Speak No Evil | "The most disturbing film of 2022"

[valet]

James was good

Ending was cool

Some funny unintentional comedy


But the slow burn of the 1st hour was boring. Hated every character except one. One kid in here I hoped got decapitated. Just beyond annoying.

I will never watch this again. Waste of money.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Spoiler

I admire the OG’s willingness to go through with the controversial ending, but the journey to such point is so ridiculous to sit through. I imagine it would be even harder on rewatch, and knowing the intended satire behind these actions. Totally get the move by Blumhouse/Watkins to change up the remake in that regard. Most parents are not going to be oblivious to every red flag presented to them. That’s a hard sell to just about any audience these days and especially Americans. There comes a point where action will be taken after knowing your child is in danger.

The flick is still unnerving af though, thanks in large part to McAvoy’s performance. I admired the fact that it had the parents fighting back in the end, even the sissy ass father. Part of me wanted to see if the film would kill them off anyway, but we didn’t get that.

I can see more people willing to rewatch this knowing how it unfolds. OG’s gut punch ending, while impactful, makes it a ‘hit it and quit it’ type of flick for most folks.

Spoiler

The fact that this is based on modern Scandavian masculinity is the very reason why Hollywood should've never made a remake of it.

It goes against the bones of the original -

"I did three features and also some short films during many years and I think one of the main themes, without even really realizing, is that it’s a take on at least Scandinavian masculinity. But I kind of realized that it’s a more global issue. What I knew from movies, especially American movies, was masculinity was something where the American hero in the end, this ordinary man, can suddenly fight and shoot and save his family and run through the woods and all that. And I could not recognize that from reality or myself. And I think many Scandinavian men are not introverted, but a little bit pathetic and a little bit vague and live very good, safe lives and are good people. But they’re not really in contact with their darker side or their more primitive nature.

We have been in, especially in our parts of the world, very, very civilized, very privileged. We talk about, you know, everyday life, material stuff, the kids, and all that. And suddenly I had that feeling, what is my primal nature and what would happen if something very evil or very bad would happen to me? Would I be capable of saving my family or fighting back or would I just freeze or run away? And the true answer is: I think it’s the latter."

I get that it wouldn't be palatable for the audience in this country, because we've been ingrained with the heroic ending (no matter the cirumstances), but if the original is speaking to an audience that is largely absent of that type of masculinity, then what's the entire point of a remake, besides a money grab?

It'd be like remaking Do The Right Thing, with a setup in an upper-class, gated community, and it devolves into some whodunnit, where a middle-aged housewife murders a much younger woman (who's just recently moved into the neighborhood) because she's tried to take over, set over the backdrop of rising tensions over the ownership of a country club.

I mean, shyt, yeah, it's a remake (if only by name), but it's b*stardized every single thing about the OG.

 

[MidniteJay]

Spoiler

The fact that this is based on modern Scandavian masculinity is the very reason why Hollywood should've never made a remake of it.

It goes against the bones of the original -

"I did three features and also some short films during many years and I think one of the main themes, without even really realizing, is that it’s a take on at least Scandinavian masculinity. But I kind of realized that it’s a more global issue. What I knew from movies, especially American movies, was masculinity was something where the American hero in the end, this ordinary man, can suddenly fight and shoot and save his family and run through the woods and all that. And I could not recognize that from reality or myself. And I think many Scandinavian men are not introverted, but a little bit pathetic and a little bit vague and live very good, safe lives and are good people. But they’re not really in contact with their darker side or their more primitive nature.

We have been in, especially in our parts of the world, very, very civilized, very privileged. We talk about, you know, everyday life, material stuff, the kids, and all that. And suddenly I had that feeling, what is my primal nature and what would happen if something very evil or very bad would happen to me? Would I be capable of saving my family or fighting back or would I just freeze or run away? And the true answer is: I think it’s the latter."

I get that it wouldn't be palatable for the audience in this country, because we've been ingrained with the heroic ending (no matter the cirumstances), but if the original is speaking to an audience that is largely absent of that type of masculinity, then what's the entire point of a remake, besides a money grab?

It'd be like remaking Do The Right Thing, with a setup in an upper-class, gated community, and it devolves into some whodunnit, where a middle-aged housewife murders a much younger woman (who's just recently moved into the neighborhood) because she's tried to take over, set over the backdrop of rising tensions over the ownership of a country club.

I mean, shyt, yeah, it's a remake (if only by name), but it's b*stardized every single thing about the OG.

Did they have a "go back for ninus" moment? That scene from the original had me maxed out in I don't know any parent that wouldn't have told their kid to shut the fukk up about that stuffed animal and KIM.

