I'm not trying to discredit you for disliking the film, I just think insulting the critics just because they think differently than you is really close-minded.
I agree that the ending could've used some work because of how rushed it was, but I don't think the film is as meaningless as you make it out to be.
Where does the clone come from? How is any of this even possible?
This is explained, though. It's a complex algorithm that targets dead cam girls and then duplicates them online. It was triggered when Lola pretended to kill herself on her stream. The director and screenwriter of this film were actually on my college campus discussing this film a few days ago and they said that they did have some explanations in mind. One idea they considered was that a hacker was using a software to composite Alice's face onto another girl. They decided not to go with a definite answer because they knew nobody was gonna be satisfied with whatever solution they decided on.
I agree with them. Whatever explanation behind the anomaly they may have provided, I assure you, nobody would've been satisfied with it and everyone would be commenting about how dumb it is. Personally, I'm glad that it was never explained what exactly the algorithm was or who created it. Horror is one of those genres where you can get away with not explaining absolutely everything because usually the ambiguity factor is what intrigues and scares people the most. The worst part of a horror film is when everything is given a definite answer. The reason people find Michael Meyers so scary is because he's a total puzzle of a human being. Nobody knows what makes him tick or what sets him off and that makes him more unpredictable and therefore more terrifying. The Rob Zombie version tried to humanize him, which isn't a bad idea in of itself, but it makes his character less intimidating. I feel like the same argument can be applied to this film. If it was explained where the anomaly originated from, the creep value would cease. If the film was TOO vague, then I'd agree with you, but it provides everything you need to know. The main character does learn something, just not EVERYTHING.
Does she develop into a better person at the end?
Was she even a bad person to begin with? Yeah, she was a sex worker, but so what? If she enjoys it, if it helps pay the bills, and as long as she's not hurting anyone, I don't see why that makes her less of a person.
Girl starts movie as a cam girl and ends movie as a cam girl
Again, so what? Being a cam girl is not a character flaw and it was never prefaced as a character flaw that she had to overcome. I can understand the other criticisms of this movie, but I think this one is invalid.
Does she solve any of her problems with her family? Not really.
She doesn't really patch things up with her brother, but she does with her mom. This isn't even a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. There's an entire scene dedicated to it.
In terms of why this film is a conversation starter, it talks about stuff like the dangers of social media, identity theft, perception of others and ourselves online, and the stigmas surrounding sex workers. Just because a movie doesn't hold your hand, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have anything to say. I'd go into more detail, but I feel like this video explains it pretty well.
I read like the first five reviews of movies I'm interested in seeing. When I read the reviews for Cam, people were talking about how the fi… morelm is a "conversation starter." But what conversation is there to be had with this film? A girl dances in front of the camera than a clone of hers shows up. Why does this happen? Where does the clone come from? How is any of this even possible? I would've given the film some props if the protagonist learned anything but no. She solves her problem and just goes right back to cam work. So, what was the point of the movie? Girl starts and ends movie as a cam girl. Does she develop into a better person at the end? No. Does she solve any of her problems with her family? Not really. So how does a film that has no moral story or some kind of message have positive reviews? You like the movie? Fine, I won't hate you for it. Just boggles my mind that this movie was ripped to shreds.
Not every single critic is bad per say. I could've made that more clear. That's on me. They sometimes get movie ratings right, I guess the main thing that gets under my skin is how poorly the film was made yet still achieves a high rating when many good films are given the shaft.
I'm not trying to discredit you for disliking the film, I just think insulting the critics just because they think differently than you is r… moreeally close-minded.
I agree that the ending could've used some work because of how rushed it was, but I don't think the film is as meaningless as you make it out to be.
Where does the clone come from? How is any of this even possible?
This is explained, though. It's a complex algorithm that targets dead cam girls and then duplicates them online. It was triggered when Lola pretended to kill herself on her stream. The director and screenwriter of this film were actually on my college campus discussing this film a few days ago and they said that they did have some explanations in mind. One idea they considered was that a hacker was using a software to composite Alice's face onto another girl. They decided not to go with a definite answer because they knew nobody was gonna be satisfied with w… [view original content]
I'm not gonna act like that there aren't asshole critics out there. *cough Rex Reed *cough Armond White. But I just don't agree with flat out disrespecting critics and saying that they don't know what they're talking about just because their opinions don't align with your's. That just seems like a cheap way out. If you enjoy a movie they hate or vice versa, that's really all that should matter. "Calling them out" doesn't benefit anyone.
I don't always agree with critics per se. I'll never understand why Easy A got so much praise, but people saw something in it that I didn't and that's fine. I thought Pandorum was a decent flick, but critics heavily disagreed with me and that's also fine. I know you're not incapable of understanding this concept. You even said in your last post that you respected my opinion on Cam despite your own personal feelings on it. After all, I'm just some person with an opinion. Why treat critics differently? They're just people with opinions too.
