Ishika Banerjee: they could've gone the Shrek route and made the 4rth one really great to cancel it out but no :(

Ishika Banerjee: BEEP BOOP

Bob Woolsey: I enjoyed this film, but only after I realised I couldn't take it seriously and I had to view it from arm's length. Can I just ask, why did they give Orlok that moustache? I still can't get over it. I loved the artistry of the film, and it's clear that Eggers purposefully doted over every detail... but then there's that moustache! I couldn't take any of his vampiring seriously once I saw it. It's just so bushy and hearty. It doesn't look like it's the same age as the character at all and it makes the design kind of comical for me. I also found Willem Dafoe's character to be comical - mostly because he takes the supernatural stuff so seriously. There were audible laughs in my theatre and I don't think Egger's intended for them. However, when I just suspended my disbelief and went along for the storybook ride, I did have some fun. And that final scene was great.

Ishika Banerjee: Ya, this movie was disappointing and sucks, thanks for your review! I agree and movies like this should never exist.

Alejandro Franco "Arlequin": Ok, it's a different vision of the film. I admit that the last 15 minutes are a bit much, but I like everything beforehand. Women are victims of beauty culture, something created by men to please them. A lot of women with Stockholm syndrome, who believe in those dogmas that they did not create but continue with it, convinced that beauty is a value of real importance. Fargeat's super misogynistic shots, focusing on busts and butts when Sue takes over the show (which had a light vibe in the style of Jane Fonda videos from the 80s). The voracious, misogynistic producer, very much in the vein of Harvey Weinstein, a predator in luxury clothes. Perhaps the biggest drama is Demi Moore's character's inability to accept age, live with her millions, and retire properly. She is addicted to being seen as a sex symbol. And the film goes from being a version of Cronenberg's The Fly (using human bodies as teleportation chambers, where what comes out is different from what goes in) to one of Jekyll & Hyde, where they throw away the premise of "two bodies, one person" and they wage war by sabotaging each other.

Ishika Banerjee: lol ur so wrong. The film was definitely meant to be more of an experience than a full-on film with a specific plot line. It was also meant to be filmed in the style of a documentary in the form of a film to really make you scared. I don't think the diegetic sound overstayed; it's welcome, especially when you hear and see so many other things that all amplify to show how desensitized the family is to living next to the horrors over a wall. much like the way we are in the present sometimes. It's slow and it's definitely a slow burn and the ending isn't some crazy conclusion but I think you won't like this movie anyway if you go into it with that kind of mindset. It's also unfair to say that it's comparable to Pianist or Schindler's List because it is meant to be in the perspective of the perpetrators/bystanders which hasn't been done in the way this film captures. I think the essence is that we shouldn't see this family as completely evil, or the devil. They Are humans just like us who did terrible things and we're forced to watch– so much more scary to me.