The moment when she is bidding on one screen and playing poker to get enough money on the other screen was really cool. The character itself was really interesting and cool.But, the ending where she does the "right" thing felt a little off-character. It's like a sudden abrupt change and I didn't get it. Where did this moral animus suddenly come from? I don't get it.I feel like they didn't project the change, or maybe I missed the signals.
>>215193558isn't the twist supposed to be that she was good all along? I admit I haven't given this film much thoughtfor me the more baffling aspect of the ending is her becoming a girl with a dragon tattoo™, deactivating cameras and unlocking doors with her mad hacker skillz
Does it really out-fincher fincher
>>215193558>>215194152There is no such twist ending. Some people read into it that way but that's because they're redditors who can't into protagonists (female protagonists no less) who aren't Decent Fucking People. This reading of the ending doesn't align with the rest of the movie at all. It supposed Kelly-Anne is secretly a heckin badass vigilante who works outside the law to get the last piece of evidence needed to nail the killer. Except the first two videos were already presented overwhelming evidence. This is proven in the scene where Kelly shows them to the other girl and points out the killer's obvious tells, and this is convincing enough to snap his ardent supporter out of it. We're never given any reason to think the killer was going to walk, so Kelly-Anne gathering evidence is unnecessary (to say nothing of her other psychotic behavior like breaking into the victim's home and leaving the third video there to torment them instead of sending it to the police, or privately taking selfies in the victim's bedroom).The only thing that suggests an altruistic motive is the line at the end that she provided a transaction log implicating the killer, but the movie is too vague about it to read anything concrete into (was it also on the flash drive? Does it also implicate Kelly-Anne with her purchase?). I took it to show that she had no affinity for the killer himself, unlike the other girl who projected herself onto him and fell in love, and got a kick out of him going to prison by her hand in a sense. Maybe you could say she included it out of guilt but even that feels out of character.
>Out-Finchers Fincher
>>215194152Maybe you weren't paying attention, but she figured out how to get into the house before using a lot of interesting tactics. That is not a surprise at all.But, the expectation was that she would go to kill or abduct the mother, given her demeanor and attitude especially towards the serial killer and snuff films. That expectation is violated in the surprise twist.
>>215193558I saw it as being sadistic but also good. She knew the mother would have to watch the video to know what it was but it would secure the conviction.
>>215194745It's better than anything Fincher has made except for maybe Zodiac or if you're a FCfag. There's a more recent psycho-thriller called A Desert that has a similar aesthetic, a hot chick, and tone. These are the only good movies this decade.
>>215194864>>215194764Wait this anon changed my mind. Leaving the video was just an act of sadism against the mother.
>>215194764I don't care about all that pedantic autistic nonsense. I can use my suspension of disbelief to understand that maybe the prosecutors needed that last nail on the coffin to get the murderer, or maybe they didn't need it and the hero's acquisition of the final materials were redundant. Anyway, it doesn't matter at all, that's not the important part according to my pov.The important part to me is the hero's motivations, how did she come to that conclusion even given the portrayal of her lifestyle etc. Her actions in the end were not projected at all. She didn't seem to have the personality for it.Maybe the ultimate message is don't judge a book by its cover or something, but that's kind of a silly message. If they had just projected or given some indicators or expanded a little more about how the relationship with the homeless girl changed her attitude, maybe it would be more compelling.The ending action just felt very abrupt and unusual for the character, to me.
Clementine was cute. I could fix her.
>>215194891>David YowGotta check that out
>>215194764>the killer's obvious tellsobvious to the fangirls, maybenot obvious to the jurors>We're never given any reason to think the killer was going to walkthe girls keep saying itmaybe he wasn't, objectively, but for the protagonists he was
>>215195007I suppose I dont understand your poverty because I dont know what conclusion you're talking about. I don't think any of this is pedantry. We have a character who is socially isolated and spends all her time collecting snuff films and attending trials for a gruesome case she has nothing to do with. Her actions might be cast in a favorable light if the movie portrayed the trial as one where the killer is at risk of being let loose on some technicality, or he cunningly covered his tracks and it's up to our hero to dive into the seedy underbelly of the internet to find the truth, but it doesn't do that so we're left with a deeply disturbed, criminal, unheroic protagonist. Her actions at the end make sense as a desensitised person who resorts to increasingly antisocial behavior to feel anything. >expanded a little more about how the relationship with the homeless girl changed her attitudeImo their relationship didn't change the protag at all. It shows the difference between a groupie like Clementine, who was motivated by a naive but sincere belief in the killer's innocence, and Kelly-Anne, who is motivated by sick pleasure. The closest thing to a twist is when Kelly-Anne reveals that she already has copies of the first two videos and already knows Ludovic is guilty, i.e. that despite their brief friendship the two are utterly different kinds of people (maybe that isn't a twist at all, I forget if it shows that she has the videos earlier than that).
