If you buy into hype, it's your own damn fault, not the movie's fault,
I agree that buying something is a person's "own fault",
but it's probably not a good thing that this film was hyped a lot. (I actually didn't know that it was, btw, but I'm taking your word for it, especially after seeing a number of other posts on the message board.)
It's a double-edged sword, really. For low-budget indies like
Murder Party, the filmmakers can't spend much on conventional marketing, so they have to try to create a word-of-mouth buzz. However, word-of-mouth buzzes tend to create unrealistic expectations. People seeing a film because of a word-of-mouth buzz tend to be more critical than they'd normally be. It's probably due to a combination of "natural skepticism" and a wariness about feeling duped/scammed.
Most people are not going to see most films and think that they're the best thing since sliced bread. So the word-of-mouth marketing has to be careful not to talk about the film in that way. It's tricky. If the word-of-mouth buzz is more humble, it won't prompt folks to see the film. If it's over-zealous, it creates a bit of a backlash.
Anyway, the point of all this is that I don't think we can blame reactions to hype
only on the person who had the reaction. You can't buy into hype if the film isn't hyped, and the hype can be far too hyperbolic to not have a reaction to it.
While we're on the subject, this movie is partly for people who love movies. There's quite a few references in this which you should probably get to appreciate the movie. So, if you didn't immediately recognize the girl's costume to be from Blade Runner, if you'd never seen the movie "The Warriors" and thus couldn't get the reference to that movie, if you've never seen "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" and thus couldn't spot costume and humor similarities, then maybe you should quit while you're behind.
While I agree that those things give extra meaning to the film and are worth knowing (and we should expect that an experienced film fan has seen at least a couple of the films referenced), I think it's far more important for seeing the merit of
Murder Party that the viewer has seen at least a couple handfuls of low-budget and especially "no-budget" horror films. I don't know exactly what
Murder Party's budget was, but it plays as if it was on the fine line separating low-budget and no-budget. And compared to other no-budget horror, at least,
Murder Party is excellent.
I do think it has problems when assessed outside of typical no-budget films--primarily that the middle section drags a bit, and feels like it might be there solely to pad out the running time. But the rest of the film is quite good--it mostly rises far above its budget. (My final score, by the way, was a 7.5/10).
It's best to view
Murder Party in the context of films like
Insaniac (2002),
The Bonesetter (2003),
The Crucifier (2005),
Back Woods (2001), and
The Black Witch Project (2001) (yes,
Black Witch, that's not a typo for
Blair Witch--look it up here on IMDb), as I think that it's more or less coming from the same socio-cultural milieu. Compared to those kinds of films (and there have been tens of others, most just as bad as the ones mentioned),
Murder Party does deserve positive word-of-mouth. Just don't overdo it.
Is everyone in this house a total nutzoid or is it just me?
reply
share
redcapjack
14 years ago
I thought it was a decent film, but the comparisons I've heard so far have been extremely far off the mark. Very Bad Things, Heathers, Jawbreaker... it's more in line with those films than with Evil Dead or some of the other horror movies previously mentioned. I've been reading some of the negative comments on this board, and not a single one of them have actually been constructive or specific regarding the faults of this film. It's mostly been a hodge-podge of "critic" lingo without a single point of reference. The "Acting"? The "Direction"? Do these people even know what these things are or how to gauge the quality of that work? No one was flubbing their lines, they all spoke clearly and with an emotion that helped to define their characters... none of whom were developed to even BE likeable. They were terrible, pompous, arrogant people surrounding an utter loser whose own self-worth is minimal at best.
I don't recall the boom mic dropping into frame, don't recal the dolly shaking in any way that was significant, and I don't remember anyone stepping on one anothers' toes or bumping into eachother as they moved through the scene. The lighting was always good, the effects were impressive and EFFECTIVE, and I didn't see any instances of continuity gaffs. So, please, could one of these very perceptive critics explain where the direction went bad?
It's one thing to not like a movie... I didn't think this was the greatest movie ever, but I was impressed enough to enjoy it. My only real complaint about the movie was the pacing, where I thought it would have been more effective to space out some of the death scenes throughout the course of the film rather than have everything just implode in the last several minutes. But I look back after watching the whole thing and I'm not sure I still believe that... we really had to get to know and be disgusted with The Collective before we could really enjoy their fates.
reply
share