
Ornate Orator you’ve gotta be joking..
@Ornate Orator its okay to hate one character, but the whole movie? Really? I thought the old guy was a stupid and hamfisted character but i wouldnt hate an entire movie for one political message. Also there was an asian bad guy at the end btw
I laughed at the nun, this one made me frustrated.
Your background is looking super aesthetic 👌
@@mekudu-man3804 wow, super cool. Bet you have loads of friends and are very secure mentally
Aesthetic👏isn't👏an👏adjective
Loverboy Media You’re not using that word correctly.
@@leahnosnhoj2203 Yes it is. It is both an adjective and a noun. Slow down there skipper.
@@step2058it can be used as one as in "The room has aesthetic appeal" but aesthetic itself isn't one
Flash forward to 2020: *ahem* “365 days” *ahem*
I actually really liked the film. But one of the things I didn't get was the "insane" people's obsession with children, like why did Gary wait until the babies were born? Was it deemed better in their 'group' to convert the young? And if he was trying/did succeed to make the babies look as well, how would they have even killed themselves because they're immobile
I guess it was just his crazy irrational behaviour not really anything meaningful or something that applies to all insane people.
"You don't think this movie is good? YOU'RE PRETENTIOUS!"
"You have movie posters in the background? YOU'RE PRETENTIOUS!"
This comment section man, goddamn.
It has been a while since I've seen such a poisonous comment section.
I don’t get it. He’s making a good point here, calling out cliches, bad habits, and running errors in this movie. Oh, but everyone likes it, so they just go with everyone else saying “IT’S NOT TRASH, UR TRASH” just because of a few movie posters and saying things that oppress like, 3 people?
Jasper Sands he presents his opinion insanely rudely. I havent even seen the movie but i can tell this dude is being extremely pretentious.
Zonies Coasters I think people are just making fun of his background. The video’s still good.
@@echo-wj6ls mostly it's the way he talks about it,
Almost every criticism has a toxic insulting tone, or just plain insult attached to it,
Then the review itself has a lot of nitpicks that are only "problems" of the movie because he put a negative twist and acts like it makes no sense,
Like at the part where the old man's wife dies , the reviewer says "all he does is just stand there after seeing his wife get blown up"
Too him that's what happened,
But what really happened Is that the old man saw the love of his life
Casually walk into a burning car that blows up,
He doesn't do anything because he is in complete shock of seeing his wife(who we later find out was the opposite of him and happy in every way) would commit suicide,
If you wanna go even deeper to how it makes sense, on top of being in plain raw shock
His character is the type of old man that learned to bottle up emotions from a young age.
And I'm still confused as to why people have such a stick up there ass about this movie. It was fine, nothing more nothing less.
XxSweetRainxX116 it was liteway shitty but that’s just my opinion 🤷🏿♂️
@@trmchaz4208 liteway???
XxSweetRainxX116 liteway = kind of
Bet this sweetrain person liked Netflix deathnote also
Common Sense Gaming I’m not gone lie , i enjoyed death note more than I enjoyed Bird Box n I never watched the anime
The comments are full of bird box fanboys who take its critique as a personal attack. But it's not just this guy who thinks it was a horrible movie, just about every established critic has said so, on top of the countless viewer reviews. It's a shitty film. You're allowed to have enjoyed it, I'm glad it took up an afternoon for me, but it was not well made.
Could also be they take the personal attacks of this video as personal attacks.
He made this video from the angle of "Anyone who liked it is an idiot" and he seems personally offended by the movie aswell... So I guess he could be chalked up as a hater then.
I'm by no means a fan lf the movie, but his "I know better" attitude annoyed me enough to not give his opinions much credit. Had he discussed his opinions without being judgmental from the get go, yeah I think he would've had alot more respect from the viewers of this vid
Its a waste of good acting
Yeah, cause arguing that you like a movie makes you a fanboy.
