Sandra Bullock’s new movie BIRDBOX

Are there any hot young guys in it? Preferably nude?

This does sound like it has a fairly riveting premise. It's just big doses Miss Sandy can end up a little problematic for me. She was hard to take in Gravity, in every scene playing against those special effects and her dodgy "WHHHOOOOOAAAA" reactions. Could never sit through the film again because of it.

Hottie Trevante Rhodes from Moonlight is in it.

Rapper Machine Gun Kelly does nudity when fucking some chick

R1, Trevante Rhodes (28 y/o) was cast as Sandra's love interest, Tom. There a sex scene, but no good stuff was shown. Whether she's in or out of character, I always get 'lesbian with no use for men' from Sandra, so Tom being so besotted with her and a romantic relationship developing felt forced. I actually would have preferred her being a lesbian in a couple with Sarah Paulson.

Mild spoiler below...

I literally just finished watching this movie while I was exercising, OP. I found it frustrating that they let the last 'survivor' into the home. The second he said the lunatics weren't impacted by the 'thing' outside, they should have questioned whether or not he himself was one of the crazies that was targetting people.

Tres hot r3

It was thrilling.

Just watched this. It starts out so promising. Great start but the stunt casting eventually shows its hand. You know, all of the tropes.

A pregnant fifty year old starts it off. Then your black guys, your asian, your hispanic, fat white chick, old bitter drunk guy. As it goes on to Meryl rafting meets Blair Witch, indian doctor and the fucking nose job nostrils on Bullock you'll be checking the time mark. As soon as it ends, free at last!

There’s a deflation in tension in the earlier time line because we already know Sandy B and the two kids are the only ones to make it out of the house.

The dual birth scene was preposterous, Sandy, in her mid-fifties, groaning in labor alongside Dumplin’.

Her love interest was hot as fuck. About half her age. Maybe women are getting revenge for decades of men paired up with women young enough to be their daughters and granddaughters.

I enjoyed Jacki Weaver and John Malkovich in underwritten roles.

The little girl was adorable, and I have a heart of stone with kids in film.

What's a big star doing on Netflix?

So spoil it for me. What's the "thing"?

While I appreciated the casting, I preferred the book.

[QUOTE]What's a big star doing on Netflix?

R11 we don't know what it is. It tried the Blair Witch angle though.

The 50 year old in labor 😂

Trevante Rhodes was great, but then again I’d be happy just watching him reading from the phone book. I think his main job was to be eye candy, mostly.

Some are saying it pales in comparison to A Quiet Place.

I actually skipped ahead over the love scene. Just couldn't.

Her absolutely flawless unlined unblemished smooth skin, made up "natural style" is a testimony to highest arts surgery, dermatology, lighting, lensing, makeup and quite possibly CGI.

Judging by the drawing the crazy English made, the "thing" is Chthulu or old Gods/Demons

Sandy’s face and hair reminds me of a pregnant Michael Jackson .

I read it's an allegory about post partum psychosis /depression

Why, R17?

It's like a mashup between "The Happening" and "A Quiet Place."

But with Sandra Bullock yelling at everyone, especially her small children.

Sandra Bullock = movie killer.

Strange release date to Netflix. Who would make a point to watch something so dark, on the Holidays.

I really enjoyed it and thought it was well made.

“A pregnant fifty year old starts it off. ”. Not really any worse than geriatrics like Liam Neeson kicking young men’s asses.

I really enjoyed the movie, thought it was entertaining and well done.

Watching now. I have 40 min left. It's ok. Not amazing. Malkovich yells every single line. As always.

Skipped the love scene because you know a normal person would devour that guy.

R20, THAT IS IT! Exactly, just wouldn't seep into my consciousness but disturbingly thought of MJ. Thank you!

Hello Kitty sure gets around!

I enjoyed it. It's not amazing but above average and kept my interest.

Talking of Netflix has anyone watched Tidelands? It's a show about Sirens and their offspring. Has a lot of nudity, sex and murder.

R31 I've only watched 3 eps but i'm enjoying it. The gay cop is pretty hot!

I've finished it R32. A bit of a cliffhanger ending so I hope it's renewed.

R33 Lol of course there is. I would love a season 2 🤞

A cable TV movie. Not worthy of cinematic acclaim.

I don't find Trevante Rhodes all that attractive, really. Not ugly, by any means, but nothing to write home about.

Probably watchable for a tv knockoff, but nothing more.

Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu. Are they turning the cinematic universe on its head? So many of their films seem to be on a conveyor belt for the sake of quantity rather than quality.

Bummer. was wishing this would be a good one. as the premise would lead to some unique storytelling/visuals/performances. but when I found out it was a Netflix on a Netflix budget I at least hoped it wouldn't rely on a budget alone to churn out something as a must see ( I have not seen it yet, mind you lol ). ill try and watch it. maybe some pinot will help

I think it was supposed to be released in late October or November but they pushed it back due to some shooting or another.

Yes, it was a takeoff of The Happening.

I tried to get into it but Sandra Bullock's face never moved and it freaked me out. I watched the first 20 minutes then skipped to the end of it.

Welcome to the future of film making. Mass produced, cinematic Soylent Green. Who cares what movies are made of?

The author claims he wrote it before The Happening and the book just happened to get published around the same time as that and some other movie with a similar theme.

I do not enjoy watching Bullock but there were a few good tense moments in the film. I liked the final reveal about the meaning of the title.

Honestly, the only male co-star Sandra had chemistry with was Ben Affleck in Forces of Nature. Too bad the movie was a piece of shit.

Accepting Sandra Bullock as pregnant at this stage of her life is just a little more believable than accepting Barbra Streisand as the mother of Baby June and Baby Louise.

