MovieChat Forums > The Marsh (2007) Discussion > This movie was excellent! How can you al...

This movie was excellent! How can you all think it's so bad?

posted 16 years ago by Padwanna
14 replies | jump to latest

Normally I trust and respect the opinions of my fellow IMDB community members. Only on very rare cinematic occasions do we diverge to any great length, and it seems The Marsh is definitely one of them.

I can't believe how badly this film is getting slated; the acting, the story, the plot twists, and the ending. Seriously I couldn't disagree more! This film was excellent! I almost missed this fine film on account of the very low score it got from everyone else.

For a horror movie it sure delivered. It was genuinely scarey, and had your heart beating fast at times wondering what was the hell was going to happen next. I won't say this movie was something totally original, because all of the story elements have been done before, but that did not make this movie predictably boring. On the contrary, the strong personalities really shone through, from both Gabrielle Anwar, and Forest Whittaker. Actually it was Mr Whittaker in my opinion that made a great performance as the pyschic investigator who comes to be Gabrielle's emotional support with the marsh ordeal, and her life.

All in all, I gave this movie an 8 for the entertainment and scare factor. Okay, it definitely wasn't up there with the Japanese version of The Grudge, or the US remake of The Ring with Naomi Watts, but it's certainly a good scare flick, and well worth watching, without predjudice.

If you haven't seen it, then do yourself a favour and rent it with a friend and some popcorn, and sit back and wait to be feared! You won't be dissapointed!

Padwanna!

---
The internet has the ability to turn sane people into ranting fools!

[–] forrest4e 16 years ago

Okay, I'll admit that this movie was kind of scary and it did have me wondering what the hell would happen next. The problem is that I was also wondering what the hell was wrong with the story, and why is none of this making sense. Someone else said it all fell apart during the third act and it did. I was left wondering, "why didn't anyone miss those two girls?" When Mercy went home that night didn't anyone ask about them? It was this sort of crap where the filmmakers don't think anything through and they expect us as audience members not to think at all, just absorb what they're showing us, that made this movie crap. So, I'll give you the scary, Padwanna, but excellent? Ummmm, I don't think anyone is going to agree with you on that one.

[–] nray07 16 years ago

Everyone keeps saying that noone looked for the little girls, but they did. There was a scene where the editor mentioned people going looking for the little girl and they ended up missing and after a while the marsh was labeled as a bad omen or something to that affect. So, it does make sense.

It all made sense to me. Well, except for the part where he was talking to his mother. I think that scene wasn't made to make sense as far as what they were talking about, but to just show you that he was abused and possibly how he was abused (stick it up his ***.. he possibly hid whatever she used to abuse him with?). And by showing that, it clued you in on possibly what he did to the little girl (raped/murdered her).

It seems that wherever the little girl is, Brenden is too. So, I don't think the little dead girl killed the store clerk, mercy, or the editor, but instead that Brenden kill them. He is, after all, the poltergeist in this film.

I'm not entirely certain where her parents were at that time. She said that Rose was looking out for them. Rose was the little girl and I think she meant that Rose looked out for her by not telling Brenden where she was. Mercy could very well have just been the babysitter. The parents could've died after that trying to leave town and get away from all the tragedy. I'm not sure why that matters so much. It's obvious they weren't involved in this situation and at some point they die. Why does it matter when?

I agree with the original poster.. this was a great scary movie. MUCH better than some of the ones I've seen lately. You think this doesn't make sense??? Please. It seems like every scary movie that comes out lately makes absolutely no sense at all. I was on the edge of my seat for the whole duration of this movie and it even made me jump several times. It explains everything if you pay attention to all the details. Some of the comments I made above were in response to some of the other "confused" threads that I've read.

Anyway, it was a great movie. Definitely worth watching!!

Hope that helped some.

[–] Moviestar-81 16 years ago

Yes, i think it good, too. The cript is aceptable. I'm so tired with the same "tone" likes car broken or camping in a wild place. Not bad! Good acting, too. Forest is a good actor.

[–] EndLessMike2 16 years ago

Good movie and very creepy.Forrest Witaker knows his scripts.