I haven't read the book but I like the whole story. It is true Lovecraftian horror in every sense and I like the whole concept .
Bird Box movie does earn 5/10 from me and it can thank the original story for it.
The writing in this movie is so terrible that I can easily pinpoint book changes. Characters who make ridiculous decisions that only some mentally challenged child would make. Googled a bit about it, that crazy guy wasn't allow to enter the house without permission from the group, they realised that he is crazy later when they checked his belongings, kicked him out, but his charisma and charm managed to persuade one guy to keep him hidden in the house. Much better than what we saw....characters don't need to be complete idiots in a horror film for it to work, not unless you are a failure of a writer.
Dialogue is the same basic copy+paste from ever other horror film with few changes, like how lazy can a writer get? Just googling about the changes, it is obvious that every thing that bothered me in the movie didn't happen in the book. The ending was cringeworthy and ruined the whole movie. The book ending wasn't nearly as bad, because in the book it is clearly established that there is no hope, humans who want 100% chance of survival need to blind themselves. And blinded humanity cannot survive forever.
This is one of the cases where I didn't even read the book and yet I can already see that it must be superior.
As for the fanboys....well, the movie is my guilty pleasure, despite of what I have written above.
However, angry responses from many fans can be summed up as "2deep4u"....
The movie acted like it has tension when none exists. What's the point of putting character in life or death situations when we know their alive at the end if the movie.
I didnt even notice the birds were cgi
edit : WTF 1.1k likes???
Nuki-Booki wait what
Are you dense? It was so obvious.
How??
Tbh i didnt either
Same
Wasn't Birdbox a book before The Happening was a movie? 🤷🏾♀️ I respect others opinions but this whole review really was a reach man. I'm a subscriber so I'm not hater. But you sound pretentious And like you're trying to convince people they're stupid for liking this movie. And it's not called Bird Box because of birds being in a box. Simple Google could of solved that. Plus the many questions you had about this movie ...
Nope Happening-2008
Birdbox-2014
@@ukulele9184 Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the rough draft was written before The Happening was released?
No the happening came out in ‘08
Does it really, really matter how original the concept is anyway? Did it really take away from the experience? I understand if it was an original movie but it wasn’t, so I don’t get why people care so much about it not being original. It didn’t take anything away from the movie in my opinion.
I’m only a few minutes in and I’m already rolling my eyes and probably won’t finish this video. Not only does he sound pretentious and irrationally angry that people enjoyed it, but it sounds like he’s nitpicking. He’s complaining about their reactions not being intense enough because I guess they should’ve ALL been screaming hysterically? Even though they’d seen it on the news for some time. Even though Malorie was supposed to be in shock when her sister died. Even though people process traumatic events and grief differently.
It’s not like in the Happening where people literally weren’t acting like actual humans and we’re doing terrible reads of terrible dialogue. This was just “they aren’t reacting exactly as I think they should which makes it bad.” If this is how the entire video will be I’ll pass.
Eh didn't love this movie but this was mostly just nitpicks and there's a lot of explanations for some of these complaints
Bird Box- a movie that assumes that we're all Toph Bei Fong and can function without the ability to see.
Also you fail majorly at reading the subtext:
The stomach thing was comforting because for Tom it represented new life and not just death. It comforted Tom because it showed new life was good and not a hindrance, it was his only sense of hope. And the kids were likely repeating what they saw from their 'parents' so many times. It wasnt about romance. It was about comfort, in all relationships.
2. Bullock disassociates, names the kids boy and girl, and refuses to let herself be called mom, because of her conversation with the asshole. The asshole was right, and proven to be right, and she found that the only way to live was to be uncaring. And she felt if the kids didnt care about her or each other, their chance at survival would increase, because its caring about others that got so many killed. This is reiterated when she tells the girl that she has to forget about her and fend for herself if something were to happen. Something you can only realistically do if you dont care about someone. Her arc is then realizing the fault in her logic after Tom's death. Him caring about her and the kids, and her caring about the kids is what kept them alive for so long. Them working together. Sacrificing for each other. So caring isnt as bad of a thing as she thought. Albeit its a weird arc because she kind of already goes through it when her sister dies, but reverts back once the asshole was proven right. But the arc is still very evident.