The movie rocks until she enters the house. The onset delivers, gives you hope and then it's a bad Benetton ad of yore. When you see the stunt casting all promise, out the shuttered window. Of course the asian guy doubles as homosexual. So PC.

Fail!

Final reveal pandered to simpletons. Again, fail.

[quote]Honestly, the only male co-star Sandra had chemistry with was Ben Affleck in Forces of Nature

Not true. She had wonderful chemistry with Tate Donovan (her real-life boyfriend at the time) in Love Potion No. 9 and with Fisher Stevens in the indie dramedy When The Party’s Over, two of her pre-fame movies. She also had good chemistry with McConauhey in A Time To Kill.

Sandra doesn't look 50, you people are full of shit.

If only she looked 50. She is now like any other actress who looks unnatural due to extensive cosmetic work. There is nothing real about looking like a person of indiscernible age; by indiscernible I don't mean younger.

Her face didn't move in Ocean's 8 either.

Sandra looks very pretty for her age, but she still looks her age: 54.

Why don't the people just move around at nighttime in the winter? It's dark and no eye covers needed.

It was OK better than I thought it would be but I HATE the title.

I’ve been reading tons of reviews online and people are loving this movie.

A Quiet Place did the same story better.

R48 " Of course the asian guy doubles as homosexual. So PC." It's BD Wong who is gay IRL and plays plenty of gay characters in movies/TV, hell he plays a cross dresser in Mr. Robot, I don't think the sexuality of his character on SVU ever came up though.

Anyway, I enjoyed the movie. Was suspenseful a few times where I was gripping the armrest shouting at the TV.

He was gay in SVU. It was in an episode where a paedophile was trying to claim paedophilia as a legitimate sexual orientation, and he said something along the lines of 'I'm against it as a psychiatrist and as a gay man.'

[quote]A Quiet Place did the same story better.

SPOLIER!>>>>>>>Nah, AQP had a huge hole where a lantern knocked over could be heard a mile away yet not a breathing human feet away.

I saw it and loved it too.

The Happening + AQP + The River Wild + a little bit of Sophie’s Choice

How did the birds survive the rapids in a loose lidded cardboard box full of breathing holes?

How did Neela from ER survive?

[quote]How did Neela from ER survive?

And five years later remember her name.

She was one of her last patients before the crap hit the fan R66, and she was also probably one of the few she had to lecture about becoming a parent since she seemed completely disinterested. I can buy that she'd remember her.

Neela has gained a lot of weight since her ER days.

[quote]I can buy that she'd remember her.

And Mexico will pay for the wall?

R69, She literally said she was going to go home with her sister and drink a bottle of wine while she was months into her pregnancy in front of the Doctor.

You know that Doctor would have gone home and said, "You know what this bitch just said at work in front of me?"

But it's unlikely the Doctor made it home since the wave hit the city as Mallory was heading out of the hospital and hit a fever pitch while she was in the car with her sister right after.

I just finished it and while it wasn’t perfect, it was absolutely worth the time.

[quote]There’s a deflation in tension in the earlier time line because we already know Sandy B and the two kids are the only ones to make it out of the house.

Yes the back and forth storytelling did give this away, but that can still cause tension because you don’t know the when or the how, yet you sit there waiting for it.

Because I’m gay I’ll first dwell on what I didn’t like:

Completely agree with the other comment about Malkovich. He plays the same fucking character in everything and it’s so tiresome.

The ending all tied up in a bow was a bit too Hollywood as well.

Trevante’s character Tom is so perfect and goodie goodie, he got on my nerves really quickly. He’s an amazing actor and should have been given a richer character to play.

But short of that, I liked it a lot. I love Sandy Bullock so I was very ready to enjoy this, although she plays the Grumpy Sandy character and I’m not *quite* as fond of that. She looks great — and she’s plausible as an older woman having her first baby at, say, early 40s. She doesn’t look 54.

It is not like The Happening. That was caused by a pheromone that makes you kill yourself, put out by nature/plants as a defense mechanism. This is some sort of alien intelligence that hunts by giving visual cues to commit suicide. It had a very different feel to me despite the suicide similarity.

I love that they never showed the alien life form. It plays perfectly with the central motif of the story. You look, you die.

Worth a watch.

I'm the only perverted gay who found Machine Gun Kelly sex on a stick in this?

Bookmarking this, just started watching. Didn't know Malkovich was in it, he usually elevates the crap movies he is in.

**Spoiler question**

Ok so, why could some people look at it and think it’s beautiful. But others looked and recieved their fate.

What was that about. Why give it nuance if you’re not going to explain it.

Also, is Sarah Paulson required to be in every single movie now? I’m not complaining. I think she is a rich, high quality actor.

1. They seemed to be running from the same wind in the willows monster they fought in Lost.

2. The Girl and Boy names were SO BEYOND STUPID.

3. There was some very good acting in this and some very bad acting.

4. Those birds sure were teflon tuff.

5. Sandra Bullock was good when partnered with Harry Connick Jr. in Hope Floats

6. The smoothness of skin, lack of movement, and lip injections of some of the actresses in this were very distracting.

7. Please tell me nobody actually puts their entire heads INTO the toilet like that when they vomit. And all I could think about was how Mallory's hair touched the sides of the toilet and were later dangling around her mouth.

R74, mentally ill people or a small minority of others seem to have been enslaved by the entities to be used to help them kill the rest.

Oh, and I figured she was going to name the girl Cinderella at the end.

Just started watching it but I am suspicious of the other pregnant woman because she usually plays sneaky characters. Is the attractive black guy from the Old Spice commercials? He looks familiar.

R78, he was in Moonlight.

It's funny that some of the sticking points of why people didn't like the film or what they didn't like about it are (unknowingly) honing in on changes from the book.

In the book ... (spoilers I guess) ... .... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Malorie is a college student so her issues with actually wanting/loving/caring for a baby make more sense.

