A Quiet Place 1 & 2 (John Krasinski, 2018/2020)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Message
Author
User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#26 Post by mfunk9786 » Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:52 pm

Just to clarify my stance on these three films: I’d contend that Signs is by far the best of the three (it’s a “great movie”™), A Quiet Place is abysmal, and Don’t Breathe rests somewhere between the two. It’s definitely better than A Quiet Place, but it has its fair share of problems.

wattsup32
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:00 pm

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#27 Post by wattsup32 » Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:27 pm

Who cares what anyone thinks of this film? All that needs to be said is that this film managed to:

1) Get a sold out theater to remain talk free for its entire run;
2) Keep people from opening up and looking at their cell phones for (nearly) its entire run;
and, unbelievably,
3) Keep people from stuffing their wordholes for its entire run.

As far as going to the theater see movies is concerned, this film is doing the Lord's work.

User avatar
Luke M
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#28 Post by Luke M » Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:35 pm

I’m not sure those points are more important than people’s opinions of the movie but to each their own.

I haven’t seen this but I’m in the pro-Signs camp.

MongooseCmr
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:50 pm

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#29 Post by MongooseCmr » Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:17 pm

Boy, those “ppl were quiet” jokes got old really fast. I’ll take more plot nitpicking
SpoilerShow
If these monsters have the ability to hear a glass break in a farmhouse basement and swarm from a mile away, how is anything alive? A strong wind should make enough noise to have them blindly swarming every broken tree limb. A loud fart probably means instant death. Or the sound of a heartbeat from 5 feet away.

And this drove me absolutely crazy. Krasinski’s big whiteboard says “HOW MANY IN AREA: 3?” shown several times, but unless I totally missed it we never see all three monsters on screen at once. Even when the cast is split into two to four groups they’re only dealing with one monster. It’s such a weirdly missed opportunity to cash in on a tension established in the first 10 minutes.
Still, this was watchable trash. I was never mad at it, just kind of bemused at how little the central premise was thought through.
Last edited by MongooseCmr on Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#30 Post by mfunk9786 » Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:32 pm

wattsup32 wrote:Who cares what anyone thinks of this film? All that needs to be said is that this film managed to:

1) Get a sold out theater to remain talk free for its entire run;
2) Keep people from opening up and looking at their cell phones for (nearly) its entire run;
and, unbelievably,
3) Keep people from stuffing their wordholes for its entire run.

As far as going to the theater see movies is concerned, this film is doing the Lord's work.
People were absolutely still on their phones at our screening. And I was chowing down on popcorn so please don’t come at me with this ‘tude

wattsup32
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:00 pm

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#31 Post by wattsup32 » Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:07 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:People were absolutely still on their phones at our screening. And I was chowing down on popcorn so please don’t come at me with this ‘tude
It is my sincere hope that everyone else here is as impressed with your keyboard heroics as I am.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#32 Post by mfunk9786 » Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:08 pm

I was totally being jovial, I am sincerely sorry if you took my use of "please don't come at me with this 'tude" as anything but silly

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#33 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:34 pm

Image

dda1996a
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#34 Post by dda1996a » Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:38 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:Just to clarify my stance on these three films: I’d contend that Signs is by far the best of the three (it’s a “great movie”™), A Quiet Place is abysmal, and Don’t Breathe rests somewhere between the two. It’s definitely better than A Quiet Place, but it has its fair share of problems.
Signs is as awful as are all of Shyamalan's post Unbreakable stinkers.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#35 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:41 pm

Well, in that case,

dda1996a
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#36 Post by dda1996a » Mon Apr 09, 2018 2:46 pm

I found it cheesy, completely devoid of tension and the less said about the ending the better,which is about every Shyamalan film I've seen. I did find Don't Breath rather effective even when it skirted its more sillier side.

User avatar
Luke M
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#37 Post by Luke M » Mon Apr 09, 2018 4:25 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:Image
I hope she sees Chappaquiddick next.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#38 Post by DarkImbecile » Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:52 am

There's no question that A Quiet Place is dumb - removing that white board alone would raise the IQ of the movie by 10%, and the inability of anyone in the world to figure out and effectively exploit the creature's weakness before they effectively destroyed human civilization is just wildly implausible - but it manages to be bluntly (no pun intended) effective enough in its horror elements and in executing its key set pieces that being as dumb as it is doesn't totally undermine that effectiveness.