For all of your nuanced critique of sound editing, CGI, and camera angles, your critique of story elements, which i would argue is the most important part, are severely lacking.
No doubt lol
People don't feel the urge to survive purely to prolong their lonely existence until they ultimately die of old age (alone)... it makes absolutely no sense for anyone to be so desperate to stay alive without anything to live for (loved ones, intimacy or caring). It's one thing for her to be emotionally detached prior to all the traumatic events - but when your entire existence is three other people and to your knowledge the world is over, you don't hang on to some bullshit emotional hang-ups about having kids... it's pretty much the same point you JUST FINISHED MAKING im the first part of your comment.
@@everyhandleistakeneventhisone except those are two different characters. Tom recognized that living for others was a good thing. She didnt. Her arc is finding out that she in fact did, that her bonds with other people was keeping her alive not putting her in danger. That's her character arc, realizing the same thing Tom did.
It amazes me how you managed to nitpick and read so deep into things that you found incest subtext, yet somehow failed to understand why some people were able to see the creatures, when the latter was directly explained in a hamfisted exposition scene.
TheGuileRaven Okay then genius, what is it?
@@thelittleredhairedgirlfrom6527 The criminally insane people that were affected in another way had already imagined or lived through their worst fears or traumas, hence not affecting them in the same way. It takes a few seconds of thought to see that with all the hints from Fish Fingers to Gary.
@@freder1c But what he said was hinted at several times in the movie?
Sicknasty how do?
@@freder1c What would be your backstory for it? I would love to hear.
I think it makes sense that the demons/spirits in the movie want to use their body as a vessel to get others to take their blind fold off.
hm she names them "boy" and "girl" not from her not wanting kids, but bc she doesn't want to allow herself to become attached to them. and obviously, whether she wanted kids or not she's going to feel a stronger bond towards her own child than someone else's so it makes perfect sense.
Also it was pointed out to me by the person I watched it with that she named them Boy and Girl because it really fucked her up whenever the monster said her name to get her to take off her blindfold.
I heard from an explanation video that This was also her acting like a survivor and not a mom. Towards the end of the movie, she turns into a mom. lots of character development that made this movie loveable for me.
But that's also another thing that's pretty dumb. You're probably right that's why they did that in the film, kids you're taking care of she's going to become attracted to them no matter what and 5 years is unreasonably long for her to finally name them and then there's the point of, if she didn't want to het attached she should've just killed them herself not letting them live in such a fucked up reality cause she wasn't too fond on having a kid in the first place right? Idk maybe I'm stupid.
Jacob Graves it’s not just that she wasn’t attached to them, but also she didn’t accept that they were her children and her responsibility
She allows herself to get attached to Tom but not the kids?
"Don't watch The Happening."
What? Nooo...
why does he remind me of a younger, more pretentious ted mosby
How do you get more pretentious than him
@@diabetusultrainstinct7737 watch the video
Holy fuck that’s spot on!
God Ted was the worst!
Whoa... this was scored by Trent and Atticus? That lets me down more than the movie itself.
“Someone doing work for a movie that isn’t a masterpiece lets me down more than the movie being bad itself” what an edgy hot take.
I didn't even notice the belly-touching thing....w.t.f.
I'm more worried about how focused he was on the scene with the kids sleeping, while simultaneously thinking about incest.
I thought he was totally off about that. When Tom was talking about touching his sister's belly, that was about human connection. Then he talks about touching Mal's, that's about connection. He's craving that in this time when he doesn't have anyone he's really close to. Then, when it's mirrored with the children, that shows that even though Mal won't let herself get close to them and discourages connection, humans still find connection with others. So much media is relationship focused, so I understand why this guy got his analysis totally wrong, but this was a film about genuine human connection and i thought that was a great way to display it.
