RonGalaxy

Playgwent.com

I'm getting my moviepass card in the mail soon, and the first thing I do with it is see this movie again. I know that probably seems weird because of how fucked up it is, but it's the first time in a LONG time a movie has stuck with me like this, and I need to make sure it's not a fluke. Didn't think anything would top annihilation this year, but I think hereditary might have done it.

@htr10: it is better than both of those movies.

I don't believe spoilers can completely ruin a genuinely good movie, but when it comes to horror films, initial shock is given a lot of value. So I would tell you to go see the movie before reading anything about it, as that's really the best way for something like this to be seen. END OF SPOILER WARNING

So I saw hereditary last night. I was pretty hyped for it since genuinely good horror movies are a dime a dozen, and I can confidently say it didn't dissapoint, just that it accomplished this in very unexpected ways. It turned out to be way more surreal/absurd than I expected it to be, which is a good thing because that's the horror I appreciate the most. When a movie can successfully contrast moments of fear, shock, grief, etc with ridiculous moments bordering on comedy, it makes the horror stuff so much more unsettling and unexpected. This movie played it pretty straight throughout, but there are moments of dry-comedy peppered in there that are used in the way I described above to great effect (especially near the ending).

I know the movie has been pretty divisive with audiences, so it would be nice to hear from some people with both positive/negative perspectives. Ultimately, in my mind, the marketing did a disservice and conned people into thinking hereditary was something it isn't. It's also very different from movies like the conjuring, as those films actually end in a happy, easily understood, easily digestible way, where this film reaaaaaallllly does not.

Side note: what was up with the girl clicking? That's really the only thing that totally confused me in a way where I thought "is this necessary?". Now that I think about it maybe it was to show, definitively, that Charlie really did possess Peter in the end, while allowing for the moment to be played in silence/without much explanation/questioning between characters. That's a decent enough explanation, but a narrative explanation would have been appreciated

I remember loving the first game a decade ago, and haven't touched the series at all since. It's possible it's aged poorly, but I recall it having a really good, self contained, story. The million sequels it got always baffled me.

This is a very good game that does a great job of recontextualizing the previous games/kratos' role in them. With that said, I have no idea how it got such a high metacritic score. It feels like the epitome of "this is the first game in a trilogy where the second game will be vastly superior". Something about it doesn't quite feel fleshed out, and the story definitely is not "standalone" like some are saying it is (not even sure where that's coming from). I almost feel let down, because it really didn't end up feeling like a complete experience to me, especially storywise. Definitely didn't completely live up to the pre-release hype.

205,696,969

I don't have a 4k TV or a pro and video games have been just fine.

Joel from the last of us is, basically, a less over-the-top kratos. The interesting thing with kratos is that we got to experience him at his worst. Joel's checkered past is only implied/hinted at.

Obviously I don't know if the new God of War will turn out as well as the last of us, but it's something to consider.

Inside is such an impeccable thing, at least stylistically. Hopefully they have the tech stuff in place to release stuff more frequently, cause I'm down for whatever they put out.