SAVE INVASION http://www.petitiononline.com/33030/petition.html

[–] anfer 16 years ago

No ofense, Padwanna, but this movie is really really bad. Being a Communications student, in university I've learnt some basic rules for cinema. First, the script. You can't make a good movie if you don't have a good script. The Marsh is a terrible story, so cliched and predictable. The characters have no life, no personality, they seem to be going nowhere. Another is the direction. There are a lot of continuity and audio mistakes!

[–] Padwanna 16 years ago

Hi Anfer,

Thanks for your comments.

I think if you break down the movie into it's technical parts, then you're going to be able to find a lot of things wrong with it. Especially if have training in the technical aspects of filmmaking. But two things; firstly good films aren't always the technically perfect ones; and secondly, this movie had it's mistakes but on the whole it was technically quite good. If you have a look at cult classics like Highlander and Mad Max, they are also pretty bad when considered from all their individual technical components. But as the old saying goes, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and these films truly are entertaining beyond their mistakes.

I see it the same way for The Marsh; there is just something good about the way it all came together and really delivered as a horror flick. It's not that original, but it sure made you jump. It's not that technically perfect, but it sure portrayed a gloomy evil place where evil took place. If you let yourself be drawn into the story, you'll find good entertainment waiting there. Even the best movie can be brought low by criticising every little part. But this is a film to entertain, and not a documentary meant to educate. So I can let go of the continuity errors, and just take the story as it is, and enjoy it.

Good luck with your studies,

Padwanna!

---
The internet has the ability to turn sane people into ranting fools!

[–] meow-42 16 years ago

Hey,

I just have to open by saying everybody on this forum and anybody who likes this movie is mentally retarded. And I mean REALLY disabled. I'm talking 23-year-old autistic man trying to ride a bicycle retarded.

Padwanna, no offense, but you're a pretentious *beep* You don't have to "if have" training to realize this is a terrible movie. The Marsh, as a whole, I can't stress this enough, is mentally retarded. Screw deconstructing it technically! Break it down scene by scene and you discover it's even more disturbed. It's an autistic Belafonte driving down a ski hill while being tasered by a walrus with spastic bowels. In one scene, what's her face gets a business card thrown at her! A BUSINESS CARD! IS THAT SCARY? DID THAT MAKE YOU JUMP? You don't even notice it the first time - that's bad filmmaking. Neither can we forget Mr. Whitaker's brilliant revelation: "doors can be both symbolic and literal at the same time." Who'd have thought doors could be literal? That's some deep *beep* right there. Deep *beep* That *beep* is deep. Then there's the aforementioned door itself. One scene that broad nearly *beep* her pants upon seeing it, and then the very next scene she's getting it installed. Then that stupid clip of the antique hammer; the editing is so bad. If you want to get technical, that scene and the entire film's sound isn't normalized what-so-ever. You can't hear any dialogue, yet the hammer makes your eardrums bleed. While we're speaking technically; what's with the lighting?! It's all over the place. Sometimes it's pitch black aside from the spotlight on her (like in the opening scene) and others it's overly light and she needs to use her cellphone to find her way through the brightly lit room. Finally (though I'm overlooking soooooo many of this film's problems), the horse. The mentally retarded horse. The sinister horse. The killer horse. Was it trying to sneak up on her? She was upstairs. Did the horse climb the ladder? Oh wait.. now we're downstairs. Right under her barn house chandelier of hanging saws and wagon wheels. Is that the smartest place to keep your collection of hanging vintage saws and wagon wheels? Anyways, the horse just crept up on this poor woman. Now are they implying this horse thought he'd play a funny prank on her? Be a hooligan? But wait! Now the horse is scared, and freaks out on her which amounts to one of the most entertaining, mentally retarded death scenes in a movie ever.

I don't want to misrepresent myself. This is one of the greatest horror films ever made. It's so unintetionally funny - you discover new, mentally retarded quirks each watch through.

Love,
-jim varney.

P.S. If you like The Marsh, check out 3 Ninjas: High Noon at Mega Mountain.