Sarah Paulson/Shannon actually traps herself with her sister in a home so her character actually had a much bigger role than we saw on screen. She kills herself in their bathroom when she sees a creature by accident.

Malorie knows there's a group of survivors at the house and goes there because of an ad they placed before things got really bad.

John Malkovitch's character/Doug was made just for the movie.

Olympia isn't the idiot who let Gary into the house (they all vote and do) and Gary is around much longer.

Tom dies at the house. He and Malorie didn't go on to have some epic years long relationship.

The animals in the book were also all going insane and killing themselves, including the birds. Malorie's birds don't actually see the creature but they can sense it.

The ending is good but not pleasant. The "School for the Blind" is made up of people who intentionally blinded themselves but they tell Malorie they stopped doing that a long time ago so she and her kids won't have to do it.

^ That's a heck of a lot of vital changes!! I think I would have enjoyed the book a lot more.

It would have been a better end if the Dr. walked up to her with a blind teen saying she left the office to get her kid at school. There is absolutely no explanation of how or why she was there.

So it was called Bird Box because they kept the birds in a box?

I thought it was amazing. I watched it three nights ago and I still can’t get it out of my head.

Tom was so irritated by her calling the kids Boy and Girl, yet he never gave them names? Really?

I'm in the minority here, because found the premise interesting but the execution tedious.

[quote]So it was called Bird Box because they kept the birds in a box?

Uh huh.

The reviews were all so terrible I’m surprised people bothered to watch this. I guess it’s critic-proof.

I feel like it is very similar to Day of The Treffids.

Another win for Sandy.

I actually liked it much more than AQP.

[quote] Another win for Sandy.

Yup.... Bird Box’ Viewed by 45 Million

I didn’t know it was supernatural/horror along the lines of the Ring. I wouldn’t have bothered.

Not my cup of tea.

I’m loving all the internet memes.

So where did the drug addict and the chick go, back to the supermarket?

I like Sandra Bullock but I have no desire to see this movie. Looks like a rip-off of the gotta have a gimmick movie A Safe Place and also loooks like the 1 zillionth zombie movie.

I enjoyed it but I also scored around 28,000 on the number of words test, so I don't know if that figures into it.

I would love to have heard how the doctor made it to the school

[quote]I like Sandra Bullock but I have no desire to see this movie. Looks like a rip-off of the gotta have a gimmick movie A Safe Place and also loooks like the 1 zillionth zombie movie.

Once again, the book was written before "A Safe Place" was even in production so it's impossible to be a rip-off. On the other hand....

R90 Notice they don't define "viewed". My bet is most of the "views" are autoplays.

" Also unclear is Netflix’s definition of what it means for an account to have “watched” a title (in other words, some may have streamed only a portion of the movie). [UPDATE: Asked for clarification, a Netflix rep declined to elaborate on what “watched” means in this context.]"

Eldergays, tell me about this “ A Safe Place”.

I thought it was just stupid. Waste of 2 hours.

I wish they would have expanded on some things like what exactly happens when you see the creature, why do you commit suicide? Also who exactly can see the creature and live, they mentioned insane but is that it and why can insane people see it?

At least there weren't any zombies or sparkly vampires.

Why didn't the birds go nuts when the crazy guy came to the house but they did when the crazy guy at the supermarket was trying to get in? I'm willing to suspend disbelief for a wild premise but I can't stand it when something else makes no sense.

Bird Box is SOCIAL MEDIA, people! Oh, why don't they see?!@?@?!!!!!

A few parts actually had me yelling at the screen, so at least it got me involved even though I don't usually like scary movies.

R103 - the birds go crazy when the monsters are nearby. The birds went crazy at the supermarket because the monsters were in the loading dock along with the employee. The monsters weren't nearby when the crazy guy came to the house.

That's why he put the birds in the freezer- so they wouldn't alert the others when the bad whatevers arrived.

^ It was the Lost monster, doing a crossover gig.

Watching it now. So far, it’s ok

BOOK SPOILERS BELOW:

[quote]Ok so, why could some people look at it and think it’s beautiful. But others looked and recieved their fate.

Some people were immune to the effects of looking at the creatures, which was made explicit in the book.

[quote][R74], mentally ill people or a small minority of others seem to have been enslaved by the entities to be used to help them kill the rest.

While I can see (see what I did there?) how that may be the impression due to the movie’s vagueness, that was not at all the case in the book. See immediately above.

[quote]The Girl and Boy names were SO BEYOND STUPID.

In the book, Malorie was a cold one, and rather indifferent to being pregnant and to people in general. Her coldness was manifest in the harsh manner in which she raised the children (yes, she did it to save them, but she was harsh nonetheless); and as such, not giving them names was in character. Actually, that made her naming of them at the end a rather MARY! moment for me.

[quote]I love that they never showed the alien life form. It plays perfectly with the central motif of the story. You look, you die.

Agreed. It was good that other than that guy’s sketches, they were not physically rendered.

To add to R79’s BOOK SPOILERS:

So many of the characters in the house seemed to have been made up for the movie. While there was a group of survivors, their numbers and composition were dramatically different. I did like the movie’s diversity, although I could have done without the comic relief supermarket worker.

A poster asked what happened to the two who took off in the car. Who knows? They weren’t in the book. Nor were the gangs driving around or the gang that went after Mal, Tom, and the kids. I don’t recall the supermarket sequence occurring either. It seemed to be a substitute for some rather serious tension sequences that took place at the house.

The Mal/Tom romance was made up as well. Must every movie – regardless of subject matter – require a M/F romance subplot? That’s always irked and bored me.

The trip to the refuge (school) took 36 hours or so in the movie? I do not recall it being anywhere near that long in the book.

The doctor wasn’t at the refuge, and the horrors that took place there weren't even touched upon in the movie.