>>215195985>obvious to the fangirls, maybe>not obvious to the jurorsShe comments on his distinctive gait and eyes, which are also called out in the prosecution's opening statement. It's enough to convince Clementine, who was a dug in defender of the guy, so it should be good enough for a jury. And keep in mind that there was other evidence such as the bodies being found on his property. Meanwhile the defense's opening statement was boilerplate.
>>215196120she doesn't give a fuck whether he did it or didn't do itshe's atracted to the case because of it's publicity, and wants to insert herself in it in any way possible, completely ignoring the actual suffering that went onthat's why the mother looks at her with a combination of confusion and disgust at the end, because she's basically using her daughter for her sick satisfaction in the same manner as the killer
>>215196596I agree with you there, I'm only trying to say that the movie shows the evidence to be damning.
>>215193558Watched thisHoly shit was it boring
>>215194764>>215195007>>215196120>>215196596>>215196713anybody find it funny how this movie is just a male fantasy but it's a women this time? she's a supermodel but guess what... she's also a super baddass epic hacker who plays poker on a sekrit club website!!!
Longest will it blend episode Ive ever seen
>>215196822Yes but the attention seeking behavior was quite female.
>>215196822So misogynist. Are you suggesting that a woman cannot be super baddass epic hacker? Why are women so catty? Why do they demean eachother and shoehorn eachother into the trad wife role and simultaneously complain about their stupid Eternal trad wifery? Nigga adapt with the times.
i liked it also this thread is full of retardedly long posts nobody should ever read like wtf why would you type that much, the film was just the right amount of cryptic and you should embrace it instead of trying to rationally understand every little element
>>215193558Life doesn't have a message
>>215197024A twitter screenshot thread died for this.
>>215196120I think you are focusing too much on the plot. But, the plot in this film is all just a device, it's a huge MacGuffin. The plot doesn't matter at all, because it's a character study.You know that the courtroom case doesn't matter at all because of the way the camera moves in the courtroom, often focusing on the hero and other elements and rarely focusing on the courtroom drama going on. The courtroom drama blends into the background.Actually, this is something that I really appreciate about the film. Rarely do you see films where the plot doesn't matter very much at all.The plight of the killer doesn't matter because it's just a foil to tell a story about the hero. The hero and its characterization is the main focus here.And that is why the act in the end by the hero is so captivating. It's a violation of our expectation given the characterization we have come to learn up until that moment.The movie doesn't try to justify that violation. And that is the problem. The film appears to tell something about the relationship between the hero and the homeless girl, and how that impacts the violation. But, my pov is that it's not sufficiently developed. It feels like there are missing or cut scenes or something.
>>215197024What about the film was cryptic? Everything was very well explained. Even the shady and mysterious dark-web forums and chatrooms were just minimally-fictionalized analogues of real ones.The only cryptic aspect of the film was arguably the hints at a larger underground child abduction/torture ring that the killer we see in the movie intersected with.Some anons here seem to think that the protagonist's psychotic actions towards the end were a mystery, but they make sense as those of a terminally-online femcel who's sexually driven towards the torture and the voyeurism/exhibitionism around it. She is a female. Her actions aren't rational- they're emotional and psycho-sexual.
>>215197508>What about the film was cryptic? well youve been exchanging essays with at least on other dude here on the movie so i think thats evidence there is some room for interpretation or open questions>BUT THAT WASNT INTENDED I HAVE ALL THE EVIDENCE HERE MY INTERPRETATION IS CORRECTi dont give a fuck and i didnt read your post past the first sentence because youre obviously a retarded redditor
>>215197581That was my first post ITT.
Dudes see three sentences in a single post and act like they're getting raped by words