You didn't notice because it wasn't an incest thing. There's just something wrong with this guy....
I just want to say this cause no one else ever does: It bothers me that she named the girl "Olympia" even though Olympia told her the name she picked out if she were to have a girl. Why didn't she name her that? I really thought it was foreshadowing.
Ok I can see how you could mistake those certain scenes for being “ incestuous” but Tom only touched his sisters stomach to get close to the baby and it is YOUR mistake for thinking they were lovers not sisters and even if the scene where boy and girl are sleeping together is meant to be romantic THEY ARE NOT RELATED they were born on the same day from different parents and they were sort of raised as siblings and it would be weird for them to be in love but it wouldn’t be incest
To be honest, I also thought Sarah Paulson and Sandra Bullock’s relationship was romantic.
i didn’t even notice any incestious moments/ weird scenes. get your mind out of the gutter people
TH-camrs projecting their inner-most desires and it is sickening.
I think you misunderstood the whole 'boy' 'girl' thing - she doesn't name them because shes scared of losing them.
It's like on farms where they don't name the animals because they will inevitably die
She was scared to name them and connect with them because she feared them dying
Also this was a very eloquent video - COMPLETELY disagree with you about basically everything you said but great video
That didn't come across in the movie though, her hating children doesn't make sense and her suddenly loving the children doesn't make sense either. Stop looking at the movie through the book lense.
@Gen Eric do you have a source? Sounds like bs to me. I can't find a swedish source for that, on the other hand I found a PDF from a history school book saying newborns who were deemed strong we're named while the weak were left to die, are you thinking about that?
@@TovaHolmberger never read the book - maybe we just interpreted the film differently
Honestly, it's a fun movie that is part of pop culture. While it's very predictable its still fun.
Yeah this film is getting so much flack. Its not great but its not a total shit show either I've seen way worse. Its serviceable as a film imo.
It's a free big budget film with real box office stars... this guy needs to relax.
@@rico8673 Netflix isn't "free". And like, even if it was, that wouldn't be a good argument anyway. I wouldn't say "free" things are usually of any quality.
It's one of those films that you could tell a girl to come watch with you at home since its trending right now, only to have it in the background while you make out
@@robradical7213 I'm sure you got the jest of what I meant there and free things can be surprisingly good because theres no expectations.
the worst part is that they almost died on the way to the grocery store and then they just skipped to them being back in the house when they were going home again
the way they reacted or (didn't react) to her sister dying or his wife dying is actually a pretty standard way to act when you're in shock lol that's how i read into it at least
Haven't watched the video yet but I can say with second hand experience and somewhat with personal experience that it's true. Grief can start much much later.
She cried about it later, yes she was definitely in shock.
My mom dramatically screamed. I just got shocked.
Ali Grace he’s just shitting on the movie extra hard for views. But if he wants to grow, he should be more like FoundFlix where he does point out what’s bad without throwing away the movie entirely
It was a flimsy criticism. But the rest of his video is valid. I personally enjoyed the film, but his points about the editing/ lighting , and pacing - is spot on. Doesn’t mean it will bother everyone though.
Malarie named the kids Boy and Girl and talked to them meanly because she didn't want them to get attached to her, so that the monsters couldn't hold anything against them if they ever see them.
I agree! And also the whole thing was about how scared Malorie was from being a mom and how she had problems to connect with people, we were presented to that by a VERY exposive dialogue with her sister at the beginning, lol ♡
But that's completely pointless too because they fuck with the kids anyway.