Overall, while the movie was a decent adaptation, I preferred the book.

I found it rather slow and the invisible monsters not scary. Couldn't care less about the "romance" between Bullock and Rhodes. I agree that Malkovich was a big weak spot.

I think k it was very smart of them to put this on Netflix. I would never pay to watch this in the theater, especially a few month after watching Quiet Place (which I loved). I had low expectations and really enjoyed it. It’s the perfect couch movie.

R59, I was vacillating about watching it but reading the name BD Wong killed that desire.

Get therapy R72.

When that woman (Malkovich’s character’s wife) who tried to help Mallory in the beginning gets possessed and sits down in that flaming car, I knew this would be good.

For me, the scariest encounter with the monster came at the end, when Sandra has the kids and is banging on the door at the refuge school for someone to open up. The slo-mo leaves blowing around her head freaked me out.

^ I was actually a bit freaked out during the scene when she left the canoe for blankets and was in a creepy old camp type building and something was pulling at her red rope and dragging the bed over to the door.

By the time she hit the rapids, I was thinking "is this over soon?". I was tired of her yelling at those poor little kids.

They should have done a better job casting the children. They were supposed to be born on the same day, but Boy was clearly at least a year or so older than Girl. I know I'm being nitpicky but their birth, the death of Girl's mother and Mallory taking in Girl was an essential part of the story.

[quote]Some people were immune to the effects of looking at the creatures, which was made explicit in the book.

But why?

sorry, cant get beyond the numerous facial lifts, nosejobs, cheek work, brow lifts, chin implants, etc that the hore has had done.

im told its up for razzies

Man, Netflix really worked there ass off for this roll out. They pushed HARD on the social media campaign, they had tons of Bird Box related memes ready to drop to coincide with its release.

That said the movie was fine. I was entertained as I was watching it, but nothing that special. The ending just caused me to think "okay, there are a lot of people in that school that will need to be fed and otherwise provided for, the danger is in no way over"

Still, it was a fun little flick, that benefited from a very clever campaign by Netflix.

t 'Bird Box' Breaks Huge Netflix Record as Reese Witherspoon Declares It 'Scariest Movie' of 2018

My two cents: The movie was ok. Slow at parts. Kinda poorly acted at others. Entertaining at even others. But most importantly it WASN’T horrible which was nice. I’ve watched so many movies that are just horrible the last few years it’s put me off

Sandy is starting to resemble wacko jacko / no more surgeries Sandy!

That little girl was cute. I admit I yelled at her to stay in the canoe. But Sandra's plastic surgery is getting hard to look at

R124 She looked like wacko jacko before wacko jacko himself

It was too dark for me. I actually found the characters interesting and hated watching them die one by one in such morbid ways. Suicide has a very powerful symbolic meaning, and that aspect left a bad taste in my mouth, particularly Olympia jumping out the window immediately after having a baby. The catharsis of Sandra reaching safety and finally learning to connect with other humans did not make up for the rest of that. Also, we don't know who the evil forces were, but they should have been smart enough to figure out a way to fuck up blind people along with the rest of the population.

Also to break a window or door and get the people in houses. Duh.

God, yes, Sandy's surgically destroyed face was such a distraction. In the scenes with Sarah P., it looked like they had matching nose/cheeks/lips, but not in a "they are sisters" way.

i watched it last night and thought it was pretty good. Was she an artist in the book?

I give it a D. Unless I missed something, I don't believe the movie ever explained how they were able to get from the middle of San Francisco out to a mountainous wilderness. They had issues going a half mile to a grocery store with a car and that was before they learned about the crazies who could see. I thought The Happening was better (at least in explaining plot), and that's not saying much.

How and when did the children learn to swim?

I think this movie was Sandra’s Oscar bait. Any chance for nominations? I think I might watch tonight all alone on New Year’s Eye. The blindfolds look so dumb.

When it says "Netflix Original" does that mean Netflix has made it? I've always assumed the shows from a foreign country or using a language other than English are just pulled from those countries.

when i first saw the preview i thought it was going to be another "The Village" type plot, kind of similar still.

Not always. Sometimes Netflix just buys it. Like that Sherlock Holmes Will Farrell movie they tried to sell to Netflix it was so bad they didn’t want it I believe the Will Smith movie with a zombie as his police partner believe Netflix made it. I don’t know about Birdbox but on early Oscar maybe lists they had Sandra’s name on it. Netflix might have released it to some theaters.

[quote]I give it a D. Unless I missed something, I don't believe the movie ever explained how they were able to get from the middle of San Francisco out to a mountainous wilderness. They had issues going a half mile to a grocery store with a car and that was before they learned about the crazies who could see.

That's another huge book to screen glitch.

The book takes place in and around Detroit, Michigan (not San Francisco) and the river that they row down to get to the School for the Blind isn't that far away from the house to start.

[quote] How and when did the children learn to swim?

This annoyed me too.

Saw it finally. It was ok at best. Quiet place is 10 times better than this

Or what about taking the time to find the kids some life jackets ?i thought Sandra looked good and I liked the movie but kinda felt guilty about. I don’t like how mean she was to the kids and not giving them names was cuckoo. I worried she would pick the girl over her real son and then...I wonder how different is the book.

I think Bird Boxendedbetter than A Quiet Pace. Emily Blunt has her baby in a blink of an eye with no mess or problems like it’s o big deal. The touching scene with the father doing sign language to the deaf daughter has been done before

Whew...just finished all two hours of the movie. TWO HOURS of running from the light beasts from hell. It moved along fine but it was pretty hollow. For a horror movie, I’d give it a B with A performances. For a movie movie, I’d give it a C-minus at best.

Actually there were actual physical monsters, which generated a sort of shock wave as they moved. They even made an animatronic one.