When people say they occasionally like just turning their brain off and going to the movies to defend something like a Transformers movie or the most recent Tomb Raider adaptation or last year's Life and Ghost in the Shell, I don't understand the sentiment because even without nitpicking the various absurdities and inconsistencies of those films, there isn't enough quality filmmaking there to be thrilled by even on an unthinking, visceral level. On the other hand, this kind of movie - like Split, which I liked more than this but which similarly benefits from a generous suspension of the critical faculties - does enough right to keep an audience engaged and entertained in the moment if they can avoid probing its internal logic more closely until afterward, if at all.

Krasinski likely isn't going to be pushing his way into any up-and-coming auteurs conversations anytime soon, but he manages to keep what does work about the film's gimmick front and center, and made some quality casting choices with the kids and the always great Emily Blunt (he may have had that casting choice made for him, from what she's saying about forcing her way onto her husband's project, but still). Some of the family drama gets too cloying at times, but it does balance the bleakness of the situation generally and the tragedy that this family specifically suffers in a way that benefits the movie overall.
SpoilerShow
Speaking of which, I was actually kind of pleasantly surprised - in a morbid way, I guess - that the frequently mocked kid with the toy from the trailer actually gets killed and the family has to deal with the fallout; I was going in ready to be pissed off that the kid does something that stupid two-thirds of the way through the movie just to trigger climactic plot complications but somehow survives. That the movie uses this incident to establish the seriousness of the threat and that it was relatively early on in the crisis (and the catalyst for Blunt's later pregnancy) was a better use of such a scene than I was expecting. I'm also not on board with totally decrying Blunt's pregnancy as inexcusably stupid and/or cruel, even in such an extreme situation, both because a focus on life going on even under the worst circumstances is an inherently human trait, and because, frankly, it's not like you're going to not risk pregnancy with your wife if she's Emily Blunt, apocalypse or no, right?

Ultimately, I don't begrudge anyone for not being able to get past A Quiet Place's flaws, but I also see why this is connecting with audiences to the extent it is, and ended up enjoying just enough of its positive attributes to be able to give it a modest recommendation. Going in with reasonably low expectations and a willingness to excuse its worst traits will probably be rewarding enough to make it worth seeing for genre fans.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#39 Post by DarkImbecile » Wed May 02, 2018 6:06 pm

My best friend asked me yesterday, unprompted, if I was aware of a connection between A Quiet Place and the "alt-right viewpoint". I responded that it definitely has some traditionally conservative overtones in that it has strong themes around the importance of family and self-reliance, but that I didn't detect any of the racial resentment or white nationalism I'd associate with the alt-right, and he pointed me to this NYT Still Processing podcast ("We Watch Whiteness") with culture critics Wesley Morris and Jenna Wortham, which I want to post here because I found it fascinating for a variety of reasons. Please excuse the rambling digression (I should print that on a shirt for daily use).

The episode, which starts with a critique of the reactionary trends in the Roseanne reboot*, interrogates the film along lines that range from very interesting (I did like - even without being entirely on board with all the conclusions of - the examination of cornfields as a recurring motif in science fiction) to somewhat bafflingly unjustified (the Pulitzer-winning Morris, whose writing and other work I've enjoyed elsewhere, critiques the film's use of ASL as "convenient", which...?) to what struck me as maximally uncharitable interpretations of elements of the film as representative of a "white radical" mindset. Morris in particular argues for a reading of Krasinski's film as a horror film about political correctness in which ultrasensitive (but blind) black/brown creatures immediately jump on anyone in the wholesome white family who dares to use their voice. Morris also cites Blunt's pregnancy as an example of white privilege and describes the soundproof, coffin-like bassinet as an Etsy project, which - while certainly funny - seems like it purposefully ignores what the film does to establish why the characters might be willing to risk having a child in this environment. Along with the ASL criticism, this overly shallow read on what I took as the central motivating factor for the protagonists makes me look askance at Morris' main line of criticism; it doesn't seem like too much to ask that someone trying to argue for a very deep and negative read of the supposedly buried social commentary in a film could also make a good faith effort to grasp why the film's characters act as they do or why they are the central characters in the first place.

