Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    185

    Bird Box (Spoilers included)

    Anyone seen this movie on Netflix? News broke that it had been watched 45 million times in the first week of it's release. And when asked what constitutes a watch, a Netflix employee said the film had to be watched at least to the 75% marker. They also went on to say that each account would count as only 1 watch, (even if all 4 people on the account watched it). Which means this movie is a massive hit for Netflix. Which probably means a sequel or more Netflix exclusive horror content. The latter I am completely open to.


    As for a sequel to Bird Box? Hell no!


    Was it bad? No? It wasn't great though. It was good if you could suspend a shit ton of disbelief (which really isnt asking much from a current WWE fan).


    I would reccommend it to a very casual horror fan, or an average movie goer, but I wouldnt say it is essential viewing to a horror buff like myself. Though you could still get some enjoyment out of it if you enjoy originality, and can suspend said disbelief.




    {SPOILERS:}


    I suspect that the majority of people didn't like this movie because of one, or all of these reasons: there is no monster reveal, we are left not knowing what it is, what it looks like, how many there are, or how to kill or repel them, which means truly, there is no actual resolution to the conflict.

    A lot of people can't handle that lack of answers in their entertainment. Though as much as that lack of answers annoyed the hell out of me, I cant knock them for it. In fact, I'd say it's kind of a brilliant strategy that, to my knowledge or memory, has never been done before. And I think a sequel would be absolute shit because any reveal at this point takes the piss out of what our imaginations came up with. (For my money, I think it was either angels (celestial, or most likely demonic, or an entity [think Dementor from Harry Potter, or a ancient greater horror/illusion travelling from planet to planet, draining souls]).


    What I will knock though is the thought that someone could survive years while blindfolded every second, while the enemy can seemingly be anywhere in an instant, and has possesed humans who dont need to be blindfolded. I will knock them navigating troubled waters in a row boat, completely blind, while making it look seemless. I will knock the birds surviving that rapids scene, or the knowledge of how far radio frequencies travel, e.t c... So yeah, I can see why people seem to be split down the middle on if this movie is good, or shit, but at the least, it sparked my imagination a bit.


    Any thoughts?
    Last edited by Kleckamania; 01-03-2019 at 03:27 PM.


  2. #2
    I thought it was an awful movie but I'm happy it's successful, if that makes sense. Bright was also very successful for them despite not having the greatest reviews. Big names can sell on any platform.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by comfortablynumb View Post
    I thought it was an awful movie but I'm happy it's successful, if that makes sense. Bright was also very successful for them despite not having the greatest reviews. Big names can sell on any platform.
    Totally makes sense. It's success will bring more horror to Netflix. I am very much on board with that.


  4. #4
    Feeling Minnesota Powder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,570
    Bird Box was NOT bad, but it also was NOT great. It was clearly a made for TV (Netflix) version of a Dystopic future with some sort of creatures that cause you to do things (no spoilers here). And that it was made for TV means that they did not go full Hollywood with all the special effects etc.

    I read a couple of pieces of info about the movie. The author of the book sold the rights to the movie a while ago, but was very hesitant to allow the movie to get made years ago b/c of it similar nature to the Road and the *gasp* Happening. He did not want the movie getting compared to those.

    Also, I read an interview with Sandra Bullock and Trevante Rhodes (who plays Tom) that there were scenes shot with the creatures in them, but due to the fact that they were long, green lizard like creatures with baby faces, and the actors couldn't stop laughing at the sight of them, and that they all thought that they would not play well, they decided to cut the scenes from the movie.

    I am personally ok with the creatures not being in the movie, but my main problem was that the movie was too Made for TV and felt like a movie from 10-15 years ago, and not a movie made in 2018. Much of the feel reminded me of the Mist from 2007 where that movie is clearly dated when you watch it again.

    *SPOILERS*

    What I also think the movie lacked was the lack of character development. They had Malorie "learn" in the span of 5 minutes rather than over the course of the 5 years. In 5 years, she never named her children, then all of a sudden they survive the river trek and now she gives them names and all is ok?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kleckamania View Post
    What I will knock though is the thought that someone could survive years while blindfolded every second, while the enemy can seemingly be anywhere in an instant, and has possesed humans who dont need to be blindfolded. I will knock them navigating troubled waters in a row boat, completely blind, while making it look seemless. I will knock the birds surviving that rapids scene, or the knowledge of how far radio frequencies travel, e.t c... So yeah, I can see why people seem to be split down the middle on if this movie is good, or shit, but at the least, it sparked my imagination a bit.
    I am actually ok with that fact that people survived with their blindfolds on. They clearly indicated that if you are in an enclosed space with no sight to the outside, then you do not need them. They also had the idea where the possessed humans searching for the blindfolded people, and the movie also made it clear that Malorie, Tom and the kids do not stay in one place too long, and they bounce from house to house, area to area looking for supplies, but they set up some base camps.

