why such a low rating??


A 5.6?? That's crazy, this is one of Steven King's (and Tim Hutton's) best. Undoubtedly Romero helped. No one has any taste.

reply

i've always loved this movie. and i still like it, no matter what anyone says :)



"I reject your reality and substitute my own" :)

reply

That is much underrated.

reply

I really liked this movie too. I thought it was a pretty good adaptation to Stephan Kings book. It could have been better, but I still liked it. It's also one of Timothy Huttons best performances.

reply

[deleted]

The movie is so frightfully underrated! So goddamn stylish, terrific acting from Tim Hutton, awesome scenery, and a wonderful scary mood from Romero, one of my alltime favorite movies!!!

reply


You said it, Salvin. I have always been baffled by how underrated this movie has been, even among horror fans. BTW, I want to say that I was especially impressed by Amy Madigan's performance as well as Hutton's. And it was a treat to see Julie Harris while she was still well.

Ozy

And I stood where I did be; for there was no more use to run; And again I lookt with my hope gone.

reply

I'm puzzled by the low rating also. This film has an excellent cast and relies on character development instead of special effects. Timothy Hutton continued to stretch himself after winning the Oscar for "Ordinary People," and he deserves more respect for films like this. 8 stars out of 10.

reply

[deleted]

Hi, NancyStrode: Glad you appreciated Timothy Hutton's fine performance here!

reply

5.9 now. It's kinda fair, I think this movie deserves a vote between 6 and 7.

Boycott movies that involve real animal violence! (and their directors too)

reply

Many things were wrong with this movie:

1. Amy Madigan, the actress who played Thad's wife, didn't come across as feminine or sympathetic at all. Throughout the entire movie she had this hard, silent bitchy expression that could turn boiling water into ice cubes. I kept wondering, "Is the director forcing her to be in this movie at gun point?" Then there were her clothes: they were usually drab-colored with blue, brown, green, and grey, while the actual tailoring utterly lack femininity. The clothes seemed more fitting for men than a female. At the beginning of the movie she's wearing jeans and a purple sweater over her apron. Who puts a sweater on over an apron? Here's what they should have done: gotten a sympathetic, appealing, and feminine actress. When Beaumont tied Thad's wife to the chair, she still had that silent bitchy expression that utterly lacks femininity. A better actress would have carried that scene with tears, whimpering, pleading, and a look of fear but not come across as whiny or annoying. A better actress would have looked like a real damsel in distress that would have created a sense of urgency and suspense.

2. The unrealistic portrayal of police behavior made the movie lose credibility. I understand as horror fans we can suspend our disbelief for things like zombies and aliens. But certain horror movies, including supernatural ones, actually work better when they stay as realistic as possible. I'm not an expert on police procedure, but the police in this movie didn't act like police in any way. Doing stuff like not arresting Thad and not properly checking the apartment were ridiculous. Here's what they should have done: have the police act as realistically as possible. They arrest Thad and it creates tension between him, his wife, and his cop friend. Thad is released when Stark kills again but Thad's fingerprints are found at the murder scene while he's in jail. The police don't know what to make of it and they start tailing him and it ruins his life. The cop slowly begins to feel his friend is guilty as evidence against him mounts. But then the cop slowly feels his friend is innocent as he sees more evidence to prove Thad's innocence. The movie could have done so much with this storyline about losing trust in friends; Thad's breakdown as he finds the cops hounding him is ruining his life; and Stark's sadistic pleasure from ruining Thad.

3. The movie lacked atmosphere: no real suspense; thrills; or mystery. Some of the kills were too abrupt, like the doctor and the guy in his apartment. They should have done a lot to lead up to the kills instead of had Stark appear, slash them, and then walk off. I also felt they should have kept who was behind the kills a mystery until it got closer to the end.

4. The sparrows were unnecessary. I felt the birds just made the movie more weird than it should have been. The movie should have just been between Thad and Stark where Thad kills Stark after a long showdown. That would have been much better.

5. The movie was too high glossy and the story was too watered down. This is the main problem with most major Hollywood films since the 90s, they were too sanitized and watered down in order to reach the general public, rather than being as chilling as possible for those interested in the horror genre.

reply

While I don't think this film is Romero's best, I certainly think it is a good one. Probably that director's last good one.

@ Davanna Carter........ While I understand part of your reasoning for your # in saying she is bad actress. That's subjective, I think she's passable, but I admit her performance-- perhaps because of her thin character-- is certainly not like Hutton's, who in my opinion gives one of the better Jekyll and Hyde performances that I have ever seen.

However, while i don't think it was your intention, your use of 'femininity' and how you seem to accidentally connect it to the stereotypical attractive damsel-in-distress is honestly somewhat offensive whether you are male, like me, and perhaps even more-so if you are female. I will also say if she played that typical character it would probably even been more of a generic performance, as we often see that type in the movies.

Your #2 reason is interesting, and in some ways I agree that would have been better. However, I will say this: It's best when critiquing films not to go in it as what they should have done or what you would have done. It's what WAS done. Being a writer myself, I admit it's hard to separate my imagination from someone else, however, in constructive criticism you have to because you can play that game all damn day with anything and it gets nowhere. It also comes off as hypocritical and arrogant, as if saying you can do it better than someone else. Maybe you can, and while most artists will then just say: "If you think you can do it better than me, then actually do it"..... I won't be that mean, but it's best to think critically in terms of how the writer/filmmaker is telling the story and how their technique enhances or handicaps the film.