@@willparker8498 And that's where topics like 'forced motherhood' and 'not being ready to be a mom' enter in the movie, we see that Malorie was hands down not ready to be a mom, she wasn't even accepting it, she was viewing it as a problem that would go away soon, she wasn't ready to deal with it, the moment she accept the girl as hers is when she notices that she's ready with that idea now, at least that's how i understood it
(not trying to say that what she did was nice, tho)
@@willparker8498 YES! And i'm in no way saying that what she did was nice, or that she's a good person, but that was the way the movie deal with the topic, she has lost a lot of people, i believe that not naming the kids was a way of not getting attached~
Nalle puh
If you havn't already, watch Blackpilled's video on it.
glad i can finally find someone who agrees. Everyone is singing this films praises and i honestly just don't get it. I couldn't remain engaged in the film not only because the plot was just super lacklustre but because the editing was just headache inducing and mind numbingly boring. This film takes itself so seriously but has some terrible terrible performances that initially i thought had to be artistic choices like the guy who worked at the supermarket and the man whose wife throws herself into the burning car but as the film progressed i realised that this film genuinely thinks it's just something that it's just not. It's really not thought provoking or interesting and i get what it's trying to say but it just doesn't pull it off. The whole deal of "overcoming your inner demons to combat the real ones" and the main character's inability to connect to the world around her and then her finally overcoming that bla bla bla bla it just doesn't do anything for me. Anyway thank you for this vid couldn't agree more!
Your point at the end really just summed up my feelings for the movie. Although I understood the themes the film was going for and I do like those themes in general, this film did nothing to make it resonate with me.
Honestly all the critics destroyed it. But the public praised it. I think the only amazing thing about the movie is Sandra Bullock's performance. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't good either
We stan drama I agree, Sandra Bullock did very well with her performance. Loved her since I saw her in A Time to Kill
Horror films are seemingly the genre at the moment that has the most disconnect between the opinion of the masses and that of the critics and more serious film fans. There's a shit ton of awful horror films that are made on the cheap and then make 10 times their cost at the box office. I don't get it.
You dont understand that people can have different opinions than you?
While I was watching this the whole time was thinking " there is no way you can be in a river blindfolded for so much time"
I thought the monster was actually the Botox that had ruined Sandra's face.
Oh Shes going to need some ice for that.
MEAN
Dead
oh shut up she looks great lol
@@kenellycineus7094 Bet you are fun at parties.....
They accept it so quickly because it happened in Russia first, and it was only a matter of time before it came to there, so they had already dealt with the thought previously.
I feel you had a good video in the heart of this, but it felt egregiously subjective rather than quantifying your claims effectively. A lot of your points are very petty and feel half-cooked. This could be personal taste, but I feel doing some objective research and comparison could have made this more compelling. As it is, this feels closer to "this is stupid and you should know why" rather than an unbiased deconstruction/review, which is what I feel you were aiming for.
Wishing you a happy new year and best of luck with your new videos.
You also appear to have missed some of the explanations/reasons; perhaps try a more neutral watching and see if you've missed something, rather than it's "dumb".
A quick example:
The children weren't named not because of her disinclination to being a mother, but because she was scared of attachment, which is contrasting to her beginning position of being scared/apprehensive/pessimistic about not bonding with her unborn child.
As another commenter accurately paralleled: this is similar to how someone may not name their consumable livestock as to take a first step to not connecting on a personal level with the creature. This is because sooner or later, one feels or knows that the unnamed will be gone, and it is easier to cope if they are dehumanised.
Charlotte Roberts really? A critique felt subjective? What a crime.
@@slayer-22 a critique that is subjective rather than objective, whilst presenting itself as an analysis or deconstruction is simply a shame. There was a great piece to be had here. Maybe the creator will discover more objectivity in the future.
Charlotte Roberts So yoj wanted him to, instead of giving his own opinion, just churn out technical flaws and facts that could be actually proven? What an *awfull* idea for a video. Please, don't TH-cam. Opinions lead to actual thought provoking discussion, not just circlejerks over why lightsabers wouldn't technically work or why Spider-Man's DNA wouldn't change due to a bite.