Morris and Wortham also go out of their way to excuse Krasinski and Blunt for any of these offenses, exclaiming how much they appreciate their work while trying to decode what the film doesn't know it's saying about aggrieved whiteness. Between this and the controversy around of Isle of Dogs, it is striking how central the issue of personal artistic responsibility is to these debates: is either Wes Anderson or John Krasinski an insensitive asshole who should know better, or can we talk about how we engage with a cultural work as an audience (or a subset of a larger audience, or an individual) without personally indicting the filmmaker in question? While I'm philosophically totally on board with the death of the author and the application of a critical reading through any lens without regard to the intent of the artist, it does seem difficult in practice to have a meaningful conversation about the reactionary whiteness of a film without at least implicitly denouncing the filmmakers for either knowingly propagating that perspective or being so ignorant as to have unwittingly given voice to it. This presents an awkwardness in dissecting a contemporary film and how it represents modern attitudes that isn't present or is at least minimized when dealing with, say, a crime thriller from the 1940s and its treatment of women, race, and/or class; when the creators are dead and the creating was done before the critic was born, intellectualizing instead of personalizing the issues at hand seems much easier.

Similarly, rejecting these kind of readings - as I'm inclined to do (from my very different socio-cultural perspective) in this case because it seems so detached from the far less disputable concerns of the film, without discounting its validity to Wortham and Morris from their perspectives - also seems nearly impossible to do without inciting a defense of the critic themselves - not the ideas they've proposed - from others. Ideally, of course, an idea should be debated separately from the person who writes it, but given the way some participants Isle of Dogs debate deployed the identities of Justin Chang or Moeko Fujii in place of these people's reasoned argument for one side or the other, it's clear that this kind of appeal to authority is not uncommon.

Maybe this state of affairs is evergreen, but listening to this podcast I couldn't help but mentally play out the knee-jerk reactions and counter-reactions that I could easily imagine this kind of criticism stoking instead of engaging with it more directly and intellectually; I can't imagine I'm alone in having difficulty divorcing the seemingly ever more deafening noise around contemporary cultural artifacts from my own appreciation and understanding of them. As much as I enjoy hearing critical readings like this from major critics and engage with them on their own terms, recognizing my own inclination to leap to conclusions based on the type of criticism rather than its merits in the case at hand also left me feeling a touch of despair for how far we are culturally - and I am personally - from being able to not only ask difficult questions but be able reject the reflexive stances that so easily branch from those questions.


*Morris also seems to posit that the heavy recurrence of characters doing laundry on Roseanne is a coded desire for society to be cleansed like so many stained T-shirts; I haven't seen it and don't anticipate feeling masochistic enough to do so, so I'll refrain from judging whether he's reaching on that one as well.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#40 Post by Mr Sausage » Wed May 02, 2018 7:10 pm

DarkImbecile wrote:recognizing my own inclination to leap to conclusions based on the type of criticism rather than its merits in the case at hand also left me feeling a touch of despair for how far we are culturally - and I am personally - from being able to not only ask difficult questions but be able reject the reflexive stances that so easily branch from those questions.
More likely, this inclination of yours is the result of these critical methods having been roundly abused for decades than because you just can't bring yourself to ask difficult questions. Finding coded allegories in works of art that baldly have little to do with the politics or cultural ideas the critic finds in them has been a long-standing technique of both left- and right-minded critics. Groaning inwardly at seeing another example of that is evidence only of fatigue at these kinds of critical cliches. Methodologies evolved to find coded politics in art works that do in fact contain them have been widely misapplied by anyone who wishes to find something important to say and to show how incisively they can find it. For every actual incisive critique, there are four by people who haven't realized how confirmation bias works: if you go in looking for it, you will always find it. It's a fun parlour game, actually: muster your critical terms and see just how many convincing racist/sexist/classist/etc. allegories you can find in ever more innocuous things. It's remarkably easy, because these kinds of readings are more or less built into the terms and methods themselves. All you need to do is start organizing them.

What you notice in these kinds of arguments is that there's nothing controlling for the interpretations. When and how something becomes a symbol, what those symbols mean, and how they are arranged, is not subjected to any controlling hermeneutic framework: it's decided arbitrarily by the critic, usually to to fit a narrative that the critic both claims at the end to've discovered all while assuming it to've existed in the first place.

Because a criticism happens to be about something culturally important, like race, does not mean that criticism is itself important. Always treat criticisms skeptically, especially when they seem to fit the critic's particular agendas.

