Dear Bigwillystyles23,
First off, thanks for taking the time to respond to our harsh, but still tightly-gripped opinions on this movie. I suppose, as you say, since the cover art and box had nothing to do with your movie, it isn't fair to hold the deceit against you when you had no control (that sucks a lot, by the way). But surely you can understand where we're coming from with the whole zombie thing? I'm guessing I probably would have been less inclined to rent the movie if the summary accurately projected the films true nature...nonetheless, it would have made a difference to know from the get go this mainly dealt with possession and curses.
That aside, I understand your points about pushing the envelope. You did that. Very Well. And I know this is just a movie, and films like this or any other are to entertain, to pose questions, to enlighten. And just because I was not really entertained or enlightened doesn't necessarily mean someone perhaps less critical and more of a desperate seeker for entertainment- that they'd put themselves through anything- wouldn't enjoy it.
When people view movies, though, they have a right to form opinions which is something as a director I'd believe you'd understand. I fail to comprehend your choice, but respect your stand on it. It's just....one would presume that in directing a movie, you'd want to direct something you know majority of the people would like. In choosing the ending you did, it's almost a deliberate slap in the face as a movie lover because: how could something so violently repulsive as "baby" sex be considered appropriate for any movie, budget notwithstanding? How could anyone think anyone would want to see that and experience that?
"Personally I think that's one of the best things about film is that we can experience things out of the norm and beyond our lives without ever having to actually live through the trauma of what is depicted on screen." ----> Yes, it is much better to provide the trauma of a mother *beep* her infant on screen so we can keep the mental images forged in our minds until the proper mental block can be constructed. Don't get me wrong, your point is valid, I agree, but the material depicted just doesn't seem, to me, to fit that particular formula for a movie.
If your budget was bigger, I'm sure you could have taken the movie different places had you chosen to do so. If it were me, I would have taken out some more loans to enhance the budget where I could have an ending that at least, if not including super special effects, could remove the gag reflexes that would undoubtedly be induced.
And maybe I'm veering off track here with the whole "yes, twisted endings are nice in horror movies, but baby sex is not". My disagreement with the movie, my distaste overall, is not exclusive to the end. It's pretty much the whole storyline I didn't like, personally. Yes, the baby was apparently cursed....but still, what baby can psychologically know and feel motives for revenge? I like how you tried to make it this big mystery to unravel...the storyline was just unbelievably...well, unbelievable. Before you go on about how "it's just a movie to entertain", I know, I know. Most people want to be entertained realistically, though.
A baby possessing people to murder for vengeance= not realistic, not even fantastical or science fiction unless the baby is an alien or something.
A spirit possessing a BABY and causing it to murder for vengeance= more realistic than adults snotting themselves.
So, I appreciate your apology, and your attempts to explain the ending. Just know that even if the movie ended any other way, it would still be lacking in talent throughout the writers and actors who carried it. I know they're your friends, and it's nice to stick up for them. Sometimes, not just as a director but as a human being, you need to learn how to see things objectively. And I'm sure, if you really watched your movie and paid attention to details...and had the capacity we all should have to be unbiased if we choose to be.....then you would at least see, if not want to, the things majority of your audience have seen and wish they hadn't.
Alas, there's always room for improvement for your friends. Some of us just have more room than others. A lot...of room....
I thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Silver Kitten
reply
share
Marshmallowdust
16 years ago
Wow, that was really well thought out, fair, and eloquent, silverkitten. I agree with all of that, but I couldn't sleep well if I didn't throw in my own (not well thought out, not fair and not eloquent) 2 cents.
I've always thought that the point of directing a movie was to evoke an emotional response. I mean, if people watch a movie and at the end have no feeling toward it whatsoever, what was the point?
So, BigWillyStyle23, welcome to My Emotional Response, Population: You.