@@slayer-22 you criticize everyone's opinion that goes against this dude. If he can have an opinion and express it, so can everyone else who didn't like his opinion. You're on everyone's friggin comments. Chill.
I absolutely loved this movie
It helped me get over my insomnia.
Actual title, Bird Box: Nitpicking at its Worst
Your profile pic is the same as the guy making the video
ThatChainmecha
Your insult would be okay (i guess) if it made any sense... most people liked the movie, he's going against the grain. At least learn what an NPC is before you use the dead meme incorrectly.
Obviously you haven't watched any MauLer videos.
Ok, after fully watching it and gathering my thoughts
You were out for this film
And no, it's not a cliche to say that because theirs people who genuinely hates a very hyped up product.
You say at the end how "I don't understand what the appeal of this film is" but how is that the case?
Sandra Bullock is one of the most popular and talented actresses in Hollywood, and she's lending her talents to a Netflix movie.
It has a an interesting plot
It had thrill
Romance
And even action.
So it's gonna target at Least one of those audiences.
And you're seriously gonna say how this movie isn't groundbreaking?
Dude, they promoted this movie as a whole meme
That's the main reason people were drawn to this thing
Not because they wanted a nuance masterpiece, but a fun and enjoyable film.
People go crazy over this film?
Nah, most people agree it's a "fun" watch, not the second coming of exorcist or something.
It has a 60% on RT and I think a 7.5 on idbm which is a fan poll.
So yeah, pretty average.
I might just dissect your video's opinions so I can complety destroy your argument put it's 5:18am and I'm tired as hell.
I thought I could understand your points fully, and try to respect them, but damn you're making it hard
just a black guy who likes jpop The Uninvited has a perfect score on RT and is a dogshit movie, RT doesn't mean shit.
@@slayer-22 what's your point?
You're saying this movie is a masterpiece then?
Because that's the opposite of what RT said
@@slayer-22 so because one movie on that site has a less then expected score, the entire website is invalid?
lol, what a great combination. You combined the "you just wanted to hate it" cliche with the "I'm not even going to explain why you're wrong because you're so wrong" cliche. Imagine having your head up your own ass, lol
@@mtnduwu imagine not reading an entire comment and only nit-pick what you want.
Who's head is up who's ass?
That set is so sexy, goddamn. Is that the dorm? Looks bigger.
Also, great video man haha
Browntable he’s back home
Torres Productions Oh right completely forgot about that lol, anyways, still a great set
Where’s your check
I have no idea how long it takes for it to appear :/
Browntable what’s wrong with the lighting in his home
WHAT KIND OF INCESTUOUS EDITING IS THIS
Bird Box was a fun, mindless popcorn flick to me -\_(•,•)_/-
Right? It’s getting popular because it’s fun and enjoyable for almost everyone.
Yeah i enjoyed it. I wasnt expecting it to be great and it was solid.
Im sure uf i had read the book and was more invested in it that would have affected my view on it.
Fun? It's two hours of people bickering in a kitchen.
@@DDChorror i can understand many of the issues with this movie but hard for me to follow that one. Most of the movie wasnt in the house and while there was bickering the movie was more than that.
The thing is, there are people claiming it is a masterpiece.
i’ve seen multiple people on twitter say this deserves best picture... i’m giving up and doing crack
I'm the kind of person that highly pays attention to detail when watching a movie, but Bird Box was actually different. The fast pace and the abrupt shots keeps you interested and it's really good at keeping people entertained. In fact, it was good enough to cloud the audience's criticisms with its plot. You honestly just hated the movie.
He did hate the movie, and he had his reasons. It's a pretty valid opinion.
@@doctorboojangles7979 16:48
@@culturezoneculturezone9071 - How is this timestamp relevant to what I said?
Sandra carried this movie hard, everything else was fucking mediocre.
