really... there's nothing in it that would even come close to one! :/ the movie wasn't that bad tho! i thought it was pretty cool. wtf is up with that hair?? soo funny!!
and the cover is way off too.. it doesnt have anything to do with it!
You're right, it's not a horror but to me, as I think to you, is good. I liked it.
All the weird elements make this movie unique, especially the very beginning, during the car accident when we also see the transfigured face of Julie.
The cover has nothing to do with the movie itself except the hint of danger, and probably death in the end.
But again, that makes it cool.
Doesn't it?
Rachel's hair is horrifying, don't you think?
shareIf you watch enough '70s horror, a lot of them were like this. More about the supernatural and more mysterious than overt.
shareWell, the thing is, back when this was made (for a long time actually), the popular term for "scary movie" was "Thriller". That's what they were all called throughout my childhood. You never really ever would hear the term "Horror". Then slowly throughout the 80s the term for all "scary movies" slowly evolved into "Horror". So now that's what all scary movies, both old and new, are called now. But the proper term for this movie really is "Thriller".
April151CT
The current poster seems OK and not misleading. This is mild horror which I watch quite a lot of. And Wes Craven is the director. So it will have appeal to horror fans.
share