Was "DON´T BREATHE" by any chance overrated?

[TheDoctor]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/Don%27t_Breathe_%282016_film%29.png

There are 2 or 3 jump-scares in the dark, chasing-people-in-the-dark scenes, "scary" scenes in the dark, the victims sneaking around in the dark, the villain sneaking around in the dark, the dog barking in the dark and much more dark scenes, filmed in total darkness too!

A really, really dark movie, if you ask me. Probably a little too dark. Actually so dark, it started to be annoying at some point.

This is actually the third time, STEPHEN LANG being the reason why i thought the film did not totally fail (that´s why in my opinion AVATAR and the CONAN remake did not terribly fail at all, thanks to STEPHEN LANG!)

So, i heard "DON´T BREATHE" was another rather "excellent" and "top" movie!

Now my question, is it me or was DON´T BREATHE somehow a little way too overrated to some point?

Goin to see DON´T BREATHE 2 this afternoon and i already buried my expectations deeply into the ground, to make sure i won´t get more disappointed than i was with the original already.

[chawhee]

I didn't think this received THAT much praise, but I think it was definitely more good than bad. Some cringey moments, but it executed things pretty well.

The sequel....don't see it. Its terrible.

[Gideon58]

I liked it. Stephen Lang was excellent.

[TheDoctor]

I didn't think this received THAT much praise, but I think it was definitely more good than bad. Some cringey moments, but it executed things pretty well.

The sequel....don't see it. Its terrible.

Now THAT is what i am talking about! So many different opinions!

While we both share the same one about the original first one, i actually have to say:

I like the sequel way better than the first one (just finished watching it half an hour ago)! The only negative thing: While i had to partly shut down my brain in order to half-way enjoy it, i now had to turn off my brains completely! But then it was a good ride and as i said, better than the original!


I liked it. Stephen Lang was excellent.

So now the major question: Would the films be THAT good without him? I am afraid not, because the formula is actually pretty old (and dead-boring...those home-invasion flicks!) and only got twisted with a blind "victim" who in fact is the "villain" and while this sounds pretty fresh, it´s somehow not really at all because i am just having enough of those home-invasion flicks already.

[chawhee]

The sequel ratcheted up the gore, which is never a positive in my eyes. The story felt a bit more shallow too (including the obvious tropes between the father, daughter, etc).

[BKB]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/Don%27t_Breathe_%282016_film%29.png

There are 2 or 3 jump-scares in the dark, chasing-people-in-the-dark scenes, "scary" scenes in the dark, the victims sneaking around in the dark, the villain sneaking around in the dark, the dog barking in the dark and much more dark scenes, filmed in total darkness too!

A really, really dark movie, if you ask me. Probably a little too dark. Actually so dark, it started to be annoying at some point.

This is actually the third time, STEPHEN LANG being the reason why i thought the film did not totally fail (that´s why in my opinion AVATAR and the CONAN remake did not terribly fail at all, thanks to STEPHEN LANG!)

So, i heard "DON´T BREATHE" was another rather "excellent" and "top" movie!

Now my question, is it me or was DON´T BREATHE somehow a little way too overrated to some point?

Goin to see DON´T BREATHE 2 this afternoon and i already buried my expectations deeply into the ground, to make sure i won´t get more disappointed than i was with the original already.

I thought it was rather odd that 3 teens decided to break into a blind veteran's home and steal his $300K fortune and the way it ended, it was like the crime they committed was swept under the rug in favor of what's going on in this dude's basement and were supposed to feel sorry for them.??

[mattiasflgrtll6]

I think it's safe to say that when the guy they're robbing turns out to be a maniac who's ready to rape and impregnate a young woman, then yes we can feel a little more sorry for them. Money is the one I had the least sympathy for though, his arrogance and braindead decisions put them in a lot more danger than they would've been in otherwise.

[TheDoctor]

I thought it was rather odd that 3 teens decided to break into a blind veteran's home and steal his $300K fortune and the way it ended

Now that you mention it, i actually thought "Oh no, is this another teenie-slasher-horror-flick?" when i realized it´s about braindead kids trying to rob a house.

That raises the question, why did the makers decided to put frigging teens into the story to begin with? Is the "horror" better when friggin teens are victims rather than adults?

Thank god, it was adults in the sequel, rather than having friggin teens again.

