u/Complete_Finance_324

Note: It has spoilers. This post is for discussion on IMAGES (1972); if you intend to watch (I 'fiercely' recommended) probably come back later & make this discussion enriching. Additionally, I've not used AI to write /refine this, so please pardon grammatical errors!

So, I'm on a horror movie spree! & This is the 3rd one I've watched! (Shining, Posession & this one).

Just finished watching Images (1972)! Oh! What an amazing movie! It's a sort of movie which sustains a contortion in your stomach all through. You just get an eerie vibe. It's like something wrong is happening or you even start feeling a little dizzy because of the fractured sense of perception. At some points it's like WTF IS HAPPENING? The protagonist's (the main lady's) countenance is super amazing all through. Her perplexed expressions & the ever-changing face (adapting) stirs multiple emotions & she is able to convey the fractured sense of perception which she is feeling. Also, the director quite beautifully dropped the cue towards the end- when the imagined lover's kid said that she'd conjure up (wholly a mental construct) a friend if she felt lonely. I believe the protagonist lady did exactly the same thing. It also was indicative of her troubled childhood. She is the striking example of how fucked up things can get. It's like towards the end you simply can't discern satisfactorily as to what really transpired & what was figment of her imagination except the fact that her partner was dead. Also, the scenic beauty of the location where the film was shot was simply breathtaking. It unknowingly renders a sense of contrast to the central theme of the film (Super tensed).

Also, may god bless each one of us with a partner like hers. If you're an atheist, then I'd say I wish the universe gives us an opportunity to experience this sort of companionship. He was so tolerant to such an imprudent & super unstable partner.

Superb. Thanks to the individual who suggested this to me in one of my recommendation solicitation post! I'd be watching other movies too. HONESTLY, No AI search gave me this gem. AI simply can't replace reddit!

What's your take on the movie?

Note: It has spoilers. This post is for discussion on IMAGES (1972); if you intend to watch (I 'fiercely' recommended) probably come back later & make this discussion enriching. Additionally, I've not used AI to write /refine this, so please pardon grammatical errors!

So, I'm on a horror movie spree! & This is the 3rd one I've watched! (Shining, Posession & this one).

Just finished watching Images (1972)! Oh! What an amazing movie! It's a sort of movie which sustains a contortion in your stomach all through. You just get an eerie vibe. It's like something wrong is happening or you even start feeling a little dizzy because of the fractured sense of perception. At some points it's like WTF IS HAPPENING? The protagonist's (the main lady's) countenance is super amazing all through. Her perplexed expressions & the ever-changing face (adapting) stirs multiple emotions & she is able to convey the fractured sense of perception which she is feeling. Also, the director quite beautifully dropped the cue towards the end- when the imagined lover's kid said that she'd conjure up (wholly a mental construct) a friend if she felt lonely. I believe the protagonist lady did exactly the same thing. It also was indicative of her troubled childhood. She is the striking example of how fucked up things can get. It's like towards the end you simply can't discern satisfactorily as to what really transpired & what was figment of her imagination except the fact that her partner was dead. Also, the scenic beauty of the location where the film was shot was simply breathtaking. It unknowingly renders a sense of contrast to the central theme of the film (Super tensed).

Also, may god bless each one of us with a partner like hers. If you're an atheist, then I'd say I wish the universe gives us an opportunity to experience this sort of companionship. He was so tolerant to such an imprudent & super unstable partner.

Superb. Thanks to the individual who suggested this to me in one of my recommendation solicitation post! I'd be watching other movies too. HONESTLY, No AI search gave me this gem. AI simply can't replace reddit!

What's your take on the movie?

Note: It has spoilers. This post is for discussion on IMAGES (1972); if you intend to watch (I 'fiercely' recommended) probably come back later & make this discussion enriching. Additionally, I've not used AI to write /refine this, so please pardon grammatical errors!

So, I'm on a horror movie spree! & This is the 3rd one I've watched! (Shining, Posession & this one).