[–] lorilya 16 years ago

I thought it was terrific as well, a great supernatural horror movie. It was scary on about the same level as most of the "real" ghost stories (like the stories and legends about hauntings you find written down), really, so if you like the tone of those those you're sure to enjoy this as well.

[–] tawlite 16 years ago

Have to agree with you. I really enjoyed this movie.

[–] moviefiend-1 15 years ago

i liked this also, i picked it up cheap, watched it late night in bed and i got a kick out of it. It's a basic, easy on the eye horror movie.

As for these people who complain and technical issues (i aint no expert but i thought the movie looked very good for its budget), i think when you start watching a movie from a technical standpoint instead of just enjoying a f'n story, you kinda defeat the point and fun of watching. Anyone agree?

[–] Yarigosa 15 years ago

[couple spoilers]

I watched this film strictly for Justin Louis. *blush* It's the first one of his works I've seen since Saw IV. I don't think I've ever seen Forest Whitaker in anything before, which is really strange considering how good of an actor he is.

When I watched the opening credits, I predicted the film's end. At least - one of its twists. The main one. Part of me thinks that's really bad, though I don't know who to blame for it (the writer, the director, or what), but the other part tells me: "Hey...you like Saw, you're used to looking for twists, so you just found this one." So I'm not sure. :-) I spent the rest of the film trying to ignore that twist and seeing how the film led up to it. It turned out better than the last random horror movie I watched, (Dr. Chopper) - it actually had some really great sound editing and images, especially in the beginning. You got beautiful mental and physical shots of a cold, dry outside land combined with the thick, wet marsh. You don't get a clear shot of the town, (which seems to be made up of Mercy, Mercy's husband, Ernie, and Noah), nor do you get that 'small town feel' too often - it's a very isolated film. I think that was a weakness, but not too bad.

I had a feeling Noah had more to him than met the eye - his initial meeting with her provided with the overdose of that 'country manners' really put my guard up. He was one cute nerd though, (especially with that hair)! I just wish I understood his angle...his story wasn't completely explained, (for example, why did Forest Whitaker dislike him? I can guess, but I think it was more than that).

I had no idea what happened to the little girl - I couldn't figure out if it was rape (and if so, rape of a worse kind than normal given what of her we saw), or if she was choked to death. I'm thinking it was rape given the injuries we see on her (awful). The abusive mother I'm sure was just as much a pedophiliac, and the scenes where she's telling him to 'stick it' might be 'stick it'....to her if you get my meaning, as punishment for whatever he lost. Just a guess.

I think the twist was too easily revealed - it came too early in the film. I'm in agreement that the third act was definitely worse than the first two - once they hit the climax of the film, they raced with it, which does tend to happen as they try to get all the explanations out.

All in all, I'd put it around a 7. Not the bed, but a decent and good for late-night scares film.

CoFounder of the Detective Lieutenant Mark Hoffman Army!

[–] zephyr-123 14 years ago

I enjoyed the movie as well and like it well enough to want to watch it again and again. It's not terrifying, just a few boo moments but I don't need to he terrified or horrified to enjoy a horror movie. It was enough that it was mysterious and suspenseful.

"Thanks for the Dada-ist peptalk. I feel much more abstract now."-Buffy

[–] jingizu_z 12 years ago

I saw this movie last night quite by accident on tv, and really enjoyed it. Not the greatest or scariest horror by far, but definitely not as bad as some commentators here try to make it! The acting was good, especially Whittaker's and Anwar was not half bad. The twist was interesting, even with a plot-hole or two and there were definitely a few chilling moments.

It was better IMO than all the hyped-up crap such as Paranormal, etc.

[–] fiatlux-1 11 years ago

I thought it was good too, far from perfect, but good. The story jumped around too much, made itself seem too convoluted. Some of the scenes, like the one with Mercy in the barn, went on too long. I like Gabrielle Anwar, but she was a little TOO flat acting here, and Forest Whitaker was too, surprisingly.

The dialogue was mishmashed together too much, it was hard to follow. But the special effects were GREAT, much better than I expected. The film was genuinely creepy, and took the time to tell a story, which I love.

"I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus."
"Didn't he discover America?"
"Penfold, shush."