I understand that the budget must have been hell to work around. But, I hope you also understand that the fact that you're giving excuses as to why you ended the movie the way you did, just shows that you aren't 100% happy with it. Which is fine, good lord it's your first full length film, as you said, you think anyone is perfect their first time out? But, you can't even admit that it was a mistake. I can list 15 ways that movie could have ended without cgi, or cliche. It could have been done another way.
And I have to agree with Silverkitten that it wasn't just the ending that ruined it. That was the only part you tried to stand up for, but not the only part I took issue with in my first post. It'd be salt in the wound to go over all of it again, so I won't. But, I have to mention this:
"A baby possessing people to murder for vengeance= not realistic, not even fantastical or science fiction unless the baby is an alien or something."
Seriously, yes. I have a hard time wrapping my head around a baby, even a cursed one, being so full of hate that he then murders so many people. It's completely ridiculous. Babies don't hate, that's why people like them so much. And a cursed baby, I could see it...haunting someone, sure. You know with ethereal crying and such, but not what happened in this film.
I see that you can't say "This movie does indeed suck, you guys!". But admitting that there were better choices to be made? It's your first film try to learn from it, get better. That's the point. Learn and move on. If you can't look objectively at your own work, then how can you improve? And if you honestly think there's no room for improvement, then...I want some of whatever it is you're taking that makes you believe that you're perfect. And obviously I do not seriously wish death upon you and your friends, christ.
I hope one day you can grow up enough to be able to see the fault in your logic, so that you can go on to make movies that more than 15 people enjoy watching.
reply
share
fierycosmiccatnipple
16 years ago
I should point out that the baby sex at the end was consensual and not statutory rape. The baby had possessed an of-age male, who was known to be intimate with that particular female, and then the sex happened. Sure, it had the mind of a baby, but some mentally handicapped people have the mind of the underage, so could that, too, be on the same level as the abhorrent babysex you speak of?
It also becomes a very straightforward Oedipal thing at the end. I figured somebody would mention that; but no, unless I missed something.
Open criticism with a director is always good--get 'em on their toes and make them defend things you disagree with. You can say you didn't like it, that it sucked, that it was great, you were iffy on it, etc. Ah, but that's a subjective thing and a matter of taste. If, though, it's just that one thing went "too far," then it's a subjective thing. And you can always go further, so where's the line? There could've been a comeshot, an oral scene since it's a baby and could still be in the oral stage, or even a hot carl if it's finally grown to that stage--which itself is much more hygenic than just going straight on the face, I should mention, yet it's considered fouler for some reason.
Remember the talking anus in Pink Flamingos? I saw that scene a few nights ago and couldn't look at people form O's with their mouths for the rest of the night. Still, I didn't gasp and say it was too far. It was gross and something I've never seen talk before, but I stand by the belief that if something stands out in a film (or a book or a comic or music) and it sparks discussion like this, then perhaps the filmmakers have done their job. That's not to say something purely for shock value (such as the talking anus, which i suppose was the point of Pink Flamingos since it's about a Most Filthy Person contest, I've been told--it was on mute and the anus was singing along to that Juicy Juicy Juice song), but something to get people thinking. There was meaning behind it. I'll stand by my belief that the film had a legitimate point to make and the scene was justified, as Mr. Wedig says. It wasn't babysex for the sake of babysex.
Silver and Marsh: realize that if you're going to argue taste, you'll be going in circles and will likely look stupid in the end. But by all means, go on go on. Don't let me stop you.
I'm looking forward to a "shut up *beep* from Mr. Wedig, with a V to bypass the vulgarity censor.
-fcc
reply
share
DrOmzig
15 years ago
by - fierycosmiccatnipple on Tue Feb 5 2008 23:10:54 I should point out that the baby sex at the end was consensual and not statutory rape. The baby had possessed an of-age male, who was known to be intimate with that particular female, and then the sex happened. Sure, it had the mind of a baby, but some mentally handicapped people have the mind of the underage, so could that, too, be on the same level as the abhorrent babysex you speak of?