I am kinda tired of that "teenie-formula" most horror movies do carry.

[BKB]

Now THAT is what i am talking about! So many different opinions!

While we both share the same one about the original first one, i actually have to say:

I like the sequel way better than the first one (just finished watching it half an hour ago)! The only negative thing: While i had to partly shut down my brain in order to half-way enjoy it, i now had to turn off my brains completely! But then it was a good ride and as i said, better than the original!




So now the major question: Would the films be THAT good without him? I am afraid not, because the formula is actually pretty old (and dead-boring...those home-invasion flicks!) and only got twisted with a blind "victim" who in fact is the "villain" and while this sounds pretty fresh, it´s somehow not really at all because i am just having enough of those home-invasion flicks already.

What's even more odd is he's clearly the antagonist in the 1st movie and made out to be a hero in the sequel, like let's forget this dude held women hostage in his basement while raping and impregnating them in the 1st movie??:facepalm:

[Jeff]

I just saw it once and was impressed with it, wasn't too dark, as i watch in the dark too.

[mattiasflgrtll6]

Yeah, the revelation of him as an anti-hero makes the sequel sound terrible and misses the point of his character, that being you can still be a piece of shit no matter if you're disabled or able-bodied. What a tone-deaf direction to take the series in.

[TheDoctor]

What's even more odd is he's clearly the antagonist in the 1st movie and made out to be a hero in the sequel,

I actually thought this to be a great twist, which i really loved! But then again...


like let's forget this dude held women hostage in his basement while raping and impregnating them in the 1st movie??:facepalm:

I clearly remember when he said in the first original (at least in the german version!) "I AM NOT A RAPIST!" (hence that´s why he used that thing to impregnate her, instead of using his di**) but in the second part he confesses "I HAVE DONE BAD THINGS, I HAVE RAPED..." among other bad things, so...wtf was he a rapist now or not or is he just so confused that he doesn´t know wtf he is talking about? Poor Stephen! :D


wasn't too dark, as i watch in the dark too.

WTF!?

The movie was too dark and that too often, watching it in the dark makes it a pretty dark experience and honestly a little too dark! If that movie would be any darker you´d actually see shit!!!!


Yeah, the revelation of him as an anti-hero makes the sequel sound terrible and misses the point of his character,

NO, NO and once again NO!!!!!

I think this was a great idea and i think it´s always interesting when evil guys turn good and good guys turn evil!

That´s why i thought HOSTEL 2 was so great (also from a psychological point of view!), because it ended up with the "bad" guy actually being the good one, while the "good" guy actually turned out to be the real sadistic psychopath, who actually was only holding back his "evil" lurking inside him.

This is interesting from a psychological point of view, because it is often those guys being the complete psychopaths, who are acting completely "normal" and "harmless" (no matter if they are kinda unaware of their own evil side or if they are hiding it from others like Ted Bundy did)

[mattiasflgrtll6]

Impregnating someone with your sperm no matter if you're actually penetrating them to do so against their consent... is rape. The only reason he says he's not a rapist is because he's out of his god damn mind and thinks he's somehow being humble about his horrifying act. Like a lot of villains he doesn't even understand that he's evil.

Stephen Lang did a brilliant job and I would've been openminded towards a sequel if they kept the spirit of the character the same. But turning him into an anti-hero flatout makes no sense. You can defend the decision as much as you want and I'm sure for some others it would be a cool twist on the premise, but it simply doesn't sound like my thing at all.

[BKB]

Impregnating someone with your sperm no matter if you're actually penetrating them to do so against their consent... is rape. The only reason he says he's not a rapist is because he's out of his god damn mind and thinks he's somehow being humble about his horrifying act. Like a lot of villains he doesn't even understand that he's evil.

Stephen Lang did a brilliant job and I would've been openminded towards a sequel if they kept the spirit of the character the same. But turning him into an anti-hero flatout makes no sense. You can defend the decision as much as you want and I'm sure for some others it would be a cool twist on the premise, but it simply doesn't sound like my thing at all.
The best thing to do is not make another one of these, unless they've already got 1 in the making?? Gotta have a Trilogy you know??

[Thief]

I think it was rated accordingly, which is a slightly above average thriller but nothing great.

My review (https://letterboxd.com/thief12/film/dont-breathe-2016/)