LOVE IT or HATE IT ???


hei everyone...be sure to check out this thread on the main horror board...

http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000024/thread/37909477

thanks...wtb...ftv...justin....

reply


Whats up with the silly title?

If you wanted to create a serious horror then you would drop the "*Certifiable Crazy Person" from the title. Unless you were creating a black comedy.


reply

Have you seen the movie? The title really says it all...if the movie had been called simply "KatieBird" people wouldn't even know anything about this film unless they actually saw it...the title is the most basic way to inform your audience and help them make a choice...but...hmmm...is it a comedy? well...we've had many screenings, and there are always at least a few sickos in the crowd that seem to get a real kick out of all the mayhem...but then again, there are others that just come away dumbstruck, appalled, angry, disturbed, annnoyed or any other of a range of emotions...for me, the title is an alert to fans that this movie is completely unusual and not a straightforward film that can be easily categorized...some, like you, think the title has a comic ring, while others find it ominous - and still others, like the old man that I met a recently (a retired psychiatrist) who thought the title was wholly intriguing and led him to believe that a very deep character study was about to unfold...so..have a look and make your own choice - regardless of what you decide, you won't be wrong ;)

...wishing the best...from the void...justin.paul.ritter...creator of KatieBird...

http://www.katiebirdthemovie.com

reply

I understand what you're saying, especially as this is your creation, but I have to agree that adding "certifiable crazy person" onto the title did nothing to encourage me to rent it, I though it gave it a tacky, lowbrow look. Fortunately, I'd read some great reviews, so didn't really care what it was called. "certifiable crazy person" sounds like gibberish that you'd hear a drunken bum tossing around, not like real psychiatric terminology, or even a term that anyone with over a 7th grade education would ever use to describe someone; actually, sounds like something you'd hear on Jerry Springer...... "Certifiably insane" or "certifiable psychopath" would have made a bit more sense to me, though I think "KatieBird" is fine by itself, a title shouldn't have to tell you everything about at movie, and very rarely does anyone see a movie based soley on it's title (though in my case, it can certainly persuade me not to rent it). I usually go by reviews, trailers, box art and description. Look at it this way, would "Taxi Driver" have been more successful if it had "schizophrenic insane guy" tacked onto the title?

Ah, anyway, just my miserable blood-encrusted two cents, just an opinion, not an attack on your work, that I congratulate you on. I'm just an opinionated, obsessive MF......

reply

Okay, just because I was laughing at some points, doesn't mean I'm a sicko. It simply means that I'm disturbed.

reply

The Name: Well, "Certifiable Crazy Person" beats "S.I.C.K. - Serial Insane Clown Killer" and does give the title a rustic feel.

Story: I could have used a little more introduction, especially with the background of Dr. Richardson. The relatively few characters and the lack of action made the pace a little slow. The sparseness made the whole thing a little theater-like. The concept is good. Between the Bad Seed theory and its polar opposite, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I thought the idea of familial killing to be pretty played out. KatieBird put some new life into the idea.

Actors: The three actresses who played the various ages of KatieBird were well-chosen. Todd Gordon didn't "feel" like a doctor. Part of this was the dialogue he had, but ... he just seemed like someone who would be more comfortable selling cocaine than solving people's emotional issues. Lee Perkins was great and sold his role as caring father teaching his daughter family wisdom (which just happens to be torture and murder). Definitely the stand-out performance.

Score: Not since Basic Instinct have so I wished for a separate track for the score that I might lessen, or entirely eliminate, the soundtrack. Annoying, without perceptible theme, and distracting, it could have been used more sparingly. It just sounded like an intro to a *beep* tune, over and over. Granted, the composer definitely worked with the pace of the movie well, and the softer acoustic bits were welcome, but otherwise ... I plan on popping the score CD out of the case, with gloves, and ritually burning it on my grill.

Nudity: Wished we had some. If it was there, I must have blinked.

Visual Clarity: Between the dim lighting and the blue filter overlaying a good portion of the film, I felt like I was watching the scene from In the Mouth of Madness where Sutter Cane remarks that his favorite color was blue. The camera work was a trifle unsteady in a few spots, but otherwise great. The angles were unsettling, as they should be. Good use of handheld in some spots.

Sound: Good foley where appropriate, although the outdoors shots felt a little empty. Some of the dialogue was obscured by the aforementioned score.

F/X: Pretty good movie blood, definitely not the "splash of red dye in Karo syrup" that is used so much these days. Good job on the doc on the end.

Editing: The editing itself was pretty snappy, not a wasted frame in there. As other posters have remarked, the constant use of split screens was very distracting. It might have been better confined to periods of intense emotion, or when a lot of information needed to be conferred at once.

Credits: Rock. Great way to finish up the story.

The movie looks wonderful for what has been indicated to be a very, very minimal budget. Overall, interesting. Defnitely not for your exploding head gorehound friends, more for the folks who liked unsettling the relentless Guinea Pig films, or those who have a more arthouse bent.

reply