What about some dark tinted ski goggles

Anonymous wrote:Not long into the movie I wondered why they didn’t just blind themselves as a survival technique.

Not a great movie.

Why would you blind yourself when a blindfold worked just as well and you only needed to not see when you were outside? How stupid. You would be the first to die.

Not long into the movie I wondered why they didn’t just blind themselves as a survival technique.

Not a great movie.

Anonymous wrote:What a grumpy lot of people here! Ya know some of the scariest things can’t be seen. Jeez.

Well the informal pop culture view of a scary movie is more like gore and gouhly type of visuals with multiple jump scenes. Having said that, in my view, birdbox is not a horror flick, but more like a apocolyptic suspense movie. Just my view.

Anonymous wrote:I found it enjoyable for an entertainment movie. But very unrealistic.
The electricity never went out. Faucets continued to provide clean drinking water.
A woman who blindfolded found a drowning child in a raging river after boat capsized

Strange that they had that, seems like they changed a lot of basic things from the book that didn't need to be changed.

Anonymous wrote:pp here again. I mean - I didn't even realize that each victim saw something different (or much different) or the significance of that. I didn't read the book so just watching the movie - I missed a lot of what the "creature" was.

I only saw the movie too but how did you not catch that? Each time a person looked at it they said something different about what it was. Even the crazy dude had like 20 different drawings of it.

I found it enjoyable for an entertainment movie. But very unrealistic.
The electricity never went out. Faucets continued to provide clean drinking water.
A woman who blindfolded found a drowning child in a raging river after boat capsized

pp here again. I mean - I didn't even realize that each victim saw something different (or much different) or the significance of that. I didn't read the book so just watching the movie - I missed a lot of what the "creature" was.

I was disappointed. I think it would have been a much more powerful film if we got to see what the victims saw, somehow. But just to see their reaction (which for some, wasn't a big reaction anyway) and then at the end just have a Hallmark scene (like the other pp said) made the movie too simple and didn't do much for me. I was expecting so much more.

I liked it.

A$$holes and dead people

What a grumpy lot of people here! Ya know some of the scariest things can’t be seen. Jeez.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t like that they never showed the creatures.

It did, via the crazy guy’s drawings.

The drawings were just that, drawings. I would’ve liked to see it in the flesh. Not on paper.

b/c you can't reach beyond a "Godzilla vs. Mothra" type of film?

The film, imo, is metaphorical. It's more than some big and bad scary creature, PP. Can you see that?

Nope.

If I’m seeing a movie that is basically The Happening meets A Quiet Place then I would like to see a creature. This movie wasn’t some deep thought provoking movie. Therefore, for the level it was I would’ve liked to see the creature. It can be a metaphor to you, but to me, it was a horror movie without the horror.

I never want to see the creature. There are so few movies that are able to convey a terrifying creature via special effects without provoking my judgement of the quality of the special effects; in my eyes it breaks the fourth wall and takes me out of the fantasy. I think of the "It" miniseries from the 80s or the M. Night Shyamalan movie "Signs", or even A Quiet Place for that matter...so terrifying and suspenseful until you see the hacky-looking "creature" on screen. Give me a Blair Witch or Paranormal activity where the terror is accomplished without conjuring the source on screen (you see the demon at the end of paranormal activity but it's brief).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t like that they never showed the creatures.

It did, via the crazy guy’s drawings.

The drawings were just that, drawings. I would’ve liked to see it in the flesh. Not on paper.

b/c you can't reach beyond a "Godzilla vs. Mothra" type of film?

The film, imo, is metaphorical. It's more than some big and bad scary creature, PP. Can you see that?

The "thing" was also different for everyone. Mallory's sister references seeing their mom, the old lady saw something horrible before stabbing herself with the scissors. It was different for different people.

Anonymous wrote:It's an interesting story but very hard to execute on film, especially the part when they fell in the river. How on earth would they be able to survive that trek to the school in that climate while wet?

And how did those birds survive?! Or how was the kid able to hold onto those birds?! They all should’ve died.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t like that they never showed the creatures.

It did, via the crazy guy’s drawings.

The drawings were just that, drawings. I would’ve liked to see it in the flesh. Not on paper.

b/c you can't reach beyond a "Godzilla vs. Mothra" type of film?

The film, imo, is metaphorical. It's more than some big and bad scary creature, PP. Can you see that?

Nope.

If I’m seeing a movie that is basically The Happening meets A Quiet Place then I would like to see a creature. This movie wasn’t some deep thought provoking movie. Therefore, for the level it was I would’ve liked to see the creature. It can be a metaphor to you, but to me, it was a horror movie without the horror.