    And the river trek was the point of the movie, you have to suspend some disbelief in order for it to work, same for the strength of the radios.
    Last edited by Powder; 01-03-2019 at 03:46 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    185
    Also, I read an interview with Sandra Bullock and Trevante Rhodes (who plays Tom) that there were scenes shot with the creatures in them, but due to the fact that they were long, green lizard like creatures with baby faces, and the actors couldn't stop laughing at the sight of them, and that they all thought that they would not play well, they decided to cut the scenes from the movie.
    I am so happy they didn't add that.... or am I? If they kept that in, it could have been one of the absolute corniest horror movies of all-time, so bad that it was good. Ultra cheese. We're talking Wisconsin Cheddar.

    But as is, I enjoy the open endedness the more I think about it. It is just such a risk. In the horror industry, that is so freakin rare these days.

    Though the ending was so bad. Happy ending, though the threat wasn't dealt with, or figured out, at all.

    This movie is a bit of an enigma to me atm. Maybe I need time to digest it? But parts of it are just so, so bad. Can a movie recover from that to remain respectable over time?

    Part of me thinks it is unintended genius, extremely poorly executed.


  6. #6
    Feeling Minnesota Powder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1,570
    EDIT: I found this online, which lists the major differences between the book and the movie. As always, the book is better.

    Here are the key differences between Bird Box the book and Bird Box the movie:

    1. The Location: The book is set in Detroit, while the movie takes place in Northern California.

    2. Malorie's Sister's Death: In the movie, her name is Jess and in the book, her name is Shannon. In the movie, Jess sees the creatures and commits suicide after a car accident, after driving her sister. In the novel, we get to know her a bit more, and as she and Malorie barricade themselves in their apartment for months before she accidentally sees one of the creatures and takes her own life in the bathroom.

    3. The Apocalypse: There are more details about it and its effects in the book. Hey, the movie is only two hours long...

    4. What's Up With Tom? In the film, his character serves mainly as Malorie's love interest and he helps her raise her kids. In the book, there is no romance and he dies before the children are born but is given a larger role beforehand—he is the leader of their survivors' group.

    5. Enter John Malkovich: The actor plays a character named Douglas in the movie. He does not exist in the book.

    6. Where Are the Dogs? In the novel, dogs are shown and one goes crazy just like the humans. There are no dogs in the movie.

    7. Where's the River? The book does not feature the movie scene where Malorie and her kids made their way through raging rapids to get to a sanctuary.

    8. The Blindfolds: Unlike in the movie, in the book, Malorie's kids are blindfolded from birth, which allows them to develop heightened other senses, and never take their blindfolds off.

    9. The Birds: In the book and the movie, the birds serve as a warning system against the creatures. In the book, Tom keeps them at the house for this purpose and Malorie brings them with her and the kids on their journey to sanctuary. In the film, Malorie finds a cage full of birds at a grocery store and takes it with her. Unlike humans, the birds do not become suicidal when seeing the creatures.

    10. The Ending: The ending is far darker in the book; Malorie and her kids reach a community of people who chose to gouge their eyes out to protect themselves permanently from the creatures. In the movie, the ending is not as grisly; Malorie and her kids reach the Jane Tucker School for the Blind and some of residents are able to see.
    And here is another...

    10. SETTING
    Sandra Bullock in Bird Box
    One place where the novel and the film differ is in the setting. Malerman's 2014 thriller is set in Detroit. The urban backdrop would have been a stark contrast to the locations used in the film, as Netflix chose to set their version in Northern California. The sprawling natural landscapes give the film a signature feel. The stillness and quiet that builds tension in some scenes would be impossible in a city setting. The mood of the film depends on the perfect silence and solitude of the forest.

    9. THE BIRDS
    Bird Box birds in supermarket
    In the book, the birds are kept as a very literal canary in the coal mine. They warn when the creatures are near. Malorie takes them with her on her epic journey with the kids. They serve as the perfect alarm and signal the creature's presence as she and the children travel. The film differs. Malorie finds the birds alive and thriving in a supermarket. They give her hope, which is what they symbolize. At the end of the movie, she and the kids are safe in the sanctuary and she releases the birds to enjoy the same freedom.


