Totenkindly
@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 50,243
- MBTI Type
- BELF
- Enneagram
- 594
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
This horror flick just came out in limited release. I had been curious to see it when I heard about it (it's a hand-held / found footage anthology-style movie), it had scored high on Rotten Tomatoes at first, but now is just in the high 50's. Unfortunately, it was not showing anywhere in Baltimore; however, I happened to see that my PS3 had it out for home rental, and I was bored last night, so....
I understand why it was in the high 50%'s. Parts of it were intriguing, but on the whole it was underwhelming. I wouldn't say portions of it weren't worth seeing though.
I don't want to spoil the details of the movie. Basically there's a video sequence that is continually revisited, and there are five other segments (all shot by different directors, with different casts) that are within the larger overall arc. However, one weakness of the movie is that -- despite that framework -- none of the clips are really related to each other. I think the movie would have been more interesting if there had been a thru-line of some sort that tied together all the clips.
Another weakness is that, maybe each on their own, the clips would not seem repetitive; however, there's only a certain number of times in a row you can watch characters get mangled and killed by creepy crap. They all seem to end poorly. (My favorite segment was the first clip, with the guys who go out to pick up girls while wearing the spectacles camera. ) The writing and directing seems to vary in quality from segment to segment.
Finally, I have to bitch about the hand-held cam on some segments -- it's probably the most jittery and unstable cam shots I've seen in a movie, to the point of making the opening sequence almost unwatchable. At some point, you need to sacrifice realism for actually telling a story; the camera's lack of focus and bouncing all over the place did not help the audience feel like they were "there in the story," it just felt like crappy camera-manship and made it really hard to watch the first ten minutes of the movie. I was glad when things settled and other directors started doing their clips.
But let's get into strengths. Although they overdid the bouncy cam in spots, the movie generally played into the "found footage" genre strengths -- a few of the directors really knew how to use it to their advantage, how to limit lighting, control what the audience could see and not see, used distortion appropriately, etc.
Also, having shorter clips means that they could hit an idea and then drop it within a short period of time, rather than letting it go too long. Some of the ideas aren't worth a whole movie; however, they worked well in the shorter format.
Finally, most of the actors were at least competent for being no names. And there is one actress in particular (and you might notice this in the first minute or two when you see her) who was perfectly cast in terms of appearance and ability, and is as creepy and intriguing as hell. I don't know who she is, I've never seen her before, but she played her part perfectly. She was just very unsettling. It was one of those performances where she didn't even seem to be acting, she seemed to actually be her character -- very unnerving.
Anyway, I wouldn't pay money for this in a theater. I think it's definitely a Redbox thing, if you're into this kind of horror flick.
I understand why it was in the high 50%'s. Parts of it were intriguing, but on the whole it was underwhelming. I wouldn't say portions of it weren't worth seeing though.
I don't want to spoil the details of the movie. Basically there's a video sequence that is continually revisited, and there are five other segments (all shot by different directors, with different casts) that are within the larger overall arc. However, one weakness of the movie is that -- despite that framework -- none of the clips are really related to each other. I think the movie would have been more interesting if there had been a thru-line of some sort that tied together all the clips.
Another weakness is that, maybe each on their own, the clips would not seem repetitive; however, there's only a certain number of times in a row you can watch characters get mangled and killed by creepy crap. They all seem to end poorly. (My favorite segment was the first clip, with the guys who go out to pick up girls while wearing the spectacles camera. ) The writing and directing seems to vary in quality from segment to segment.
Finally, I have to bitch about the hand-held cam on some segments -- it's probably the most jittery and unstable cam shots I've seen in a movie, to the point of making the opening sequence almost unwatchable. At some point, you need to sacrifice realism for actually telling a story; the camera's lack of focus and bouncing all over the place did not help the audience feel like they were "there in the story," it just felt like crappy camera-manship and made it really hard to watch the first ten minutes of the movie. I was glad when things settled and other directors started doing their clips.
But let's get into strengths. Although they overdid the bouncy cam in spots, the movie generally played into the "found footage" genre strengths -- a few of the directors really knew how to use it to their advantage, how to limit lighting, control what the audience could see and not see, used distortion appropriately, etc.
Also, having shorter clips means that they could hit an idea and then drop it within a short period of time, rather than letting it go too long. Some of the ideas aren't worth a whole movie; however, they worked well in the shorter format.
Finally, most of the actors were at least competent for being no names. And there is one actress in particular (and you might notice this in the first minute or two when you see her) who was perfectly cast in terms of appearance and ability, and is as creepy and intriguing as hell. I don't know who she is, I've never seen her before, but she played her part perfectly. She was just very unsettling. It was one of those performances where she didn't even seem to be acting, she seemed to actually be her character -- very unnerving.
Anyway, I wouldn't pay money for this in a theater. I think it's definitely a Redbox thing, if you're into this kind of horror flick.