@@culturezoneculturezone9071 and you're just some dumbfuck black dude who likes jpop? See what I did there? Making an argument about your person to trash your opinion?
Its a logical fallacy, and you probably have no idea what that means, but it means your argument has no merit.
Moist meter gave it a 70% so I think we’re in the clear. Also what do you mean, “Netflix at its worst”? Netflix has had even worse originals.
2nooby2 Idol *cough cough* death note *cough cough*
AquilaOrion That wasn’t that bad. I’ve seen even worse than that. Such as that Voltron shit.
2nooby2 Idol I think “The Titan” is probably the worst Netflix Original imo
It's legit click bait. He wants to live he needs the money.
2nooby2 Idol voltron? Huh
I thought the opening was strong but it got slightly boring later on, plus the ending was disappointing, nothing really happened and there wasn't a good twist or anything
I thought the movie was just fine. Horror/Thriller movies aren’t my thing anyway because logic most of the time has to be thrown away to create drama. What disappointed me about the film was the monster itself and the concept of the whole thing. In every description they push this “it shows your greatest fear” that leads them to suicide. Like a physical form of depression or something. I thought it was the character’s conscious choice to commit suicide. But no it was just the Happening’s logic where you’re forced to commit suicide, it’s no different than the monster coming and killing you itself. I don’t know I just thought the suicide angle was going to be more uniquely explored and the psychological aspect of it but it’s just explained by some line by a character to happens to studying that very thing and happens to be trapped with our protagonist. lol that’s a weird complaint but i just think what they went with has too many plotholes.
the only reason its getting so much hype is because netflix is shoving it down everyones throat & also its got a big name actress in it
Diego Rodriguez and it was released right around Christmas it’s not that hard to see why it is popular a lot of popular shit sucks idk why some people are so up in arms about this
Dont forget the memes
Netflix isn’t shoving it down shit they were surprised when they seen how many views it had gotten.
Diego Rodriguez no it’s because people genuinely liked it not a conspiracy theory.
9:33 THIS YES EXACTLY! This is what I came for. When nothing is grounded in any sort of reality/rules, there's no suspense.
Yeah except he was incorrect because the movie explains insane people can safely look at the monsters and worship them then they go on to try and force others to look at the monsters. I don't think that it's crazy for insane people to drive.
Literally memes made the hype.
And I remember why I dropped out of film school
I apologize for this man and the countless others. We're all not like this, I swear!
V What are you talking about?
@@VeronicAM313 Yea, it's people like this that give cinema buffs a bad name.
Most of us just appreciate nice cinematography and handy use of a metaphor or dialogue. We don't go out of our way to shit on films that aren't art house. Unfortunately, because we don't make 20 minute rants about _insert flavour of the month here,_ we don't garner as much attention.
Because you don't like making entertaining videos on piece of trash movies?
@@Cernunnnos I'm sorry that a structured video pointing out the flaws over an overhyped movie makes you butthurt. The movies promise is stupid and is average. I rather have seen the nun again though because at least in the nun there was good action and chemistry even if it was littered with jump scares
The cop and old lady needed some goddamn lines.
Mimzy Spire the cop literally only ever said I’m a cop and not a chance 😂
"What kind of incestuous editing is this!!??"
Phew! I'm glad I decided against film school, I think I'd miss enjoying movies.
I liked the film because of the acting sandra bullock did. I watched this with my mother who hates sandra bullock but even she thought sandra bullock was the best part of the film. However we thought it was overall like, super weirdly convoluted where it didnt need to be. These kinds of movies are best when things are vague as possible with a clear cut goal. The only parts i really liked of the MOVIE were the "present" day stuff on the river with the kids, and even then it was a little rough. Not even the author of the book the movie is based on knows what the fuck the creatures are. All in all it was a good way to spend a weird Friday with my mom but a bad movie, and some of it we were straight up laughing over how weird it was. She turned to me multiple timed like "wait, what just happened? Why are they doing this?" And i had to try and pull out what they MAYBE wanted to allude to but even then it made like, the tiniest thread of sense. Idk. Wack. 3/7 boxed birds.