User avatar
Satori
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 10:32 am

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#41 Post by Satori » Wed May 02, 2018 7:29 pm

DarkImbecile wrote:Morris and Wortham also go out of their way to excuse Krasinski and Blunt for any of these offenses, exclaiming how much they appreciate their work while trying to decode what the film doesn't know it's saying about aggrieved whiteness. Between this and the controversy around of Isle of Dogs, it is striking how central the issue of personal artistic responsibility is to these debates: is either Wes Anderson or John Krasinski an insensitive asshole who should know better, or can we talk about how we engage with a cultural work as an audience (or a subset of a larger audience, or an individual) without personally indicting the filmmaker in question? While I'm philosophically totally on board with the death of the author and the application of a critical reading through any lens without regard to the intent of the artist, it does seem difficult in practice to have a meaningful conversation about the reactionary whiteness of a film without at least implicitly denouncing the filmmakers for either knowingly propagating that perspective or being so ignorant as to have unwittingly given voice to it.
I think it is absolutely possible, and even necessary, to be able to talk about a contemporary film's politics (racial or otherwise) without indicting the filmmakers themselves. I haven't listened to this podcast, but you say that they explicitly distance their critique from a critique of the filmmakers of A Quiet Place. This critical move seems particularly important given the nature of their reading of the film and how far removed it is from anything in the film itself.

On a textual level, the reading of the monsters-as-allegory-for-political-correctness is as far out there as some of those insane readings of The Shining offered by that documentary a few years back. Which is not to say that the reading is not useful, though, especially if we use it to think about audience response. Is it possible that "aggrieved whiteness" could explain why this film is so popular (even if the viewers don't share the precise allegorical coordinates of the Morris reading)? In this kind of reading, "allegory" doesn't mean an intentional hidden message (as in classical literary allegories) but a kind of unintentional reflection of the larger culture. So if the critic wants to talk about aggrieved whiteness in culture at large, then this film might be a tool to do so. But this says very little about the film itself and even less about its creators, except as each unintentionally reflects larger cultural currents.

While I didn't think about it in the terms these two critics propose, I did think the film was somewhat conservative in its focus on the nuclear family (but I come from the old Robin Wood school of horror criticism and tend to find stories about nuclear families obnoxious). But mostly I just thought it was a stupid big bug movie with a cool sound mix.

EDIT: I actually agree with Mr Sausage's post, even if it probably sounds like I am saying the opposite. The reading they do about A Quiet Place and the alt-right is bad as a piece of film criticism. But I don't think these critics actually intend to say anything profound about this particular film. I certainly can't imagine that they think they are advancing the "correct" or "best" interpretation of A Quiet Place as a narrative film. They are using this film to make a point about or to illustrate a larger cultural idea. I think interrogating contemporary forms of whiteness is worth doing and don't have a problem with them using a film to do so, even if they don't have anything particularly interesting to say about the film itself.

John Shade
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#42 Post by John Shade » Thu May 03, 2018 7:34 am

What does it mean to be philosophically on board with the death of the author? I understand the bit about approaching a work through any critical lens (see Sausage's post above, or the fact that there is one job opening for a senior Shakespeare scholar in the US this year).

Oddly enough I found this movie somewhat entertaining--more so than some of the bizarro theories being thrown at it. The NY Post bit indeed makes this cheesy--I think it helped that I went in with very, very low expectations. Also, has Signs always been held in low esteem?

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#43 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu May 03, 2018 8:01 am

John Shade wrote:What does it mean to be philosophically on board with the death of the author?
I assume he means he's sympathetic to Wimsatt and Beardsley's idea of the Intentional Fallacy.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#44 Post by DarkImbecile » Thu May 03, 2018 8:23 am

Right; the phrase comes from a famous Roland Barthes essay from the late 1960s.

John Shade
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#45 Post by John Shade » Thu May 03, 2018 9:06 am

This is now veering way off-topic, but is this idea related to the concept of Negative Capability? Just after reading a few paragraphs of that essay, my reaction is not to say "the author is dead" but that complicated writing should be able to create many effects.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#46 Post by Mr Sausage » Thu May 03, 2018 9:27 am

John Shade wrote:This is now veering way off-topic, but is this idea related to the concept of Negative Capability? Just after reading a few paragraphs of that essay, my reaction is not to say "the author is dead" but that complicated writing should be able to create many effects.
It's basically that the intentions and biographical information of the author should not be a part of any interpretation.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#47 Post by tenia » Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:38 am

This seemed to me like a textbook case of a high concept mediocrely executed, partly because of the said concept in the first place.

