 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
108.81.116.219
Much ado, my friends. Just move along. The critics who gave it a red tamater must be under 30. You have seen this all before: A fully unexplained terror only the victim can see who cannot find any reasonable answer to the threat.
Did I say terror? I ain't afraid of no unknown boogie person who comes at me in the nude. Uh-uh. The film is one unending pregnant pause that depends on slow, if not static, scenes filled with either sparse tones or electronica reminiscent of the 80's. All done at well above normal soundtrack level. I suppose the sound track was to fill in for all the pregnancy.
It seems Jay got herself a date with a guy she thought was kind of cool. On the second date they go parking, have sex, and Jay ends up chloroformed and tied to a chair. Jake has somehow passed "IT" to Jay via copulation. Jake tells her to run from what she only sees and pass it to someone else. If IT catches her she will die. Most of the film is spent running away or languishing in bed or on sofa's afraid. Jay finally has sex with the neighborhood boy who has a long-term crush on her and we wait to see the result . . .
Obviously, I am less than enthusiastic about this work of art. High volume levels and some artsy composition do have a mild effect but not what they were shooting for I'm sure.
Oddly, this is a big screen movie. The only way you will come close to being "stimulated" is to experience this BIG. Viewing at home I think this wll get lost and be a terribly different film.
Now that I have polluted you opinions go buy the BD. 8^)
Follow Ups:
I think it was a decent horror movie actually.
The idea was decent, and the acting was fine.
The special effects while sparse, were okay.
Part of the problem is that the people in the movie were not complete idiots, like they are in most horror movies.
(I kind of think that is why we like horror movies; so we, as the audience, can point out the stupid things that the victims do. In this movie, that was a bit harder to do, as what they did was not completely idiotic.)
The real problem was that there were just not enough scares in the movie. They only had two deaths, one of which was in the first few minutes, (and you did not even see the girl getting killed, just the aftermath).
The idea that the entity could be anybody was a good one, (which they did not take too much advantage of, IMHO).
(The fact that it could be naked people was neither good, nor bad, it just was.)
I don't think it was a great horror movie, but I enjoyed it, as did my daughter.
(And apparently 95% of the critics did too.
But then again, what do most critics know about good horror movies?!)
My two cents worth.
...the Babadook?
Description reminds me of it - highly rated by the critics - not so much by me.
Since Blair Witch (probably the most profitable movie ever made) there has been an overwhelming movement of "do nothing" horror films. Look at all the "Paranormal's" for instance. Or the "VHS" films. No name actors, limited sets and art directions, and a budget Vinnie the loan shark would approve.
My most recent favorite "scary movie" is 'Sinister' which is a first cousin to the 'Insidious' franchise. I remember how exhausting the original 'Chainsaw' was and regret that almost no movie has been able to reproduce that level of adrenaline high. I haven't seen the latest Roth film in the Amazon so I'm not sure what its adrenaline factor is--looks like it could be pretty high.
I concur- Sinister, was very well done!
Nt
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
