I liked Saw 1 and 2 as they were much more thoughtfully created and gave many opportunities for people to use intelligence and bravery to survive. It was even more of a mystery and dare I say social "game" than Saw 1. I turned off Saw 3 as soon as it seemed to me the first victim had no chance at survival and the game wasn't being helmed by Jigsaw.

Really well put. I wouldn’t call the plot “thin”. I think direct is a better word. Utilitarian. Not too many moving parts because they aren’t needed to tell the intended story.

McDonough was a playwright at first and I feel like a lot of his movies operate in this way, with self contained distorted version of the world and human behavior.

If only the Oscars were about the actual relative quality and merits of each nominee.

"Did it on purpose" connotes intentionally doing something wrong or bad. I think a lot of the stuff you're talking about isn't wrong or bad, in the context of horror storytelling.

So I'd put it as "did it for a reason."

I really liked it. I didn't expect the characters to act completely normal. It's a war allegory about a conflict that doesn't always make sense.

It’s always a good time to see Saw

I wonder about this myself. I think she's barely acceptable in this role. Her performance is pure soap opera.

OP's description of the plot and actions are super disingenuous though. Arnold isn't using his spy background to "stalk and Weinstein" Curtis, he actually stops that from happening. Curtis' character was cheating on her husband with a guy pretending to be a spy because she was bored with her life. The stripping scene culminates with Arnold (pretending to be a villain) asking her why she's doing what she's doing, at which point she confesses that she's bored with her life and her husband doesn't pay any attention to her. There's no forcing, no manipulation from Arnold's character. Even the stripping scene is super awkward and comical, being that her character is supposed to be a suburban housewife masquerading as a spy trying to seduce and wiretap a villain. She even kicks Arnold's ass a bit when she changes her mind and before she finds out it's him. Basically OP's read and description of it is completely wrong. And Tom Arnold's character does call Arnold's character out for using his spy background to set this whole ruse up instead of just talking to her.

Up to a certain degree of compression, a video file is effectivelly loseless, though...

The question gets downvoted, but the answer gets upvoted

That’s the thing about depression is you can still function in society. Look at Robin Williams, Chris Cornell, Curt Cobain. They all suffered with deep depression that eventually took their lives, but they still “acted” normal. Colm Doherty continued to act normal so that people wouldn’t suspect that he’s in a dark place as he doesn’t want them coming to his house. The village was so small that someone would always come check on him and that’s why he would get angry at Padraic who kept coming.

What is it going to take for people to realize that people don’t win Oscars for merit?

I think she’s excellent in the movie. But ultimately the Oscar’s always come down to an opinion, and who has the momentum, and the right story. And I’m not super mad about that, because how does one compare an acting performance. It’s really all about “I like that one better”. The long, long, long list of performances that have won an Oscar that have me scratching my head seems endless. And I expect the same can be said for this years award show.

Ultimately, I think Kim won not just because it’s likely the best performance she’s ever given, but because this was a truly excellent movie that was not going to get the awards it deserved because it was competing in the same year as Titanic (if you want to talk a movie that DID NOT deserve the awards it got). I also think she won as a way for the academy to give a nod to the whole cast. Imo, the real travesty isn’t that she won, but rather that Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe weren’t even nominated, and neither of them won.

Similar experience for me. It was fine, but not worth the hype it was getting IMO.

The movie isn't about what it's literally about.

It's an allegory for the Irish Civil War broadly, and more about how absurdly these kinds of conflicts start.

It's a heightened reality, just like McDonough other films.

Even allowing for all that, I don't see how the characters are unbelievable.

I've had friends that I eventually realized were holding me back and cut them loose.

It's a bit harder to do on a small secluded island with one pub, so the resentment and anger on both sides just keeps building until it boils over.

That each character's actions and reactions are irrational and emotional is the point.

Well then you're not actually engaging with what I said. Carry on

The fifth rewatch is when it gets really rewarding.

Nine fingers is the epitome of mental.

But It’s not for everyone.

Ya found it a little feckin dull, didjya?

>Not retarded

He didn't go full retard = Oscar

I thought Tropic Thunder made that clear.

Also, Shawshank is 30x more popular now than when it came out.

Neither

Still a classic. You're wrong.

All the individuals behaving like they do. For me the behavior of almost all the people in the movie is uncomprehensible, unlike McDormands other movies, where you could relate somehow with the characters

Yeah he was best supporting. Same year as Shawshank and Gump 1994.

Even then, it’s a movie. I don’t have any problem using substantial suspension of disbelief to watch it. It’s not like it’s trying to be a realistic historical drama. The title even sounds like a fable.

I found to be sort of like an old fable, I loved it.