 

[Lootpack]

Spoiler

The fact that this is based on modern Scandavian masculinity is the very reason why Hollywood should've never made a remake of it.

It goes against the bones of the original -

"I did three features and also some short films during many years and I think one of the main themes, without even really realizing, is that it’s a take on at least Scandinavian masculinity. But I kind of realized that it’s a more global issue. What I knew from movies, especially American movies, was masculinity was something where the American hero in the end, this ordinary man, can suddenly fight and shoot and save his family and run through the woods and all that. And I could not recognize that from reality or myself. And I think many Scandinavian men are not introverted, but a little bit pathetic and a little bit vague and live very good, safe lives and are good people. But they’re not really in contact with their darker side or their more primitive nature.

We have been in, especially in our parts of the world, very, very civilized, very privileged. We talk about, you know, everyday life, material stuff, the kids, and all that. And suddenly I had that feeling, what is my primal nature and what would happen if something very evil or very bad would happen to me? Would I be capable of saving my family or fighting back or would I just freeze or run away? And the true answer is: I think it’s the latter."

I get that it wouldn't be palatable for the audience in this country, because we've been ingrained with the heroic ending (no matter the cirumstances), but if the original is speaking to an audience that is largely absent of that type of masculinity, then what's the entire point of a remake, besides a money grab?

It'd be like remaking Do The Right Thing, with a setup in an upper-class, gated community, and it devolves into some whodunnit, where a middle-aged housewife murders a much younger woman (who's just recently moved into the neighborhood) because she's tried to take over, set over the backdrop of rising tensions over the ownership of a country club.

I mean, shyt, yeah, it's a remake (if only by name), but it's b*stardized every single thing about the OG.

I guess I’m not too bothered at the changes since I wasn’t that high on the original in the first place and thought the back-half left a lot of room for improvement. And honestly, it’s not even about American audiences not being able to handle downer endings.

The absurdity of these parents constantly ignoring the red flags and doing absolutely nothing after witnessing their child get mutilated is the bigger issue. It’s a smart change-up by Watkins, IMO, to make this remake come across more plausible. I can understand the point the original director was trying to make on compliance culture and still think the end result was ridiculous as hell.

 

[Lootpack]

Did they have a "go back for ninus" moment? That scene from the original had me maxed out in I don't know any parent that wouldn't have told their kid to shut the fukk up about that stuffed animal and KIM.

Spoiler

It’s still there. To make it even more baffling, the daughter is like 11 or 12 years old and still being co-dependent with a friggin’ stuffed animal. It’s a talked about thing throughout the film, particularly with the father who is at his wits end over the fact.

 

[The Prince of All Saiyans]

No homo but how did man hulk up

If he was in Glass as is he would be a beast

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I guess I’m not too bothered at the changes since I wasn’t that high on the original in the first place and thought the back-half left a lot of room for improvement. And honestly, it’s not even about American audiences not being able to handle downer endings.

I don't think it's necessarily about them not being able to handle the "downer" nature of it either, because The Mist has exactly that and it's one of the most well-received endings for a horror in recent memory. For better or worse, I just think we're programmed not to believe in something that isn't literal in the face of danger.

It's all practicality or what we would do if we were in the protagonist's shoes.

The absurdity of these parents constantly ignoring the red flags and doing absolutely nothing after witnessing their child get mutilated is the bigger issue. It’s a smart change-up by Watkins, IMO, to make this remake come across more plausible. I can understand the point the original director was trying to make on compliance culture and still think the end result was ridiculous as hell.

And that's a completely understandable critique, that someone wouldn't want to suspend their disbelief beyond what they think is plausible when confronted with danger. I guess I'm just at the other end of the spectrum of that - if a film builds a convincing enough narrative that demands more emphasis on its artistic value, I'll push all what I believe in [in the real world] to the side. I'll believe in allegory over what is practical, if it's worth it.

It is interesting though, reading audience reviews on the remake and a lot of them seem to side with your perception of it, that it's more digestible and believeable. Which is why I don't disagree with that, I just don't think it automatically makes for a better film (let alone a more compelling cautionary tale).

 

[Straw Hat Luffy]

Thread got me confused as fukk

 

[Lootpack]

I don't think it's necessarily about them not being able to handle the "downer" nature of it either, because The Mist has exactly that and it's one of the most well-received endings for a horror in recent memory. For better or worse, I just think we're programmed not to believe in something that isn't literal in the face of danger.

It's all practicality or what we would do if we were in the protagonist's shoes.

And that's a completely understandable critique, that someone wouldn't want to suspend their disbelief beyond what they think is plausible when confronted with danger. I guess I'm just at the other end of the spectrum of that - if a film builds a convincing enough narrative that demands more emphasis on its artistic value, I'll push all what I believe in [in the real world] to the side. I'll believe in allegory over what is practical, if it's worth it.