Sandy Bullock shot the scene with it then soft-vetoed the creature by saying she was struggling to stop laughing at it. So they were forced to do the most effective thing of all — never show the monster.

Bird box’s ending was less rah rah “stand up and cheer if you don’t mind” than AQP. They just found refuge from the horror outside, that’s all.

A cozy catastrophe but then again AQP ends as one as well.

Light years better than those silly Insidious/Conjuring/Annabelle movies without a lick of tension.

[quote]I don’t like how mean she was to the kids and not giving them names was cuckoo.

They could have died at any minute. In a way, it was showing that she was trying not to get attached to them.

She had to be mean to the kids. If they were stupid enough to so much as take a quick peek on their journey they would have been dead. Kids don't understand the gravity of that kind of situation. Telling them that she would "hurt them" if they looked may have been a much better deterrent than saying a monster will cause you to kill yourself.

In the book she spent 4 years training them to make the journey.

R8, stunt casting? This is how my workplace looks like. So you expected an all-white Caucasian cast like in your lily white Red State? WTF is wrong with you, you racist piece of shit.

i think Birdbox was better than A Quiet Place. The young actress that played the deaf daughter in A Quiet Place reminds me of the actress Diane Franklin.

I'm watching this now. Sandy had ZERO REACTION to sAARPaulson getting plowed down by a bus. It sounds like the book is a lot better. I don't understand why they thought they needed two simultaneous births. The grocery store run reminded me of Last Man On Earth.

Can someone explain to me what Bullock did to her face to make her eyes seem to be receding into her skull? Also, who's her gf?

The lunatic in the river was ridiculous.

Tell us more about the original ending in the book.

Are this and River Wild the only two middle aged mom Rowing For Their Lives movies?

The Sweetheart has such sad eyes. They were sad even before they sunk into her skull. And I don't know what you're talking about with her 'face not moving': she has enormously deep forehead crevices when she frowns. I assume they look way deeper than they otherwise would because of fillers. Will the resident DL plastic surgery addict please explain to us what The Sweetheart has done to her face?

The simultaneous birth is in the book. Gary lets the creatures in the house and the women can hear what happening downstairs as they lie helpless in labor. The crazy river guy was also a lot creepier in the book.

Holy fuck, how much did Netflix spend on their online sockpuppet marketing for this movie?

I'm hearing nonstop about this movie across the Internet. It can't all be organic human engagement.

It’s the power of Sandy.

Yeah I'm with the poster above- why couldn't they go to the market and move down the river at night? Also I was waiting for a twist at the end (like she was already crazy and imagining all this)- I guess I'm too much of a Black Mirror person.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

It was OK.

The cast and Sandra is great. She looks good but is too old to be having babies. Maybe they should have gone with a B actress maybe Blake Lively currently giving her career best in A Simple Favor. You don’t expect to see Sandra Bullock in a movie like this.

The thing that bothered me about Sandra’s face was how much makeup she had on the entire movie.

What are you bitches talking about?!? Birdbox was nothing like The Happening.

she has the humility, sincerity and goodness of a

cobra with rabies.

R153 I kind of expected the same thing. I am all for rules being broken, but there’s a pretty solid rule in fiction writing: only introduce a gun to the story if the gun goes off at some point; otherwise, the reader/audience will feel disappointed by the false tension. In this movie, there’s a mist monster that is never explained, and there’s the vision thing that is never explained. Seeing makes people vulnerable to the mist monster—OK. Blind people therefore are not vulnerable—OK. (I accept the rule, but it seems to imply some sort of metaphor that just doesn’t come together.) The exception to the seeing/blind rule is “dangerously insane” people who I guess live in the world that makes other people kill themselves, and in fact the dangerously insane people think that that world is “beautiful”—huh??! This aligns the smiling, happy blind people with the dangerously insane smiling, happy people. Why? Is there some sort of message in that? Is the world now going to be populated by devil mist, crazy-zombies and joyous blind people? Why? Also, the “bird box” aviary that Sandy and Girl and Boy (🙄) end up in is safe for the sighted people because...? Because the birds will chirp? Is that it? So when Mr. Mist Monster comes a-knockin’, they’ll scurry to put on their blindfolds and wait it out? Or is Mr. Mist Monster unable to penetrate the lair of the sacred blind folk?

All I could think the whole time is, if you’re vulnerable to death by taking off a blindfold, why wouldn’t you try to blind yourself and your kids and ensure your safety?

The scene with hoer deciding which child is the lookout for the rapids. Is the outcome the same in the book?

Read the book!

You'd think she'd have fashioned some goggles for everyone. Also, if they could see a little bit through the blindfolds it seems that could have been enough to kill them.

Yeah R163, especially considering seeing the devil mist secondhand, filtered through cameras, was enough. The only resolution that would have really made sense according to the rules of the story is the one someone suggested above—that she already was crazy, or that the mist made her crazy and at some point we were inside her crazy world before we knew it.

All I know is that Sarah Paulson exploded BEFORE that truck actually hit her.

After so many seasons of her whining and pouting dominating American Horror Story, I really didn’t mind that bus smashing Paulson.

[quote]50 year old in labor

What's wrong with that?

So was mist monster able to physically hurt people or did you have to see it? When Mallory is banging on the doors to get in why is she so panicked if they are blindfolded?

We never see the whatever-it-is physically hurt anyone in the movie r168, their human followers are always the physical threat, but of course people are still going to be scared I guess.

Her nosejob(s), though...

In the beginning of the movie it seemed like Sandra and Sarah were a couple. And then it's revealed that they're sisters. They had more chemistry as a couple. It's also hard to believe that Sandra, a 54 year old woman in real life, is pregnant. Sure, she could pass as younger but even then she'd still be a pregnant 40 something year old. Making them lesbians and flipping their roles would have made more sense. They didn't pretend that Malorie wasn't older than Tom at least. They mention it at one point, but they do still kind of gloss over the fact that she's a good 26 years older than him. A quiet place is hands down a much better film. This movie reminded me of the happening and lady of the lake. I preferred the scenes where they're on the river and I thought the little girl was especially charasmatic. I felt bad for her. I hated the ending. It was cheesy and didn't really feel like it fit in with the rest of the movie. I would have preferred something less happy and a bit more dark.