All but the last sentence of your #3 is good. I agree with you, the kills are pretty abrupt. That's actually my problem with it, as well. Your last sentence could have very much turned into a cliche if they did it like that though (See that, I am using your own creativity against you.)


Your #4 is too vague. What does 'weird' mean? And why were the sparrows unnecessary? You have to be critical and think: "Why were these used here?" "What is this element doing in the story?" "What does the film use these birds as a symbol of?" If your answer is still no, go into more detail.

I also agree with you in essence to your #5, but again, that's very vague. What do you mean by "Too Glossy" and "Watered Down?" What elements make them such? Also what makes a film, as you say, "As chilling as possible."

reply

Merry Christmas ngs091,

Regarding #1, I think when a central character in the story is passable, it's a bad thing. A central character should help carry a story since good characters make or break stories. The problem is Hutton broke the story. She elicits no sympathy whatsoever. I understand I may have sounded stereotypical when I mentioned how a damsel-in-distress would have been better, but I wasn't intending to. When the woman was getting slashed in her apartment by Stark, I found her much more sympathetic and had a greater damsel in distress appeal than Thad's wife. She managed to carry that scene and really engage me to the point where I looked past her age. By contrast, Thad's wife was closed off through out the movie. If a woman is tied to a chair while a brutal killer is threatening her and her family, she is not going to sit there stoney-faced and tepid. She's going to be scared out of her mind. But for Thad's wife to just sit there as if she's bored, it kills the sense of urgency and suspense that could have been a truly great scene.

Her lack of emotions and silent bitchy expression really sucked the life out of the movie. Plus, I couldn't get around the idea that Thad and her were a loving couple. Am I the only one who felt they had zero chemistry? I highly doubt an easygoing guy like Thad would be attracted to such a closed off woman. I'm amazed how all the other female characters had such little time but broke immensely more warmth and life into their roles than Hutton. Check out the police officer's wife: her feminine clothes and concerned demeanor arouse much more sympathy than Thad's wife despite the police officer's wife having so little screen time.

Regarding #2, personally, I like to think about what a movie could have been when I recognize elements in the story that hindered it. It helps me pinpoint why the movie failed. And, as a *coughprocrastinatingcough* writer myself, I like to dream up what a movie could have been to give me ideas for future stories.

Regarding #3, I think I might revise my assessment on this. The filmmakers could have waited to show Stark or shown him early on like they did in the movie, and they could have done it well. I guess I was just pulling that idea of keeping his identity hidden to bring out my ideas on why this movie didn't work.

Regarding #4, I think the sparrows were weird in the sense that they threw off the atmosphere of the movie. Let me use a movie we've both seen to illustrate my point: High Plains Drifter. The movie is already a supernatural western and you are able to suspend your disbelief for it. And you expect the stranger to have a showdown with the 3 outlaws by himself. But then, out of nowhere, werewolves come and kill the 3 outlaws and the suspenseful showdown doesn't really occur. Then you'd be left wondering, "Huh? Those werewolves threw off the atmosphere of the whole movie. That's a weird way to end your movie."

This is the way I felt with the sparrows in this movie. I expected Thad and Stark to have a suspenseful and tense showdown. But then the sparrows showed up and threw off the atmosphere. Just the same way werewolves at the end of High Plains Drifter would do. That's what I mean by the sparrows are weird and unnecessary.

Regarding #5, I felt the cinematography and lighting were too bright. It would have been better with some grain and a less warmly-colored atmosphere. Plus, the music was kind of off. Sometimes things like lighting, cinematography, and music can really do wonders to make a thriller good. The cinematography, camera movement, camera angles, lighting, music, etc. really help to bring out a noticeably raw atmosphere in a movie like Argento's Opera in comparison to the Dark Half, which has all the same feel of a major Hollywood drama or comedy. If you took out the graphic depiction of the killings and the shots of dead bodies, the Dark Half could have been a PG-13 movie in terms of atmosphere.

reply

Merry Christmas to you, too! I truly hope my post didn't come off as an attack. I just wanted to pick your brain. I read many views and reviews on here and other websites that seem to be leaden, from people who give criticism but can't take it. I get fed up with it on this website and other websites and sometimes challenge people's opinions. Usually, I get really nasty responses, so I want to seriously thank you for giving a nice and sweet response.

I am an aspiring author myself, so I want to first say... Keep Writing!

As far as your above post for #1 is concerned, you nearly convinced me now, haha. Good point about them not having chemistry together, I agree.

I agree with you on #2, as well. Seeing what works and does not work helps one learn how to write, much better. While I think one should stay away from that in a review, then again, this is a message board and does not necessarily have to be fool-proof constructive always... so anything goes.

For #5, I don't agree with you but I do see where you are coming from better.

For #4: I agree it was a 'weird' ending in terms of being untypical. But I guess that's why I have grown to like it. I will say the birds did not come out of nowhere: they were used in the beginning and used as a part of Thad's psychosis, as well. There was also a scene with Thad at the library concerning their meaning.


Anyway, have a great X-mas, and thanks again for the proper response.

Best, Nick S.



P.S. I saw you posted on Larry Fessenden's Beneath, right below one of my posts.

(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2325518/board/thread/230113731?d=237207862#237207862)

Honestly, that post directed me here. I saw you don't like that director that much, haha. I would love to debate that with you when you can. He's one of my favorite underrated horror directors. Until then though..... have a great holiday!



reply

[deleted]

[deleted]