Just finished watching Images (1972)! Oh! What an amazing movie! It's a sort of movie which sustains a contortion in your stomach all through. You just get an eerie vibe. It's like something wrong is happening or you even start feeling a little dizzy because of the fractured sense of perception. At some points it's like WTF IS HAPPENING? The protagonist's (the main lady's) countenance is super amazing all through. Her perplexed expressions & the ever-changing face (adapting) stirs multiple emotions & she is able to convey the fractured sense of perception which she is feeling. Also, the director quite beautifully dropped the cue towards the end- when the imagined lover's kid said that she'd conjure up (wholly a mental construct) a friend if she felt lonely. I believe the protagonist lady did exactly the same thing. It also was indicative of her troubled childhood. She is the striking example of how fucked up things can get. It's like towards the end you simply can't discern satisfactorily as to what really transpired & what was figment of her imagination except the fact that her partner was dead. Also, the scenic beauty of the location where the film was shot was simply breathtaking. It unknowingly renders a sense of contrast to the central theme of the film (Super tensed).

Also, may god bless each one of us with a partner like hers. If you're an atheist, then I'd say I wish the universe gives us an opportunity to experience this sort of companionship. He was so tolerant to such an imprudent & super unstable partner.

Superb. Thanks to the individual who suggested this to me in one of my recommendation solicitation post! I'd be watching other movies too. HONESTLY, No AI search gave me this gem. AI simply can't replace reddit!

What's your take on the movie?

Note: It has spoilers. This post is for discussion on IMAGES (1972); if you intend to watch (I 'fiercely' recommended) probably come back later & make this discussion enriching. Additionally, I've not used AI to write /refine this, so please pardon grammatical errors!

So, I'm on a horror movie spree! & This is the 3rd one I've watched! (Shining, Posession & this one).

Just finished watching Images (1972)! Oh! What an amazing movie! It's a sort of movie which sustains a contortion in your stomach all through. You just get an eerie vibe. It's like something wrong is happening or you even start feeling a little dizzy because of the fractured sense of perception. At some points it's like WTF IS HAPPENING? The protagonist's (the main lady's) countenance is super amazing all through. Her perplexed expressions & the ever-changing face (adapting) stirs multiple emotions & she is able to convey the fractured sense of perception which she is feeling. Also, the director quite beautifully dropped the cue towards the end- when the imagined lover's kid said that she'd conjure up (wholly a mental construct) a friend if she felt lonely. I believe the protagonist lady did exactly the same thing. It also was indicative of her troubled childhood. She is the striking example of how fucked up things can get. It's like towards the end you simply can't discern satisfactorily as to what really transpired & what was figment of her imagination except the fact that her partner was dead. Also, the scenic beauty of the location where the film was shot was simply breathtaking. It unknowingly renders a sense of contrast to the central theme of the film (Super tensed).

Also, may god bless each one of us with a partner like hers. If you're an atheist, then I'd say I wish the universe gives us an opportunity to experience this sort of companionship. He was so tolerant to such an imprudent & super unstable partner.

Superb. Thanks to the individual who suggested this to me in one of my recommendation solicitation post! I'd be watching other movies too. HONESTLY, No AI search gave me this gem. AI simply can't replace reddit!

What's your take on the movie?

Posession 1981

Just a heads up, this isn't gonna be the appreciation post you're expecting. This is an opposing take on a film that's mostly praised, so please don't just downvote, hear me out.

Honestly, I think this film is kinda grotesque. And because of who the director is, people have taken every weird element in it and blown it up into something cosmic and profound. Yes, showing internal trauma as a physical thing is unconventional, fair enough. But a lot of the weirdness feels just thrown in, and because of the director's name, people started treating it as extraordinary instead of questioning it.

That monster part especially. If you strip away all the "deep meaning" reading, it's pretty simple: the teacher is basically standing in for Anna, and the monster eventually becomes a stand in for Mark. The relationship was messed up way before any of that, she's shown as sex hungry through the whole film. That's not a complicated idea. It didn't need this much weirdness wrapped around it to say that.

A few more things that bug me about how this film gets talked about:

1. The "it's open to interpretation" defense is doing a lot of work it shouldn't have to. Whenever someone questions a weird choice, the answer is always "that's the point, it's ambiguous." But vagueness isn't the same as depth. Sometimes ambiguous just means underwritten.

2. Disturbing doesn't automatically mean meaningful. A scene unsettles you, so you think it must be saying something important. That's backwards. The discomfort becomes the "proof" of profundity, which is a circular argument if you actually think about it.

3. Would this film get the same treatment from an unknown director? Genuinely ask yourself that. If a first timer made this exact movie with this exact monster subplot, would critics be praising every strange choice as intentional, or would they say it needed an editor? Reputation is carrying a lot of the interpretation here.

4. The core story didn't need this much spectacle. A fractured family with replacement figures standing in for people who are gone is a story that's been told plenty of times without body horror. The horror makes it more uncomfortable to watch, sure, but discomfort isn't insight. A lot of this is spectacle sitting on top of a fairly ordinary emotional plot.

So genuinely, was this overdone, and did people over extrapolate meaning just because of who made it? Please argue with me instead of downvoting.

Posession 1981

Just a heads up, this isn't gonna be the appreciation post you're expecting. This is an opposing take on a film that's mostly praised, so please don't just downvote, hear me out.

Honestly, I think this film is kinda grotesque. And because of who the director is, people have taken every weird element in it and blown it up into something cosmic and profound. Yes, showing internal trauma as a physical thing is unconventional, fair enough. But a lot of the weirdness feels just thrown in, and because of the director's name, people started treating it as extraordinary instead of questioning it.

That monster part especially. If you strip away all the "deep meaning" reading, it's pretty simple: the teacher is basically standing in for Anna, and the monster eventually becomes a stand in for Mark. The relationship was messed up way before any of that, she's shown as sex hungry through the whole film. That's not a complicated idea. It didn't need this much weirdness wrapped around it to say that.

A few more things that bug me about how this film gets talked about:

1. The "it's open to interpretation" defense is doing a lot of work it shouldn't have to. Whenever someone questions a weird choice, the answer is always "that's the point, it's ambiguous." But vagueness isn't the same as depth. Sometimes ambiguous just means underwritten.

2. Disturbing doesn't automatically mean meaningful. A scene unsettles you, so you think it must be saying something important. That's backwards. The discomfort becomes the "proof" of profundity, which is a circular argument if you actually think about it.

3. Would this film get the same treatment from an unknown director? Genuinely ask yourself that. If a first timer made this exact movie with this exact monster subplot, would critics be praising every strange choice as intentional, or would they say it needed an editor? Reputation is carrying a lot of the interpretation here.

4. The core story didn't need this much spectacle. A fractured family with replacement figures standing in for people who are gone is a story that's been told plenty of times without body horror. The horror makes it more uncomfortable to watch, sure, but discomfort isn't insight. A lot of this is spectacle sitting on top of a fairly ordinary emotional plot.

So genuinely, was this overdone, and did people over extrapolate meaning just because of who made it? Please argue with me instead of downvoting.

Posession 1981

Just a heads up, this isn't gonna be the appreciation post you're expecting. This is an opposing take on a film that's mostly praised, so please don't just downvote, hear me out.

Honestly, I think this film is kinda grotesque. And because of who the director is, people have taken every weird element in it and blown it up into something cosmic and profound. Yes, showing internal trauma as a physical thing is unconventional, fair enough. But a lot of the weirdness feels just thrown in, and because of the director's name, people started treating it as extraordinary instead of questioning it.

That monster part especially. If you strip away all the "deep meaning" reading, it's pretty simple: the teacher is basically standing in for Anna, and the monster eventually becomes a stand in for Mark. The relationship was messed up way before any of that, she's shown as sex hungry through the whole film. That's not a complicated idea. It didn't need this much weirdness wrapped around it to say that.

A few more things that bug me about how this film gets talked about:

1. The "it's open to interpretation" defense is doing a lot of work it shouldn't have to. Whenever someone questions a weird choice, the answer is always "that's the point, it's ambiguous." But vagueness isn't the same as depth. Sometimes ambiguous just means underwritten.

2. Disturbing doesn't automatically mean meaningful. A scene unsettles you, so you think it must be saying something important. That's backwards. The discomfort becomes the "proof" of profundity, which is a circular argument if you actually think about it.

3. Would this film get the same treatment from an unknown director? Genuinely ask yourself that. If a first timer made this exact movie with this exact monster subplot, would critics be praising every strange choice as intentional, or would they say it needed an editor? Reputation is carrying a lot of the interpretation here.

Posession 1981

Just a heads up, this isn't gonna be the appreciation post you're expecting. This is an opposing take on a film that's mostly praised, so please don't just downvote, hear me out.

Honestly, I think this film is kinda grotesque. And because of who the director is, people have taken every weird element in it and blown it up into something cosmic and profound. Yes, showing internal trauma as a physical thing is unconventional, fair enough. But a lot of the weirdness feels just thrown in, and because of the director's name, people started treating it as extraordinary instead of questioning it.

That monster part especially. If you strip away all the "deep meaning" reading, it's pretty simple: the teacher is basically standing in for Anna, and the monster eventually becomes a stand in for Mark. The relationship was messed up way before any of that, she's shown as sex hungry through the whole film. That's not a complicated idea. It didn't need this much weirdness wrapped around it to say that.

A few more things that bug me about how this film gets talked about:

1. The "it's open to interpretation" defense is doing a lot of work it shouldn't have to. Whenever someone questions a weird choice, the answer is always "that's the point, it's ambiguous." But vagueness isn't the same as depth. Sometimes ambiguous just means underwritten.

2. Disturbing doesn't automatically mean meaningful. A scene unsettles you, so you think it must be saying something important. That's backwards. The discomfort becomes the "proof" of profundity, which is a circular argument if you actually think about it.

3. Would this film get the same treatment from an unknown director? Genuinely ask yourself that. If a first timer made this exact movie with this exact monster subplot, would critics be praising every strange choice as intentional, or would they say it needed an editor? Reputation is carrying a lot of the interpretation here.

4. The core story didn't need this much spectacle. A fractured family with replacement figures standing in for people who are gone is a story that's been told plenty of times without body horror. The horror makes it more uncomfortable to watch, sure, but discomfort isn't insight. A lot of this is spectacle sitting on top of a fairly ordinary emotional plot.

So genuinely, was this overdone, and did people over extrapolate meaning just because of who made it? Please argue with me instead of downvoting.

Posession 1981

Just a heads up, this isn't gonna be the appreciation post you're expecting. This is an opposing take on a film that's mostly praised, so please don't just downvote, hear me out.

Honestly, I think this film is kinda grotesque. And because of who the director is, people have taken every weird element in it and blown it up into something cosmic and profound. Yes, showing internal trauma as a physical thing is unconventional, fair enough. But a lot of the weirdness feels just thrown in, and because of the director's name, people started treating it as extraordinary instead of questioning it.

That monster part especially. If you strip away all the "deep meaning" reading, it's pretty simple: the teacher is basically standing in for Anna, and the monster eventually becomes a stand in for Mark. The relationship was messed up way before any of that, she's shown as sex hungry through the whole film. That's not a complicated idea. It didn't need this much weirdness wrapped around it to say that.

A few more things that bug me about how this film gets talked about:

1. The "it's open to interpretation" defense is doing a lot of work it shouldn't have to. Whenever someone questions a weird choice, the answer is always "that's the point, it's ambiguous." But vagueness isn't the same as depth. Sometimes ambiguous just means underwritten.

2. Disturbing doesn't automatically mean meaningful. A scene unsettles you, so you think it must be saying something important. That's backwards. The discomfort becomes the "proof" of profundity, which is a circular argument if you actually think about it.

3. Would this film get the same treatment from an unknown director? Genuinely ask yourself that. If a first timer made this exact movie with this exact monster subplot, would critics be praising every strange choice as intentional, or would they say it needed an editor? Reputation is carrying a lot of the interpretation here.

4. The core story didn't need this much spectacle. A fractured family with replacement figures standing in for people who are gone is a story that's been told plenty of times without body horror. The horror makes it more uncomfortable to watch, sure, but discomfort isn't insight. A lot of this is spectacle sitting on top of a fairly ordinary emotional plot.

So genuinely, was this overdone, and did people over extrapolate meaning just because of who made it? Please argue with me instead of downvoting.

26M here. Growing up, I kept hearing the same line: tops are rarer, more in-demand, more "valued." But from my own experience, that hasn't really matched reality. I've never struggled to find partners, and most people I know on the receiving end don't seem to be starved for options either. The pool seems pretty varied across body types and looks, and most people seem to be getting their needs met just fine. What's also interesting is how fluid roles actually are over time. I know guys who were firmly one role when I first met them and have completely shifted or become versatile years later. Someone from my hometown who I'd have sworn was 100% one way turned out to be the opposite when I ran into him recently. There's also the whole "some guys date women to seem straight, then come back" pattern, which I think reflects more on social pressure than on any real preference, though that dynamic feels like it's slowly loosening up too. So, is the scarcity narrative actually true, or is it just something we repeat because we heard it growing up? Curious if others have noticed the same shift, especially in terms of role fluidity over time.