Bad inversion of Jose Saramago’s incredible novel “Blindness.”

And then the sequel to see how dark the place they escaped to is.

Lady in the Water...

Forgot the title.

Charismatic*

Back before horror films became legit over the hill actresses would do horror films. Sandra reminds me of a late career Joan Crawford doing a much much better made Trog or one of those films Joan did when her leading man was much younger. Looks like Julia is beating you , dear...

Does anyone know if this film was sold to Netflix or made by Netflix ?

I agree the little girl was good. She must have been very young. Really the entire cast was good. The guy from Moonlight didn’t make much of an impression to me in that film but I liked him in this. Also his relationship wasn’t the only baffling one. How did miserable old man John M rate a young beautiful wife ?

I’m going to read the book now.

The Kindle version of the book was only $2.99 when I bought it on Monday.

Completely agree r171.

At first I assumed that Bullock and Paulson were a couple, they had more chemistry than Bullock had with Trevante Rhodes.

And Sandra is far too old to play this new mom character, c'mon, you are in your 50s girl. The vanity must stop at some point.

It's not as good as Green Acres.

I'd give it 3 mehs on the 5 meh scale.

I say it is a guilty pleasure. Sandra was good but she was too old for the part.

Rebecca Pidgeon, is who plays John's wife, is 53. She's younger than him, but she's no spring chicken.

Sounds fascinating.

[quote]Looks like Julia is beating you , dear...

Ha! In what? Julia can’t even drum up box office receipts these days, and Sandra is still killin’ ‘em at the box office (Ocean’s 8) AND on Netflix, with a film that garnered more ratings than any of their previous original work and has become the talk across all social media.

It was great! Even my Aunt Linda enjoyed it.

I am starting to resent Netflix. So many of its shows or movies get so much buzz and acclaim, and they’re always subpar disappointments. With this one, I guess I expected something Box-office quality because of the star and instead got a typical lackluster Netflix story—dark, doesn’t add up.

There are plenty of disappointments in theaters as well r187, Netflix really is no different.

Maybe it’s just me, R188, but everything on Netflix feels half baked to me.

BOOK SPOILERS BELOW…

[quote]All I could think the whole time is, if you’re vulnerable to death by taking off a blindfold, why wouldn’t you try to blind yourself and your kids and ensure your safety?

That was one of the revelations at the book’s end. The guy at the refuge (with whom Tom had made contact years prior via the radio and who provided the directions for Mal & kids to get there) [bold]had[/bold] blinded himself for that very reason. It spoke to the desperate measures some people took until they figured out a way to remain relatively safe.

So-so film, the release was perfectly timed though.

^ With what? Christmas?

The monster-Trump

The crazies who think the monster is beautiful-Deplorables

Take off your blindfolds liberals!

[quote]It's also hard to believe that Sandra, a 54 year old woman in real life, is pregnant. Sure, she could pass as younger but even then she'd still be a pregnant 40 something year old.

She's playing someone in her 40's and I got the impression it was a mistake and not planned. Did you ever attend a biology class?

Uh, lets look on your own link r195

[quote]And it reflects the experiences of women such as Karla Webber, 44, of Dunwoody, Ga. She had her son Grayson 18 months ago after one lost pregnancy and six rounds of fertility treatments costing nearly $100,000.

A 40-something woman does not generally get pregnant easily or by accident.

And Sandra Bullock is 54, and her characters age is never stated.

My grandma had two healthy children in her forties. It happens.

Alrhough not common, r196, there are "change of life" babies who were conceived after their mothers thought they had entered menopause. My friend's brother is one of them. Maybe we're supposed to assume that Sandra's frosty, facelifted character is one of them.

She could be of the menopause moms, I meant, not a change of life baby.

r197 if one of them was your parents, they obviously had some defects.

There is some unseen force out there that is "beautiful" and you guys are arguing about a 54 year old actress playing a character that has a baby.

Even more unbelievable is the assertion that Sandra passes as a 40-something.

Not only has a baby has sex with a hot 26 year old like it’s no big deal. Clearly she is too old for the part.

Not only that but she has sex with someone 26 like it is no big deal. Clearly she is too old for the role.

[quote]]Blake Lively currently giving her career best in A Simple Favor

To derail the thread for a moment: I actually watched ASF right before BB and could not agree more with the above statement.

Very interesting analogy r193.

It was nothing special. I did think she was kinda old looking. She always has hair to cover her ears and sides of her face to hide plastic surgery scars etc. Her face doesn't move.

SPOILER

I was sad when Trevante met his fate. Ugh. He's incredibly sexy.

After he turned he was able to kil the bad guy before he killed himself

Naw this was a puec if shit. Hated it

Piece of shit

Movie in itself is OK but they ruined the book.

SPOILER

There's no romance in the original story where the main character is a single woman who can't deal with being pregnant after a one night stand and has to deal with taking care of two babies she didn't ask for, the book is basically about a woman dealing with motherhood, but of course Hollywood needed to insert a male to save her taking all the power of this woman doing everything by herself, pathetic.

Why are people talking about The Happening? This book is a cheap rip off of Blindness, the José Saramago novel that got him a Nobel Prize and published in 1997.

It's a fun movie to watch while hungover in bed on New Year's Day, which is exactly what I did. But, yeah, it was nothing special: nothing beyond the laziest imitations of character development and the many plot holes mentioned above. I like Sandra, but she looked weird--haggard at some points and fresh out of the "dermatologist's" office at others. I really hope aging actresses step away from the procedures at some point, but know it will never happen. If having her be pregnant wasn't a stretch, her complete indifference to pregnancy at her age certainly was.