    8. DOUGLAS
    John Malkovich and BD Wong in Bird Box
    John Malkovich delivers a convincing performance as an awful narcissist as Douglas. He’s spent the entire apocalypse drinking and being a selfish jerk. Douglas is loud, obnoxious and only out for himself. He’s also a level head at times and provides a strong voice of reason in the safe house. If you’re wondering how Malkovich's portrayal stacks up to the book, you’re in for a surprise. There is no Douglas in the novel. The character adds some needed tension to the film which has very different pacing than the book. This is at least one way in which the book is better than the film, you don’t have to listen to his drunken rambling.


    7. MALORIE’S JOURNEY
    Sandra Bullock in Bird Box
    In the film Tom and Malorie are hunkered down, raising the children in a safe house. They have no plans to travel. One night they receive a radio transmission from Rick urging them to come to the sanctuary. The book tells a very different tale. After Tom dies Malorie gets a call from Rick. He tells her about the sanctuary. She begins to train for the long trip to the sanctuary. She spends four years preparing herself and the children for the perils ahead. This major difference creates much more tension and urgency than in the book. Undertaking the trip with no preparation ups the terror.

    6. A DARKER END
    Bird Box - The Sanctuary
    The end of the film is surprisingly positive. After all, a story about the end of the world is inherently bleak. At the end of the film, Malorie and her children make it to a safe haven. They find a lush, green paradise filled with children, birds, and other survivors. The haven is a home for the blind, which is why so many had survived. They were immune to the creatures. In the novel, Malorie and the kids still reach their safe haven, but the circumstances are darker. Many of the survivors in their happy ending had intentionally blinded themselves. They made an incredibly dark choice to survive.

    5. THE END OF THE WORLD
    Both the book and the film are focused on the same catastrophic event. In both versions of the story, society begins to crumble as the earth is invaded by unseen creatures. These mysterious monsters take on the form of the observer's deepest fear or most painful loss. Anyone unfortunate enough to look at the invaders is instantly driven to violent insanity. Each meets the same fate - they take their own lives. After the initial panic dies down, lingering dread sets in. The world becomes a quieter, emptier place. The characters in both the book and the movie have to learn to survive without the convenience of society.

    4. MALORIE
    Sandra Bullock as Malorie in Bird Box
    Sandra Bullock has been praised for her performance in the Netflix film. Even critics who tore the rest of the movie apart found her to be the one bright spot in the movie. She represents the biggest similarity between the book and the film. Both feature this resilient mother who refuses to give up. She’s a relentless fighter who pushes her children further and further. At its core, it's a story about the indomitable power of a mother’s love. The story gives us hope in the face of insurmountable odds. In the end, we celebrate beside Malorie and her kids when they finally make it to a safe haven.

    3. TONE
    Bird Box Ending Explained
    Horror films often use campy moments and cheesy humor to lull their audiences into a false sense of security. They hit us with another gruesome scene the moment we relax into a smile or laugh. The contrast makes the fear and pain all the more vibrant. Malerman uses none of that lighthearted play to plunge his readers further into the terror. The film carries that same tone. It avoids any kind of hokey gimmicks or easy humor. It carries the same dark seriousness as the novel from beginning to end. That commitment to the original darkness of the film creates a perfect marriage between movie and book.

    2. EBB AND FLOW
    The film has critics split, right down the middle. Some have praised the film while others have called it a bad B-movie. One thing most of them seem to agree on is that the pacing has peaks and valleys. A wide criticism is that Bird Box is a riveting film, sometimes. The book has a similar pace. There are scenes that have readers on the edge of their seats and then pages and pages of plodding story. It’s unclear if this was a deliberate editorial choice or if it’s just a consequence of the nature of the story.

    1. SIGHT
    The most important tool used to create the feeling of helplessness in Bird Box is the characters’ inability to rely on their sight. It’s our most precious source of input as human beings. Without that element, the story wouldn’t carry the same weight. It's blindness that lets us see the characters at their most vulnerable. Many have made a comparison between Bird Box and A Quiet Place. There is a parallel there but it’s incomplete. There are many ways to communicate without our voices, but our sight is a primal tool. Without it, most of us feel like we’re dead in the water.
    Last edited by Powder; 01-04-2019 at 12:14 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •