VidMate
Free YouTube video & music downloader
ACTOR
Jimmi SimpsonMary McCormackShaunette Renée WilsonMaggie LawsonStephanie BeatrizJulianna GuillMichael WestonAmanda WalshSutton FosterCass BuggéSophia Del PizzoNancy Linehan Charles
DIRECTOR
James Roday
SYNOPSICS
Into the Dark: Treehouse (2019) is a English movie. James Roday has directed this movie. Jimmi Simpson,Mary McCormack,Shaunette Renée Wilson,Maggie Lawson,Stephanie Beatriz,Julianna Guill,Michael Weston,Amanda Walsh,Sutton Foster,Cass Buggé,Sophia Del Pizzo,Nancy Linehan Charles are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2019. Into the Dark: Treehouse (2019) is considered one of the best Horror movie in India and around the world.
Celebrity chef Peter Rake tries to escape a recent wave of negative tabloid exposure by moving away to his family's vacation estate in the woods, but the ghosts of his past are everywhere and debts will be settled.
Into the Dark: Treehouse (2019) Reviews
Terrible. Terrible. Terrible
Just joined IMDB to say this is a terrible movie. Please dont waste your time. Dont even give it a chance
Hilariously awful "allegory"
A ridiculous script really kills this film. Pointless plot developments galore. Annoying camera work - don't use a drone when it isn't necessary. Stop moving the camera back and forth for no reason. The location - a contemporary builder home is NOT "old money." The lead actor is, what, 44? We are supposed to believe that he grew up THERE? It looks to be a fairly recent construction. That is a tacky "new money" house, like the millions popping up everywhere. Plot - why is the "father" even really mentioned? Oh, because he was a "bad" man? Wait, he fathered the totally unnecessary bait shop character. "Ags" - whatever. Her (semi?) blindness "represents" past generations of women? (Yes, I remember her speech.) The "#metoo" symbolism is just hammered away - ridiculously. As if the sister DA is really gonna help with all of the charade. Perhaps I wasn't listening carefully enough. Beyond the Kara/Becca link - what's the deal with the other women? And DON'T tack on a meaningless last-second shot, that basically renders your major plot point moot, or confusing. So, including subtle references to Gordon Ramsay makes this any more relevant? HE isn't the famous chef accused of abusing his female workers. ("SVU" dealt with THAT chef in one of their "ripped from the headlines" episodes.) Also, the constant reference to the cutting of male genitalia is not "feminist" in nature. I know, it's a potential reference to the violence directed at women in older horror films. But, in this case, it kind of messes with the intent. If this is any indication of what the other episodes of the "Into the Dark" film series is like, I won't be wasting my time.
I created an IMBD account just to rate this
This movie was terrible. It was clearly going to a funny, edgy, political commentary vibe but oh sweet summer child did it fail. I can sit through just about anything but I had to turn this off.
Very lame.
Makes the #MeToo movement look like crazy BS. It makes me sad that this movie was made because it really discredits those women that had real problems and came forward in a mature respectful way. This makes women look crazy and makes a joke out of everything #MeToo
Can't we just have something for entertainment value and not be preached at
Every single day we are inundated with political messaging from one group or another. We have reached a point in entertainment where almost nothing can be for just flat out entertainment purposes as if every director, writer, actor, and producer feels the need to ingrain some sort of political message within their work. The reality is, if I want to hear a political position I will tune into CNN. Otherwise I just want to be entertained. I don't need a 90 minute movie/show to be a moral authority to me. I didn't want to sit back, relax, and have 90 minutes of propaganda shoved down my throat. Not to mention some of the crap they said was just flat-out inaccurate. The Puerto Rican woman says that women in Puerto Rico had all of these rights before they became a part of the US. The reality is that Puerto Rico was part of the Spanish Colonies before and they were part of the US and had very few rights as Spanish subjects. They actually got more rights after they became part of the US and especially as a result of Women's Suffrage rights. Perhaps the indigenous women of Puerto Rico had more freedoms, but that change would have been a result of Spanish colonization and nothing to do with the US.So if they are going to try to make a moral point with a lesson on history, they should at least take the time to make sure the history they are giving is accurate.