I'm more bother by the bury your gays trope, the moment the gay character was revealed I knew he would be the first to die and I wasn't wrong.

Why was everyone wearing blindfolds when those things you wear while sleeping to block Out sunlights would have worked better.

I know, right r216? Or they could have worn therapeutic eye masks — why not, if they have to cover their eyes anyway?

Since this seems to have happened suddenly where do you think they should go to get them R217?

Lady Bird was a better film.

Actually there was news reports about it happening in other countries.

Birdy was a better film. Only because of the many shots of young Matthew Modine’s ample ass.

Whatever is said on DL. It just made NBC nightly news with Lester who billed it as an internet sensation. Even Kim K weighed in with “everyone’s watching it”. So love it, hate it .....it’s made a mark.

Sandy has the golden touch.

i thought it was gonna be really good when i 1st started watching it but it turned into a typical 'why did they make this movie' movie. it sucked. all she did was yell at the kids and float down a stupid river. what the hell was the IT no one was supposed to look at ?

all in all i give it 1 star.

Is it being released in theatres too, or only on Netflix? If the latter, is this the death knell of traditional theatrical releases?

It was released in limited theaters the day it premiered on Netflix.

[quote]Is it being released in theatres too, or only on Netflix? If the latter, is this the death knell of traditional theatrical releases?

R225 is right, it was released in "limited" theaters but the truth is --

Netflix only releases films to meet the minimum requirement for Oscar Nominations.

So they come out in at least one theatre, in Los Angeles County, that charges some amount of money, for a minimum of 7 consecutive days.

Many of their films are only out for a week.

Bird Box was showing somewhere in Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and London.

Their longest and biggest theater release was Roma which came out on 100 screens for three weeks before it was on Netflix.

Also, earlier this year they were looking into buying a theater chain since most theaters won't release their films. They don't like the fact that they're also being shown on Netflix relatively soon after their release or even the day of their release.

Bless your heart, r218.

Use your brain R227. I was being sarcastic with the question. They have just rushed into a home to escape the thing. Do you really think they are going to try to go out and get an eye mask? They are going to make do with what they have.

I thought Sandra looked great and didn’t even notice her age.

I liked the movie, but had problems with how easy Mallory and the kids—but especially Mallory—could run and walk through the woods. Or able to meet up, still blindfolded, after being dumped in rapids.

The ending was schmaltz as was the music accompanying it.

Awful movie...a haggard manly looking artist has to hide from god knows what in a poorly lit McMansion surrounded by a diverse cast of cardboard characters who ALL happen to be idiots. They throw cheesy lines a each other for what seem like an eternity. Then you have a dumb ride down a river, where too kids that haven't had a chance to even lay under the sun turn out to be olympic swimmers. Finally a crowd pleasing happy ending ends the ordeal.

I don't know how it became sooo succesful, I couldn't wait for it to be over!

♡ 230 and therapeutic eye mask person. I mean, while you're at it. Exactly.

For the most part it underwhelmed me, but the scene where she talks with the kids about who has to watch, while they pass through the rafts, took me by surprise. The girl almost broke my heart. You could see she was scared shitless and yet volunteered since it was obvious Sandra's character wasn't so eager to pick the boy (who volunteered right off the bat).

r232 Was i supposed to take away from that that she was willing to sacrifice somone else's child over her own?

Malorie actually asked for volunteers TWICE.

r233. She talks to the kids twice about what needs to be done when the arrive at the rafts. At both times the boy volunteers and Malorie shuts him down quick. Then when the girl volunteers Mal gets all teary eyed and makes a her decision.

Is the scene the same I. The book ? Please don’t make listen to the book on audio.

When SB enters Malkovich's house and meets all the people already there, there's a married couple trying to contact their son on a cell phone, who then never appear again - but I don't remember seeing them leaving. Did I miss something?

Apparently.

They connect with the son and then flee to their deaths, basically.

Thanks, r239; I guess there was so much chaos at that point in the movie that I must have missed it.

Funny the comments about the mist thing being social media. The first on screen suicide is of a woman we had previously seen staring at her phone in a hallway as Mallory was going to meet her OB.

SPOILER HUGE SPOILER ALERT: RE: THE "ENDING".............. (kinda) of the book vs movie

apparently in the book people were blinding THEMSELVES to stay safe.....there was no safe blind school or community or whatever it was

still stunk

It's Birds!

It's Boxes!

In what universe is Bullock "pretty"? We should bring back the word "handsome" to describe women like her, but there's nothing pretty about it. Huge features, rough skin, tall and angular. I don't mind her as an actress in certain things, but I have never gotten a sexy vibe off her.

Women like her only become more manly with age. I could see her appeal 20 years ago but nowadays she just looks like she's about to transition.

It's Carpet! It's Madness! IT's Carpet Madness!!

Anyone else thinks the little girl looks just like Haley Joel Osment in "The Sixth Sense", but with a receding hairline and Slaton-sister-style forehead?

Watched it yesterday. I love Sanda Bullock but this movie is [bold]S H I T[/bold].

It's a mix of The Happening and A Quiet Place, and sucks just as bad as those ones do.

I was distracted during the whole overlong second half by the glaring oversight about blinding. They’ve been in that world for five years. There is no sign of the Devil Wind relenting. Having an accidental peek at the Devil Wind means a certain gruesome death. And not a single character ever thought, “huh, seems like we could live better-quality lives by blinding ourselves...”? That would have been a more powerful maternal struggle IMO, and it would give an excuse to the “looking at it kills you” convention. Bullock’s struggle throughout could have been, “do I have the courage to pluck my eyes out? Is it kinder to blind these kids to save their lives, or to allow them fuller human experiences by letting them see but risking their deaths?” That would have been interesting. Would the onetime violent incidents of blinding children be more or less traumatic than childhood-long verbal abuse and cramming their psyches into states of paranoia forever? By the end of the movie, I resented that this wasn’t even considered. Two fucking hours and they didn’t even consider it!