This argument makes no sense and is pretty disgusting.
Laws about sexual consent and statutory rape and child rape are based upon a person's mental maturity, it has nothing to do with their body being that of a child or an adult.
WTF kind of reasoning is it that if a child is put into the body of an adult, it is ok to have sex with him or her?
If that's the case then why the hell not just let anyone have sex with children whenever they want? Disgusting.
Note that I was not commenting on whether or not the scene should be in the movie. As far as I'm concerned it was stupid and out of place in the film and did not fit in very well, but if they wanted to have it there, fine. I will admit that it does push the envelope, and was kind of unique, if sick and twisted and all that.
Also the plot about the baby being behind all the murders was a bit too far-fetched in my opinion. It asks to much of the audience of this film to believe that the baby could have the sort of intelligence or malicious thoughts to try to kill all those people. (I mean if this were some kind of abstract movie or a really warped comedy it might be believable in a sort of "anything's possible" way, but I don't think in this movie it was)
reply
share
mandala6976-1
16 years ago
In response to the two argumentative children who posted the World's most nonhelpful "reviews" (though they shouldn't even be considered that):
You obviously know nothing about art, film production, or even how to resopond to a letter that is written more intelligently than either of your posts. Regardless of whether you enjoyed a movie or didn't enjoy it, the space provided by IMDB.com is meant to honestly review a film, not to rip it apart with weak arguments and irrelevant, unfounded opinions about what the actors look like, etc. The fact that Mr. Wedig even responded to you two is a testament to his professionalism, and, no... he wasn't making arguments to justify the "mistakes" his film made. If either of you were capable of seeing past your own arguments in order to consider Mr. Wedig as a filmmaker (regardless of your feelings), you would be able to critique the film appropriately.
As far as the "misleading" DVD cover, any person who has ever read the back of one of those things, then viewed the movie (or likewise, read a book and then re-read what the summary is on the back), you know that they are never accurate. To even mention it in a "review" is completely ridiculous.
All this being said, if you don't already know these things as a film "critic", then please dedicate more time to knowing them and less time ranting on the internet.
I--as well as, I'm sure, plenty of other people-- came to this page in order to see what people thought of this movie before I watched it. Despite whatever my opinions about it may be after I do so, I hope that I will be able to write an honest, objective review of what I saw, not an endless, unintelligent bitch-fest that offend the filmmaker enough for him to feel a need to respond to these unnecessary attacks. If I were an employee of IMDB.com, I would remove both of your accounts because of the waste of internet space.
-M.R.
reply
share
DrOmzig
15 years ago
Mandala, that is just ridiculous.
Their complaints were completely valid and much more well-thought-out than most criticism on IMDB.
So either you had never used imdb before when you posted that
...or you were full of crap and maybe had some ulterior motive for wanting their comments removed.
reply
share
15 years ago
[deleted]
carjones51
12 years ago
The same thing just happened to me!
I just caught the last few minutes of this flick and was "outraged" that she was having sex w/a guy who couldn't truly consent. Honestly, at that point, I thought he was a "zombie."
I also came to IMDb to see what this movie was about and learned the truth.
reply
share
eantara-nibs
15 years ago
In response to the two argumentative children who posted the World's most nonhelpful "reviews" (though they shouldn't even be considered that):
You obviously know nothing about art, film production, or even how to resopond to a letter that is written more intelligently than either of your posts. Regardless of whether you enjoyed a movie or didn't enjoy it, the space provided by IMDB.com is meant to honestly review a film, not to rip it apart with weak arguments and irrelevant, unfounded opinions about what the actors look like, etc. The fact that Mr. Wedig even responded to you two is a testament to his professionalism, and, no... he wasn't making arguments to justify the "mistakes" his film made. If either of you were capable of seeing past your own arguments in order to consider Mr. Wedig as a filmmaker (regardless of your feelings), you would be able to critique the film appropriately.
