|
|
Post by nickconrad on May 13, 2009 17:09:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on May 14, 2009 22:46:52 GMT -5
im in the process of downloading it now!
|
|
|
|
Post by lazario on May 15, 2009 4:02:43 GMT -5
The characters look a hell of a lot better there than in most horror movies. But I have to say, the scenes of "horror" look boring and Cut & Paste from every other torture film this decade. 1. Someone in a stupid mask (Leslie Vernon, The Strangers). 2. People locked in dirty basement (Saw, Saw II, Wolf Creek, Hostel). 3. Group of weird older people (TCM Remake, TCM Prequel).
Like Eden Lake, I'm not interested enough to bother with this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on May 17, 2009 4:10:36 GMT -5
i liked it, it had a kept a good atmosphere throughout, the creepy kids where all good in there roles and it had some good gory and violent surprises, yes laz some of what was in it we have seen in other movies, but they did a good job with it here, plus nowadays what movie is completely original other then none, you cant hold something against a movie becuase you have seen it before
all 3 of your examples can be used in 100's of movies
the movie wasnt great, it wasnt 100% original, but it was good for what it was, check it out if you are interested nick, i dont think you will be disapointed
|
|
|
|
Post by lazario on May 27, 2009 9:20:25 GMT -5
"Good for what it was" isn't enough anymore. My advice is STILL for filmmakers to do something different. I'm not expecting perfect. DIFFERENT will be more than good enough for now. "Gfwiw" is code-word for: Same as everything else, but not completely bad. You know what Not-Completely-Bad is worth today? Nothing. At least - it's worth nothing if filmmakers aren't going to get a brain and realize that they should be sick of the styles and plots and the stuff they make the movies with are all the same and are producing films that are all the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on May 28, 2009 7:27:20 GMT -5
im easy to please, good for what it is is good enough for me
|
|
|
|
Post by lazario on May 30, 2009 4:31:22 GMT -5
Everyone knows how easy you are - stop publicizing it.
The genre needs and deserves better.
|
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on May 30, 2009 20:16:10 GMT -5
stop watching horror, ur not a fan, u just like to bitch and complain about shit, just keep watching ur "masterpieces" over and over again if you dont like new horror, other then the 80's the new age low budget dtv horror movies are my favs, they are fun time wasters, which is what i want in a movie
yes i like smart horror movies but there just arent many of them, i can accept that and get over it, but i love nothing more then a great smart horror movie
|
|
|
|
Post by lazario on Jun 2, 2009 2:52:46 GMT -5
You have no idea what horror is, T. You're not a fan if you can only name 4 movies from the 1970's, the greatest decade in the history of the genre, that you "like."
You're in no position to be criticizing me, you stain.
You're just sick of my honesty. Because you sold out long ago. Or, don't have the mental capacity to have ever understood the genre to begin with. You have no idea what you're talking about and I doubt you ever did.
Besides - you thought Saw was good. And no, I'm never going to forget that.
|
|
|
|
Post by tsmooth31 on Jun 2, 2009 6:17:36 GMT -5
ok im not gonna sit here and argue about opinion, i have done that enough, we all like what we like, if you cant deal with that yu can take ur fag ass somewhere else and find a cult of people who like ever single movie u do and feel the same way about movies u do, good like with that, u will just be banned and suspended like u have been everywhere else, im the only one who can put up wiith ur moronic statements and the idiodic way you think which is why u stick around
|
|
|
|
Post by nickconrad on Jun 8, 2009 18:25:32 GMT -5
Well I finally saw it. First of all, I think I've been pretty clear in the past about my worry that I am failing to see a non-serious movie as such. I have seen a couple sources say that this movie "clearly" was not meant to be taken seriously, and I really couldn't disagree more. I think this was really trying to go for the jugular. I'm going to get all long-winded and verbose on this because it had been so hyped to me that I naturally have a lot to say coming away from it.
I guess I can see this movie as having three parts which all neatly break up into roughly thirty minute sequences. I'll try my best not to give any spoilers.