Movie was generic af but somehow weirdly watchable despite how retarded the whole situation was.
For me, what took away from Bullock's performance was the full-on makeup she had for every scene. I have trouble getting past that when we're considering an apocalypse.
@@robtoe2 TRUE! we mentioned that too lmao. Also how ripped trevante was despite them struggling for food lmao.
Back in the old bedroom? Aw shucks, I'm getting nostalgic
Wish I could take the backdrop to college, but we’ll experiment more with my unaesthetic dorm
When I first watched Birdbox I was extremely confused because I could've sworn I'd seen it a while ago. I guess thinking of the happening...
idk man. i liked it
Same here, but it wasn’t perfect
Quarky’s youtube stuff no movie is, but it was pretty enjoyable, so that’s good enough for me.
JackOfSnakes - Right
I thought it was awesome.
Your opinion is wrong
To the gulag with you!
My brother (who was watching over my shoulder) said you're dramatic
I think the word your brother was looking for was "informed".
Rob Radical “nitpicky”
Rob Radical more like “a nit picky virgin”
@@anthonyj6092 More like "I enjoyed a sub-par movie so I have to call people virgins and nitpicky"
Echo_JT more like “I’m a dickrider so I have to agree with everything he says”
Maybe stephen king read the book, and he just liked it.
I didn’t waste my time watching it and I’m glad for it.
Same. Sometimes you don't need to watch a movie to know it would have been a giant waste of time.
The birds don't freak out around affected people. They only freak out around the monsters. At the supermarket, the monster was right outside the door with an affected human, which is why Charlie died pretty much immediately after sacrificing himself pushing the affected guy outside.
I feel like with a lot of the points you make here, You either are looking into things too much, when the filmmaker isn't really intending for there to be any sort of metaphor or meaning (eg. When there is a shot of the hand on malorie's belly switching over to 26 (?) hours on the river Where girl's hand is on boy's belly... maybe it's just a cool shot change of similar positions just for a little bit of segue). You also nitpick a lot of the situations for not giving enough sense of reason for playing out, or having no real sense of time past.
I didn't notice any of these things when i watched it. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and thought that the scene tension dropoff of switching between 5 years ago and current day on the river was really cool, and the movie for me managed to raise suspense with every switch. I wouldn't say the movie is perfect but after watching it and finding out it's based off a book, I immediately wanted to read it and discover more about the real lore this movie is based off.
To be fair, never watched your videos before and I'll chuck you a sub and a like for good measure but yeah, this review made me sad dude.
Thank you. There were so many things wrong with this movie, but the character development was by far the worst whiplashing between ham-handed (in the case of Bullock's character) and non-existent (the cop hates the druggie, the cop fucks the druggie, the cop falls in love and runs off with the druggie...for some reason). This was really a C-grade direct-to-video type horror film with some big names attached to it. Really laughably executed.
I agree with just about all of your points and was extremely disappointed with this movie but there is one thing you talked about I want to touch on. The fact that she called the children Boy and Girl instead of giving them proper names. The dehumanization that it inflicts could be why she didn't give them proper names. The kids have to understand that you can not slip up at any point or else they will die. Not giving them names and barking at them takes away their humanity and part of feeling human is freedom of choice. The children are not aloud to have any freedom to choose because that will inevitably lead to their death. They aren't aloud to be children and make mistakes. If I remember correctly, it isn't until they are safe in that blind people place that she finally gives them names, not because she finally excepts them as her kids but because they can finally be children.
Honestly I think my explanation is just a reach on me trying to find SOMETHING somewhat clever in this movie. Chances are she called them boy and girl because of your explanation, I just wanted to insert this view as it makes at least one part of the movie not so dumb.