the acting is horrible, the script sucks, and i can't beleive I wasted an hour and a half of my life watching it. There is absolutely nothing redeeming about this film and I constantly wanted to change the channel but I could not find the remote. A vomitarium of a flick that makes me wonder about the people who think movies like wendigo are a good idea!
share[deleted]
I'll tell you another reason it sucked. It was nothing like the book. The book was set in British Columbia and the Wendigo attacked a hunting party. The author Algernon Blackwell would be severely disappointed in this film.
If you are going to steal a title from a horror story you should at least keep to the that story. As far as all the PC undertones about hunting and family they have no place in this story as it were written in a different era of history and therefore were not intended to be a message in it.
>The author Algernon Blackwell would be severely disappointed in this film.
It's Blackwood, not Blackwell. The film in question is not based on that story, although it may have been indirectly influenced by it. There have been many wendigo/windigo stories, movies, comics, etc over the years. Another interesting one, also not based on the Blackwood story, is called Ghostkeeper.
-CV
This film, while it shares a title with the novel, is NOT BASED ON IT. Titles are not copyrightable, and thus can be used by whomever wants to.
shareI would have to respectfully disagree. I am both a fan of subtle, thought-provoking films and all-out horror films (or both when you find them). But to say this was not a horror film is disingenuous. There were times where you were definitely supposed to feel scared and times where Fessenden did an ok job of building up a feeling of dread and creepiness. But whether you call it a horror film or a drama about family, either way it still failed. I would disagree with the OP and say the acting was fine in this film, but I would agree that the script left a bit to be desired. Just like with Habit, Fessenden starts with an interesting premise and does not know where to go with it, so he drags the audience along hoping for a worthwhile movie-viewing experience and in both cases your are left with a pretty disappoining experience instead.
There's a monster outside my room, can I have a glass of water?
[deleted]
Punctuation, syntax and proper usage, my friend.
Is English your first language?
More people might take your opinion more seriously if you could express your thoughts in a manner that warrants serious consideration.
This film was beautiful, and haunting, and if you dont like it go watch some slasher crap like chucky or scream and shut up.
shareI'm with you.
It WAS haunting. Not horror, but it had elements of psychological horror. If you want a genre film, there are plenty to choose from.
This was a bit more thoughtful, more ambiguous, less pat than a straight up horror movie. Its one of the best movies I've seen in the last few months in use of the camera, effects used to create a mood, scripting, editing, and Patricia Clarkson is ALWAYS a treat. I thought I was going to be watching cheesy horror, since it was on IFC's Grindhouse. While I like cheesy horror, this turned out to be something more substantive, a real unexpected treat.
Of course, it's always easy to post "It Sucks" when confronted with something you didn't expect.
[deleted]
Well, at least Clarkson had an amazing scene in the hospital.
shareI have mixed thoughts about this movie, but you gotta admit the ending is pretty chilling
R.O.D the tv...nuff said
Yeah it does suck. I kept laughing every time they showed the damn thing it was hilarious! I mean come on a wendigo is supposed to be a monstrous looking thing not a stupid looking deer lol.
Harry Potter can kiss my ass!-The Covenant
Just because they do not present a scaly monster with big teeth and bloodlust does not make this a bad movie. It makes me angry to hear people wanting some spiritual legend to be something it's not. There are MANY representations of a Wendigo and I believe that it was creative to make something new. Yes, it was not a conventional beast, but when our society is massively obsessed with predictable monsters I commend this film for coming up with something original. The cinematography and effects make it sufficiently frightening and if you don't like it, then just turn the channel.
shareThe monster ruined all fear and suspense that this movie had built up for me. To me it just looked like a couple of bad shots of a cheap costume. Yes, society generally looks for stereotype monsters, and it is cool they went out of the norm, but I think they would have done better to choose something else. I can't see something that resmembles of a deer that closely as scary. Deer are gentle and timid and I just can't put that together with scary
sharethe director says it best http://youtube.com/watch?v=tf9ZwGS0My0
share[deleted]
Hey, I loved it. A beastie that rises from tragedy, confrontation, ill will, and is satiated by revenge. To top it off, it's unconventional as all hell to look at. Creepier than any of the pus-oozing or gore-dripping nasties I've seen in any of 2006's Summer splatterfests.
shareunconventional is right. In some strange way, I could actually sit through it. Sure it may have been unorthodoxed (unintentionally funny) at points, but it was different. Would you have rather preferred blood, gore, gore, slasher, blood?
shareThe directing is what made this movie horrible. I found this to be the worst movie I have ever watched. The script was fine, the acting ok, the directing was distracting from everything else.......
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]