Not every single critic is bad per say. I could've made that more clear. That's on me. They sometimes get movie ratings right, I guess the m… moreain thing that gets under my skin is how poorly the film was made yet still achieves a high rating when many good films are given the shaft.
Yeah this kinda spiraled and snowballed more than I thought it would. But I'm familiar with some of these bad critics that give other critics a bad name
I'm not gonna act like that there aren't asshole critics out there. *cough Rex Reed *cough Armond White. But I just don't agree with flat ou… moret disrespecting critics and saying that they don't know what they're talking about just because their opinions don't align with your's. That just seems like a cheap way out. If you enjoy a movie they hate or vice versa, that's really all that should matter. "Calling them out" doesn't benefit anyone.
I don't always agree with critics per se. I'll never understand why Easy A got so much praise, but people saw something in it that I didn't and that's fine. I thought Pandorum was a decent flick, but critics heavily disagreed with me and that's also fine. I know you're not incapable of understanding this concept. You even said in your last post that you respected my opinion on Cam despite your own personal feelings on it. After all, I'm just some person with an opinion. Why treat critics differently? They're just people with opinions too.
Yeah this kinda spiraled and snowballed more than I thought it would. But I'm familiar with some of these bad critics that give other critics a bad name
(Didn't mean for this to be a reply to you, just a general one for the thread.)
While I agree that you shouldn't rely on others to tell you what to feel or what is good or bad, critics and fans alike are the people who recommend and watch movies/plays/shows/musical productions, etc. Especially with the arts, we don't want to watch something that is subjectively good or bad and then come out with a negative experience. So, we rely on others and in the case of critics -- the so-called "connoisseurs" of their craft -- their opinions are stated to be well-regarded and fairly accurate (however they, too, rely on the inescapable human trait of opinion)
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is: Concerning critics that are a part of larger review organisations -- for this example I'll take IGN -- I think they should always have a second or third opinion on hand. Preferably, they should have opposed views to accurately describe the parts they found enjoyable so that anyone who agrees with one side or the other can form a proper opinion on what they would or would not enjoy.
That's the problem with companies like IGN. Their reviews for entertainment live and die by the sole reviewer they hire.
If they like a thing but it turns out the public hates it, that's on them for not giving a 'proper review score' that aligns with the majority and inadvertently unnecessarily funds or supports the product that was reported as 'good'. If they hate something but the public likes it, then that could lead to the 'public=good' product to not be as financially supported as it would have with a larger review score.
…What was my point here?
If they use the same reviewer, then it'll probably have similar scores to previous episodes. The best way for a critic to 'objectively' review something as good/bad is to have the reviewer be someone who is well-versed and has much experience with the subject matter, previous versions of the product, general consensus and views of the public, among many other factors... Something it's clear the reviewer of ANF and TFS did not have.
Rotten Tomatoes (Critics we can trust)
Cam - 94% Critic Rating. 58% Fan Rating
Bohemian Rhapsody - 61% Critic Rating. 88% Fan Rating
Gran… more Torino - 80% Critic Rating. 90% Fan Rating
Terminator 2 - 93% Critic Rating. 94% Fan Rating
Predator - 80% Critic Rating. 87% Fan Rating
Infinity War - 85% Critic Rating. 91% Fan Rating
Deadpool 2 - 83% Critic Rating. 85% Fan Rating
Wolf of Wall Street - 78% Critic Rating. 82% Fan Rating
Hot Fuzz - 91% Critic Rating. 89% Fan Rating
Logan - 93% Critic Rating. 90% Fan Rating
No Country For Old Men - 93% Critic Rating. 86% Fan Rating
Fargo - 93% Critic Rating. 93% Fan Rating
Breakfast Club - 88% Critic Rating. 92% Fan Rating
Tommy Boy - 42% Critic Rating. 90% Fan Rating
National Lampoon - 93% Critic Rating. 85% Fan Rating
Boy in the Striped Pajamas - 63% Critic Rating. 84% Fan Rating
Inglorious Bastards - 88% Critic Rating. 87% Fan Rating
Batman - 71% Critic Rating. 84% Fan Rating
The Depart… [view original content]
Was kinda disappointed they didnt review episode 3. Knowing IGN giving the first 2 really good eps low scores, theyd give episode 3, the not as well done episode, a much higher score.
Comments
I'm not trying to discredit you for disliking the film, I just think insulting the critics just because they think differently than you is really close-minded.
I agree that the ending could've used some work because of how rushed it was, but I don't think the film is as meaningless as you make it out to be.
This is explained, though. It's a complex algorithm that targets dead cam girls and then duplicates them online. It was triggered when Lola pretended to kill herself on her stream. The director and screenwriter of this film were actually on my college campus discussing this film a few days ago and they said that they did have some explanations in mind. One idea they considered was that a hacker was using a software to composite Alice's face onto another girl. They decided not to go with a definite answer because they knew nobody was gonna be satisfied with whatever solution they decided on.