When you deal in a realistic setup with monstrous creatures that are hypersensitive to sound, the viewer is bound to wonder about stupid but daily noisy issues. What about allergies that make you sneeze ? How do you brush your teeth in silence ? Did they killed all the people that listen to music so loud in their earbuds that you can hear it too ? What about farting in bed ? Of course, despite showing tons of similar but specific points (checking the squeaky floor, putting sand EVERYWHERE outside to cover the footsteps, building soundproof coffins), the movie just never thinks about this, so while trying to have a realistic setup, it never really has. Instead, it’s just a movie where everything turns into some kind of Chekov’s gun : these painted spots for walking in the creaky hallways, that nail, that freaking newborn (probably created in the worst love making session ever)… except the movie only use them when it’s convenient.
SpoilerShow
The nail stuff is particularly hilarious, because the movie shows Krasinski’s character as being rather meticulous in this regard, but hey, there’s a freaking 10cm long nail showing up and of course, Blunt walks on it. If it’s on the painted spots in the stairs, how did they manage to paint there despite the nail ? And if she walked outside of the spots, how come the creatures aren’t coming solely because of this ?
But after that, what is made of this nail ? Is it finally taken care of ? Because we see plenty of stairwalking again afterwards but this nail never shows up anymore.
The same goes for the painted squeaky floor that only is shown once and then never mentioned again, especially when Krasinski needs to barge in to help Blunt. * Oh, but they showed us earlier about covering sounds with louder ones and they still have the fireworks ongoing ! * Right. But, it’s still never mentioned again, so the one time we see people in the hallway, they don’t use that ?

Same for the newborn. You’d expect a noisy newborn, yelling and crying pretty much every 2 hours, to be kind of delicate to handle which such surroundings but good news ! in the end, there’s always a practical ongoing diversion. How convenient.
But even the creatures’s handling left me vastly dubious.
SpoilerShow
Why nobody thought of overloading to death before ? Have they never seen Mars Attacks! ? Even worse : during the finale, we’re shown newspaper clips telling us governments tried bombing the creatures but it didn’t work. So bombs don’t work but the good ol’ shotgun to the face point blank does ? That… seems contradictory.
I’d also wonder why nobody thought of simply having nearby huge noise generators to attract the creatures away from the house. Have huge speakers playing non stop trash metal so that while they’re there grawling at Slayer, you can speak with your daughter and tell her IT’S NOT HER FAULT AND I LOVE YOU.
So the movie isn’t bad per se. It’s rather competently crafted (it’s visually quite neat, and the sound design is very good – I liked how they turned off the whole soundtrack when the daughter turns off here hearing piece), I particularly liked the fireworks sequence, but it’s just a mess, and I don’t really get the overall acclaim, because of all these rather obvious plot holes. Like Mongoose wrote, the premise feels like it hasn’t been very thought through. I can understand some people getting past it, in some kind of "brain turned off" way, but at least critics should have caught these, no ?
And of course, there is still way too much music on this, though less than I expected.



I found Don’t Breathe a tad less silly (if still silly) but it felt more thought through, maybe because the concept is quite simpler there than in A Quiet Place, so it managed to remain tense with this, without making you thinking about other silly but related stuff. It’s more down to the ground and at a much smaller scale, which I think is A Quiet Place mistake : if the creatures were more local (say, around the house, and drawn to sound but within a given shorter distance), it would certainly have been easier to remain believable within its background. Here, it simply wasn’t the case.

nitin
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 6:49 am

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#48 Post by nitin » Fri Aug 24, 2018 6:03 am

This movie is just plain dumb, there is no getting around that. I can totally see people liking it despite that but this is not some sort of shining example of smart horror.

User avatar
jazzo
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:02 am

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#49 Post by jazzo » Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:54 pm

In describing the inanities of this film's plot to a co-worker, I only just realized that the befuddled father-daughter relationship of this film mirrors the idiocy of the father/hearing-impaired child arc in Mr. Holland's Opus;
SpoilerShow
Guy breeds contempt and resentment by being shitty to his kid during the most emotionally tumultuous stages of a young person’s life, but then all is forgiven in an empty last-minute gesture of reconciliation.


So. Yeah.

User avatar
DarkImbecile
Ask me about my visible cat breasts
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: A Quiet Place (John Krasinski, 2018)

#50 Post by DarkImbecile » Fri Feb 22, 2019 4:58 pm


Post Reply