As far as the "misleading" DVD cover, any person who has ever read the back of one of those things, then viewed the movie (or likewise, read a book and then re-read what the summary is on the back), you know that they are never accurate. To even mention it in a "review" is completely ridiculous.
All this being said, if you don't already know these things as a film "critic", then please dedicate more time to knowing them and less time ranting on the internet.
I--as well as, I'm sure, plenty of other people-- came to this page in order to see what people thought of this movie before I watched it. Despite whatever my opinions about it may be after I do so, I hope that I will be able to write an honest, objective review of what I saw, not an endless, unintelligent bitch-fest that offend the filmmaker enough for him to feel a need to respond to these unnecessary attacks. If I were an employee of IMDB.com, I would remove both of your accounts because of the waste of internet space.
-M.R.
mandala6976-1
It is interesting that you champion Mr Wedig's response for professionalism, because your own pompous post shows no trace of it.
silver_kitten and Marshmallowdust have as much right as you do to say what they damn well please about this or any other film.
And as you allude to be so knowledgeable about,'art, film production,' you would be immediately aware that this film even with the small budget, was a badly directed, badly edited, badly scripted, plot-less mess, with little merit but that is just my opinion right. Even so I can think of a few people who would actually enjoy it.
I can only guess, but of course I may be wrong, that you have some sort of relationship with the director. Your rant about the DVD cover just gives me that vibe.
Please note, your relationship does not make him a Hitchcock, a Scorsese or an Elia Kazan.
Yes mandala6976-1 I did go to film school.
And no I cannot be bothered to spell or grammar check.
If I were an employee of IMDB I would never attempt to remove your account, because I'm slightly less pompous than you.
reply
share
stargazer1701-1
14 years ago
My take on the end was that Cade passed through from being inside the boyfriend to Laura in the act of sex. This is the beginning of a second chance for Laura and Cade. I was a little surprised that the boyfriend stuck around. When he said he was going out for a smoke, I thought he was going to leave and never return. Being possessed by a homicidal baby would turn most men off.
All in all, the movie was a disappointment. Each scene was a copy of the last. Some one takes forever roaming through a dark place to investigate a noise they heard. The narcissistic deputy playing the air drums was a hoot at first, but then, like everything else in the film, he became annoying. And there was no reason for Laura’s voluptuous mother to slit her own throat.
Come to think of it, this film had no reason at all.
Smoke me a kipper. I’ll be back for breakfast
reply
share
waspfan33
12 years ago
IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT YOU THINK...
maybe you and your roomie should lay off the cats dust and marshmallows and put your comedy writing course at the community college to better use than writing snarky critical trying to be humourous reviews of dirt cheap horror films on imdb.youre funny in a hipster kinda way which means you arent funny.and also try making a movie yourself before you make a spectacle of someone elses in the comment section of imdb where me and a whole whopping audience of 9 actually read your lame attempt at sarcastic and backhanded humor.
spectre can
suck it.
reply
share
unknown_soul278
12 years ago
IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT YOU THINK...
maybe you and your roomie should lay off the cats dust and marshmallows and put your comedy writing course at the community college to better use than writing snarky critical trying to be humourous reviews of dirt cheap horror films on imdb.youre funny in a hipster kinda way which means you arent funny.and also try making a movie yourself before you make a spectacle of someone elses in the comment section of imdb where me and a whole whopping audience of 9 actually read your lame attempt at sarcastic and backhanded humor.
If it doesn't matter, isn't it a waste of time to reply?
No one here is claiming to be a film critic, they are just expressing their opinions in an articulate, intelligent manner. They actully explained why they disliked it rather than just saying 'this movie sucks ass' like most of the posters on this site.
If you feel he need to dispute posts like those above, please use proper English. Responding to well-written posts without using correct punctuation and capitalization nullifies any legitimate argument.
The wild, cruel animal is not behind the bars of a cage. He is in front of it.
reply
share