It is interesting though, reading audience reviews on the remake and a lot of them seem to side with your perception of it, that it's more digestible and believeable. Which is why I don't disagree with that, I just don't think it automatically makes for a better film (let alone a more compelling cautionary tale).

I do think 2022 is the better film, but I’m not watching it again. It’s so half-brilliant and half-cartoony to me. I wish I was able to do what you do and ride the allegory all the way through. I actually love a good downer ending, yet can’t be bothered with watching incompetent parents continuously act dumb for the sakes of advancing a plot forward. I’m not even a parent and it boggles my mind.

I gave the remake the benefit of the doubt since it came from the same homie who directed ‘Eden Lake’, which has one of the bleakest endings for a film. Looking back at the optics, there was simply no way they’d go through with it. Post-pandemic, releasing on the week of 9/11, and life is already bleak as is. I’m not even sure if McAvoy would be comfortable taking on a role like that. But I took the bait anyways just to see how faithful this remake would be and the ‘will they? won’t they?’ element added in more fun on top of a decent flick for me.

The original worked because it poked fun at a region’s culture who is known for compliance and over-politeness. America for the most part isn’t like that at all. We’re not really polite. Most Americans are not gonna just kick the back of the seat in frustration after witnessing their child get mutilated, and chalk it up to “shock”. They’re most likely not going to strip butt ass naked and stand completely still for some heel couple to stone them to death. They might very well die in such situation, but they’ll go down fighting at the very least.

The remake is the contingency recommendation after your friend reads up on the original beforehand and decides that they don’t want to watch misery porn. It’s less effective, more of a thriller than horror, but easier to put on whenever and eat popcorn to. Sure, that goes against the bones of the original, but I doubt Blumhouse cares about that.

 

[lamont614]

I’m watching the OG NOW



AINT NO MUTHAfukkIN WAY IM LEAVING MY DAUGHTER WITH ANOTHER MAN

FOR HER TO GET BABYSAT



THESE WHITE PEOPLE CRAXY

 

[lamont614]

Nah dog


This got me ready to shoot my tv

I would die for my daughter





Never world happen to me


I would have been walking around with a knife



I would be biting and clawing

 

[lamont614]

I do think 2022 is the better film, but I’m not watching it again. It’s so half-brilliant and half-cartoony to me. I wish I was able to do what you do and ride the allegory all the way through. I actually love a good downer ending, yet can’t be bothered with watching incompetent parents continuously act dumb for the sakes of advancing a plot forward. I’m not even a parent and it boggles my mind.

I gave the remake the benefit of the doubt since it came from the same homie who directed ‘Eden Lake’, which has one of the bleakest endings for a film. Looking back at the optics, there was simply no way they’d go through with it. Post-pandemic, releasing on the week of 9/11, and life is already bleak as is. I’m not even sure if McAvoy would be comfortable taking on a role like that. But I took the bait anyways just to see how faithful this remake would be and the ‘will they? won’t they?’ element added in more fun on top of a decent flick for me.

The original worked because it poked fun at a region’s culture who is known for compliance and over-politeness. America for the most part isn’t like that at all. We’re not really polite. Most Americans are not gonna just kick the back of the seat in frustration after witnessing their child get mutilated, and chalk it up to “shock”. They’re most likely not going to strip butt ass naked and stand completely still for some heel couple to stone them to death. They might very well die in such situation, but they’ll go down fighting at the very least.

The remake is the contingency recommendation after your friend reads up on the original beforehand and decides that they don’t want to watch misery porn. It’s less effective, more of a thriller than horror, but easier to put on whenever and eat popcorn to. Sure, that goes against the bones of the original, but I doubt Blumhouse cares about that.

Eden lake is Amazon it was the next recommendation

 

[Lootpack]

Eden lake is Amazon it was the next recommendation

I would watch to get my bleak fix but I already had to endure FSU football earlier today.

 

[lamont614]

I would watch to get my bleak fix but I already had to endure FSU football earlier today.

fukk fsu they messed up one of my parlay

 

[Trav]

I guess I’m not too bothered at the changes since I wasn’t that high on the original in the first place and thought the back-half left a lot of room for improvement. And honestly, it’s not even about American audiences not being able to handle downer endings.

The absurdity of these parents constantly ignoring the red flags and doing absolutely nothing after witnessing their child get mutilated is the bigger issue. It’s a smart change-up by Watkins, IMO, to make this remake come across more plausible. I can understand the point the original director was trying to make on compliance culture and still think the end result was ridiculous as hell.

Is this worth going to go see in theaters or nah?