I was annoyed by, among other things, Sandy's heavy mascara and eyeliner every time she and the kids conferred under the boat blanket.

My brother owns a sleep mask business. He could have made a killing in this era.

I buy my sleep masks at Dollar Tree. Fuck spending more than a couple bucks for some fancy-pants shit!

If the room is crazy-bright, I wear another one on top of the first, problem solved.

[quote]In what universe is Bullock "pretty"? We should bring back the word "handsome" to describe women like her, but there's nothing pretty about it. Huge features, rough skin, tall and angular. I don't mind her as an actress in certain things, but I have never gotten a sexy vibe off her.

In this universe R244. She was considered very pretty back in her day but her features were also a lot softer than they are now.

Finally watched it. I enjoyed it.

But I have no idea what the fuck some of you are going on about "devil wind" and "mist monster"... it's a real physical monster, as we saw in the drawings and sketchings of the insane guy. You see their shadows go over the windows and the car, and the car proximity sensor registers them as solid.

They just don't SHOW us, because to see them is to go insane and kill yourself.

The one thing they never explained that I didn't see anyone else talk about in this thread, is all the voices in the woods outside the school for teh blind... they were hearing voices, not just of the past killed people, but the kids were hearing their mom who was just a few yards away. What was THAT all about?

[quote]What was THAT all about?

That's called claptrap.

This movie sounds ghastly. Simply ghastly.

You have to watch it for yourself , dear....it has many flaws but I still enjoyed it.

Yeah, it's enjoyable, but they never did explain anything about the voices... are the voices in the book?

The voices are from the monsters, trying to trick people into looking at them.

It's strange how the monsters are so terrifying and/or bizarre that norml people immediately kill themselves upon viewing... but yet the monsters don't have enough of a physical form to enter houses or touch people in any way. Maybe they're in another dimension?

The monsters! How much more horrible can they be than the humans we must gaze upon every day!

Preferred the book and didn’t really feel Trevante Rhodes as Tom.

So the voices are in the book too?

It was just kind of weird that the voices only really happened at the very end, just to add a little extra drama to the "from the boat to the sanctuary" trip.

Also, the woman who sat in the burning car said she saw her mom?

R260 you motherfucker, you just made me vomit on my laptop!

I chose to see the monsters as “devil wind” and “monster mist,” hoenstly, because 1) that’s what the movie shows us and 2) I can, sort of (not really), stretch my imagination to pretend like I can buy a formless entity influencing people to see horrific/otherworldly/alternate-dimension visions that drive them mad. When that entity takes boogie-man monster form, then it’s suddenly just a completely schlocky bad horror movie scenario. What about seeing a scary creature would cause such psychological effects? I envy people who like the movie because all I see is a terribly scripted and poorly imagined bad movie. I’m sorry.

I really am sorry because (in my mind, for how my mind works) the setup has untapped potential. One specific example: psychotic people are not driven to madness by the monsters that, when seen, drive others to madness. Wow. What an opportunity to mine something like schizophrenia for underexamined riches. What if schizophrenic people are purer, able to see an ugly or intense aspect of reality we can only stand to live in ignorance of or else it will destroy us. What if they are more honest, more developed, more tapped into that reality and thus able to withstand and live with it? Or what if the monsters are not real materially but deeply embedded as archetypes in our minds, and only profoundly mentally ill people can besr to survive when they rise to the level of consciousness? What if psychotic people are transcending our limited senses and serve as welcoming portals to immaterial beings that cross over to ours through those people’s minds? None of this is the story Bird Box gave us and so it’s not fair to judge it according to such hypotheticals, BUT why introduce the complication of “crazy people can survive but no one else can!” and then not explore why or how at all? To me, that’s bad writing. I was taught that a writer should not introduce a gun to the story if that gun will never go off because the gun then would be a red herring that would confuse the reader and make him feel cheated. So many of those red herrings in this movie.

Brief continuation of my rant from R264: Even forgetting about the unexplored mental illness factor, the whole story hinges on blindness being an asset. But it is NEVER explored thematically. It’s entirely surface level: look at the creature and die. Choose denial and ignorance. In the end, the saviors are those who can’t see part of what exists in reality. And NO fucking exploration of the metaphorical implications of that? Fuck that.

Also, yes to the person who complained that while running for her life WITH A BLINDFOLD ON in a boat in white water rapids after years of being holed up in hiding from monsters, Sandra Bullock has impeccable mascara and eye liner. Fuck Hollywood.

I just feel sorry for you after that rant.

John Malkovich's curmudgeon character reminded me of so many on DL.

Sounds fascinating, OP!

Why does everything have to be an allegory, metaphor, or theme? What was the metaphor of Halloween? What was the allegory of Bohemian Rhapsody or A Simple Place? Why can’t things just be the way they are?

[quote]And Sandra is far too old to play this new mom character, c'mon, you are in your 50s girl. The vanity must stop at some point.

As a YOUNG mom, I resent this line of thinking.

You fellas didn't actually sit there watching with full attention, this Quality Family Dining bland slop fest of a movie? It was perfect for background while I baked a Linzer Torte as Machine Gun Kelly fucked that chick in the laundry room, did a facial, an enema, hung up the paper Chinese lanterns, spritzed on some sweet smelling seductive perfume as Sandra bashed the nut in the river, filled the ice bucket, poured myself a bourbon on the rocks and waited for my gentleman caller.

This movie would have been better if Meg Ryan was in it.