jonjon0406

I don't understand the vitriol against Ginny (but somehow none against Georgia). I think it's obvious that Ginny's issues are generational amd the trauma is passed down from her mother.

But Ginny is not spoiled or ungrateful. I find it actually quite sad that some of the people in the reviews can't find empathy or relatability with Ginny. Her mother failed to keep her safe and has dragged her along across white America without practicing any boundaries. Any child who grows up in this kind of environment and social setting where her mother fraternizes with her schoolmates and openly uses her sexuality to scam men and doesn't turn out to be an addict? That would be considered a success. Lack of stability does wonders to your upbringing. Obviously Ginny is not without faults, and I think her failts mirror and compare with her mother's in an actually poignant way. Her character is invaluable to the narrative.

I do think this show is vapid, pandering, and portrays teenagers in the worst way.

I have never in my life seen a less thoughtfully written movie. That's saying a lot.

• Why would a chemical compound very similar to DMT (probably just a slightly different bond or molecule) cause TIME TRAVEL
• Why and how would the creator of this drug gain franchise opportunities at stores without testing it and realizing it causes time travel and obviously deaths
• Why are Americans so stupidly obsessed with dogs and their wellbeing in fiction? The fact that a pet perished in a movie does not merit a 1/10.

• Afrer THREE pills the protagonists claims that the location determines the destination of time because two pills taken at the same spot resulted in a similar environment. 1) 3 is hardly a number of trials required for a scientifcally significant study. 2) The 2 pills taken at the same spot could've easily taken him to 2 separate times in the ice age apart by thousands of years. 3) The protagonist is a self-proclaimed ARMCHAIR PHYSICIST and doesn'f have the common sense or logic to understand any of this.

• Why would there be a human being alive and well in front of the protagonist in the ice age barely dressed?

• How does a person create a FIRE with WOOD in the middle of a snow storm, above ground?

...the list is infinite.

I am a stingy completionist and like to finish whatever I start watching, so I've spent the last 10 minutes or so typing this while the film dribbles into drivel in the background. I dislike Anthony Mackie and I thought I would give this film a try because I like sci-fi and the movie had a decent (6.0+) rating. I regret this evening very much.

Reading these reviews makes me sad.

I think it's lost on so many people the purpose of leaving in the lack of a finality.

The victims' families will never fully heal, but will they even if the truth comes to light? Would Tyler ever learn to come to feel unburdened by his knowledge if he reveals the truth? Would his family ever recover from finding out that their family member was a sexual predator and serial killer?

These are the questions this young man had to wrestle with. I can't even begin to fathom to put myself in his shoes especially as a meek and fearful teenager. We can sit across the TV and yell our frustrations at his decisionmaking all day, but at the end of the film, aren't his choices somewhat understandable from his POV? I can emphatically say that I don't agree with Tyler's decisions and that I would've handled the truth differently - but the point of the film isn't to give the audience a feel-good moment or the fulfillment of vengeance. It leaves us feeling dissatisfied and internally conflicted, not because the story was told badly or the ending wasn't realistic, but because we're all upset by the events that took place. And I think it achieved it masterfully.

PS. It's evident that the woman who was about to be murdered was just barely coming back to after Kassi removed the plastic bag. It's likely that she simply passed out again or does not remember the moments after regaining feeble conscienceness. Don did a good job not leaving any DNA, so the police investigation could've reached a dead end. She also may have been successfully terrified into not going to the police because of the polaroid she was threatened with.

I've come here just to complain about the line reading.

In season 1, K. Todd Freeman (Poe) could not say anything without slurring everything, no matter how loudly and annoyingly he yelled.

Did Louis Hynes (Klaus) burn his tongue before every single scene in season 2? Did they use his first take for every shot? I had to rely on subtitles for him. Even then, I noticed that his lines are almost always different (and longer) from the subtitles. He adds so many extraneous words when he talks, none of which are necessary and only makes him slur even worse. Did he add these words himself? Did they accidentally choose the wrong takes? Could the captioner not understand him either? Is this child's growth spurt enlarging his tongue faster than the rest of his head? No one may ever know. Talk about a series of unfortunate events - these two characters butching the lines made this show nearly unwatchable. Please get these two some voice lessons.

Malina Weissman (Violet), Neil Patric Harris (Olaf), Patrick Warburton (Lemony), and Lucy Punch (Esmé): Bravo.

/rant.

I just came here to complain about K. Todd Freeman's role as Mr. Mumbles - I mean Poe. Please get this man some voice lessons. I can hardly understand his slurred speech half the time and have to rely on subtitles for every one of his lines. Womp, womp. Yeah, that's what he sounds like.

Wow. It is a wild ride reading the comments here. There are some genuine ones that praise the documentary and those that point out its strengths and weaknesses and criticize them in articulately and poignantly.