I agree with them. Whatever explanation behind the anomaly they may have provided, I assure you, nobody would've been satisfied with it and everyone would be commenting about how dumb it is. Personally, I'm glad that it was never explained what exactly the algorithm was or who created it. Horror is one of those genres where you can get away with not explaining absolutely everything because usually the ambiguity factor is what intrigues and scares people the most. The worst part of a horror film is when everything is given a definite answer. The reason people find Michael Meyers so scary is because he's a total puzzle of a human being. Nobody knows what makes him tick or what sets him off and that makes him more unpredictable and therefore more terrifying. The Rob Zombie version tried to humanize him, which isn't a bad idea in of itself, but it makes his character less intimidating. I feel like the same argument can be applied to this film. If it was explained where the anomaly originated from, the creep value would cease. If the film was TOO vague, then I'd agree with you, but it provides everything you need to know. The main character does learn something, just not EVERYTHING.
Was she even a bad person to begin with? Yeah, she was a sex worker, but so what? If she enjoys it, if it helps pay the bills, and as long as she's not hurting anyone, I don't see why that makes her less of a person.
Again, so what? Being a cam girl is not a character flaw and it was never prefaced as a character flaw that she had to overcome. I can understand the other criticisms of this movie, but I think this one is invalid.
She doesn't really patch things up with her brother, but she does with her mom. This isn't even a "blink and you'll miss it" moment. There's an entire scene dedicated to it.
In terms of why this film is a conversation starter, it talks about stuff like the dangers of social media, identity theft, perception of others and ourselves online, and the stigmas surrounding sex workers. Just because a movie doesn't hold your hand, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have anything to say. I'd go into more detail, but I feel like this video explains it pretty well.
Not every single critic is bad per say. I could've made that more clear. That's on me. They sometimes get movie ratings right, I guess the main thing that gets under my skin is how poorly the film was made yet still achieves a high rating when many good films are given the shaft.
I'm not gonna act like that there aren't asshole critics out there. *cough Rex Reed *cough Armond White. But I just don't agree with flat out disrespecting critics and saying that they don't know what they're talking about just because their opinions don't align with your's. That just seems like a cheap way out. If you enjoy a movie they hate or vice versa, that's really all that should matter. "Calling them out" doesn't benefit anyone.
I don't always agree with critics per se. I'll never understand why Easy A got so much praise, but people saw something in it that I didn't and that's fine. I thought Pandorum was a decent flick, but critics heavily disagreed with me and that's also fine. I know you're not incapable of understanding this concept. You even said in your last post that you respected my opinion on Cam despite your own personal feelings on it. After all, I'm just some person with an opinion. Why treat critics differently? They're just people with opinions too.
Yeah this kinda spiraled and snowballed more than I thought it would. But I'm familiar with some of these bad critics that give other critics a bad name
I would also like to apologize if I came off as aggressive. I just feel REALLY strongly about this topic.
Nah, this wasn't your fault. I got a little heated on this one. Sorry if I came off as a hotheaded prick.
It's okay. Glad we could find some common ground at least.
It's good to get a good debate going every once in a while ?
(Didn't mean for this to be a reply to you, just a general one for the thread.)
While I agree that you shouldn't rely on others to tell you what to feel or what is good or bad, critics and fans alike are the people who recommend and watch movies/plays/shows/musical productions, etc. Especially with the arts, we don't want to watch something that is subjectively good or bad and then come out with a negative experience. So, we rely on others and in the case of critics -- the so-called "connoisseurs" of their craft -- their opinions are stated to be well-regarded and fairly accurate (however they, too, rely on the inescapable human trait of opinion)
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is: Concerning critics that are a part of larger review organisations -- for this example I'll take IGN -- I think they should always have a second or third opinion on hand. Preferably, they should have opposed views to accurately describe the parts they found enjoyable so that anyone who agrees with one side or the other can form a proper opinion on what they would or would not enjoy.
That's the problem with companies like IGN. Their reviews for entertainment live and die by the sole reviewer they hire.
If they like a thing but it turns out the public hates it, that's on them for not giving a 'proper review score' that aligns with the majority and inadvertently unnecessarily funds or supports the product that was reported as 'good'. If they hate something but the public likes it, then that could lead to the 'public=good' product to not be as financially supported as it would have with a larger review score.
…What was my point here?
If they use the same reviewer, then it'll probably have similar scores to previous episodes. The best way for a critic to 'objectively' review something as good/bad is to have the reviewer be someone who is well-versed and has much experience with the subject matter, previous versions of the product, general consensus and views of the public, among many other factors... Something it's clear the reviewer of ANF and TFS did not have.
Whoa whoa whoa they never reviewed Episode 3?? Despite how I think the score may have turned out, that's still pretty disappointing of them.