The First thirty minutes:
I have to say the dialogue for this was just pretty awful in my opinion. It could have also been the fault of the sup-par-at-best acting, though. That, and at times I felt an urge to go back in time and get the crew a steady-cam for the woods scenes. Oh, by the way, it's a deep dark woods in the middle of nowhere. I have somehow got this inkling that I've seen that setting before. The character development for Robin and Jessica were terrible, as was the family tension that really just didn't seem to have any purpose other than to fill the first half hour with more of the aforementioned terrible dialogue. Also, there were several scenes of "SUDDEN CLOSEUP WITH LOUD MUSIC" that I really am getting tired of movies relying on. Luckily, though, this movie didn't rely on them. They were used instead to set a prologue sort of atmosphere, which I liked.
Coming away from the first third, I really did not think I would like this movie.
The Second Thirty Minutes:
The sudden action with loud noise has now been replaced with sudden appearances that we get more than half a second to deal with before the action occurs. The loud noise has faded completely by the time we get to this action, which all makes for a very different sort of horror scene that we usually see. I thought this was done pretty well if only because we were set up in the first third to expect one-second-maximum-length scares.
The death / violence scenes were what bothered me the most in this third. While the atmosphere is there, and the transition between drawn-out scenes (as mentioned above) between extremely fast cuts (which obviously are supposed to increase the viewer's heart rate immediately prior to a big scare) work fairly well, the actual death / violence is gory for gore's sake and simply don't fit with the rest of the movie. I'm sure some would say that this out-of-place feeling to them may make them all the more unnerving, but for me it was just disengaging.
As this third wears down, we have lost the sudden action altogether, and the startling moments are replaced entirely with the sight of the plague children. My problem with this is not the technique at all, but rather that I just didn't find the children in this third particularly frightening.
Coming out of the second third, I thought this movie had a chance.
The Final Thirty Minutes:
A new character is introduced, and, I think, it is done extremely well. Allusions to this character are once again out of place for the atmosphere, but at this point it has become an overall secondary atmosphere of discord and uncertainty that culminates in the appearance. Just as the sudden action with loud noise was what we were lead to expect, then pleasantly surprised, I expected things to seem out of place in a negative way towards the filmmakers at this point only to find myself in a far more enjoyably out-of-sync eeriness.
Sadly, this strong start is quickly abandoned in place of gore gore gore gore gore. Ah, but let's not forget to bring back all that awful non-development and terrible dialogue from act one so we can tie it all up into a nice little package. Suddenly, I am being let down. Hard. I think it is safe to say that there are two endings back to back for this movie. Frankly, the lead up to the first ending reminded me of all the reasons why I dislike where the genre has gone since and including Hostel. That being said, the first ending itself worked rather well for me.
The immediately following ending seems slapped on. There is the main theme (the only tolerable part of the soundtrack) along with wide shots that beg for a cut to black; however, we have a Stephen King-esque "I can't finish my story" dilemma. The second ending is just a couple of minutes long, tells a story we should already know, and then leaves us not with the main theme (which nice and eerie) to contemplate with the credits, but some bizarre techno endeavor.
Coming out of the third third, I felt a bit let down.
Overall:
I think the movie was strongest from the last half of the second third to the end of the new character's introduction in the third third. Aside from that piece, this movie was mediocre at best for me. The soundtrack was abhorrent aside from the short eerie xylophone main theme, the characters were poorly dialogued, acted, and developed, and frankly the motives provided for each "bad guy" are entirely inconsistent.
All this being said, I think what they were going for here was a return to the 70's ala Texas Chainsaw Massacre. That feeling certainly struck me several times while watching this; however, I don't think they managed to simultaneously escape the current situation the genre is in. That is, they attempted (very well, mind you) a throwback to one of the classics of our age, but still could not cast off the damage caused by Hostel (which I see as the beginning of a free fall for the genre).
I'd give the movie a 2/5 or a 5/10. It is worth a watch so long as you expect almost nothing. In some ways I think the first third provides that for you, so maybe this will actually be worth it to anyone and everyone. Who knows.
Phew, all that and I still have 54,000 characters remaining?
|
|