Others still... are calling the movie itself a propaganda while trying to gaslight the documentarian. I'm seeing a lot of comments that go something like: "the one child policy was generally a bad thing, however [...]". However, what? It was a demented social 'experiment' to forcibly control the population by all means necessary which involved inhumane doctrine taking away civil liberty. There is no excuse. I can think of at LEAST one other major catastrophic event similar to this in our lifetime that attempted, and partially succeeded, at this. HMM.

It is explicitly stated that people are afraid to speak about specific events on camera because they do not want to become enemies of the state. It is crazy to me that people will sit here, completely removed from the world and the lives depicted on the documentary, and say "no, I don't think this actually happened." You don't have to look far to see articles upon articles on how sterilizations and abortions were forced in this era. It is factual. Denying this happened is tantamount to denying the Holocaust.

There are many reviews that claim that the documentarian is a hypocrite because she promotes autonomy over a woman's own body while denouncing forced abortions and sterilizations. These reviews liken a woman's choice to abort her fetus to state-regulated forced abortions. WHAT? Did I seriously read that correctly? There are really reviews here calling her a hypocrite and that a woman's choice to abort her fetus (whatever her reason may be) is just as bad as a state forcing it upon an unwilling woman.

I'm gonna call it like I see it - I think many of these reviews are propaganda from the Chinese government or sympathizers.

Don't get me wrong - not every movie has to have the most fresh ideas or be original to the fullest extent. But I have to ask myself, do we need this movie? Must I succumb to an hour and half of combing my mind through flashbacks and familiarity reminiscing that this movie feels a lot like a bunch of other movies I've seen (ex. The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, Fatal Attraction)? The protagonist is a somewhat fragile, married woman with a troubled past. Another woman, "succubus", comes into the picture and threatens the marriage. The main character gradually spirals out of control into what is deemed as "female hysteric paranoia" infamously painted by directors and writers (usually men, of course) and deemed unfit or unable to make safe choices for her family or even herself. The rest of the plot includes sleuthing, an epiphany, and an altercation where everything comes to light and the married couple escapes (mostly) unharmed from the deranged newcomer. This film dragged me through a haze of vague, mediocre contentment for an hour, but then I did see some glimpses of intrigue. I was somewhat surprised by the final couple of twists regarding Angela's fate which I thought was nice. So I have to ask... is this movie necessary? What new theme or question does it bring to the table, this time around? I challenge you to ask these same questions. In the end, I'm not even sure.

But not because the film was terrifying to any degree. Because it was so terribly inane and illogical. My eyes glued to the screen trudging along with the camera panning through Lily's glacially paced gait and shots around the house, I felt like I was watching a movie in slow-motion setting. My mind started to wander - I found myself wondering about mundane details like who is buying the groceries for this house for this petrified, annoying young woman seems too afraid to even step foot outside.

Simply put, there is no plot to this movie. Oh I've read the other reviews applauding the film's supposed brilliance in 'storytelling'. Interestingly, there is not even a story to this film. If incompleteness and disjointed plot were a storytelling devices, this one gets a perfect score. What baffles me most is the praise that others are leaving about how this film is a breath of fresh air amidst the fast-paced, gimmicky, gory horror we're accustomed with today. HELLO!? This movie is on the opposite end of the same spectrum and the director RAN with it. The shots are drawn out and eerie music builds before things happen. The protagonist moves about slowly and stares for eternity at anything she finds to build suspense. I did not give this movie a 1 because I thought acting was fine and the cinematography was good. If that's what you're after, go to an art museum - you can spend the same amount of time and you migh even learn something.

This was truly a heinous film. I resent Netflix for this torture.

I am truly horrified. Horrified at how terrible this movie is. Where to begin?

Terrible lines that seem robotic or out-of-place and make you cringe.

Kevin Costner trying to play a father who is caring but a pushover and ending up looking silly, tired, and disengenuous in every single scene. You can tell he didn't "prepare" for this role even a smidge.

The young boy whose acting mostly consists of being frustratingly dumb (not like how kids lack insight but, you know, the dumb and stupid in a horror film kind of way) and yelling "Daddy!" over and over again.

Are the belligerents spiritual beings? Are they being haunted? Animals? Sci-Fi humanoids? There is no direction.

This movie plays on so many "horror movie tropes" that it becomes completely indistinguishable, unmemorable, and leave you frustrated at the time you've wasted. In the end, there's nothing eerie about the film. I've seen C-rated indie horror films shot with local actors have a more interesting plot, premise, and acting than this garbage.

There is no plot to this movie. I'm embarrassed to say I sat through this entire movie. There is no exposition, no motive, nothing. The landlord character is your run-of-the-mill mentally depraved psychopath. Oh but let's not stop there - make him filthy, handicap-addled, and mouth perpetually agape. His actions are never explained, and there is no rhyme or reason to anything. It is disingenuous filmmaking at its worst.