This film is AWFUL


Honestly, this is one of the worst films I've seen. 1.5 hours of boring, useless plot creation is just made even more irritating when it serves no purpose because the writer thinks they're clever and deep when they're not. The scene where Noel Clarke's decapitated head starts talking and then gets eaten is SO BAD that PERHAPS it's worth looking up the scene on youtube for a good laugh. Otherwise steer clear of this one, and tell everyone you know to do the same - it's for their own good.

reply

I can't believe you made it through the whole movie. I couldn't make it past the 20 minute mark... and I still regreted having wasted those 20 min watching this so-called film instead of watching the trees grow or something.

reply

You need to watch alot more movies if you think this was horrible. I can point you to some real sh*tfest movies.

reply

*a lot, not alot. Alot is not a word.

reply

not awful just mediocre and not very interesting.




When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

reply

I actually was hooked for the first half. It was creepy and dark and the lead character was interesting. Then, it got way too weird. When I realized that this was all some Lynchian mindf--k, I realized that in order to better understand this film, I'm going to have to watch it again...and again...

It is clearly one of those open-to-interpretation films (like many David Lynch films, Dark Corners, Jakob's Ladder)...

That said, the lead actor was quite good.



- Jesus died for somebody's sins but not mine

reply

[deleted]

I didn't see the hollywood cliches you could name a few, i also didn't see any Lynch in here, people tend to call anything they don't understand Lynch, in here the Surrealism was a simple metaphor an overexplained beautiful metaphor. A beautiful horror movie.

reply

I though the mindf__k bit was the good bit.

The deal with the devil episode was really atmospheric and I was really intrigued with what they'd do with that. Then Eddie Marsan's appearance as 'weapons man' was awesome, pressuring him into doing his part in return and being all mysterious.

But the filmmaker didn't seem to have a clue where he wanted the story to go. Instead of having to deal with the consequences of having killed someone or even dealing with a situation where there seem to no consequences at all, instead we get some lame twist.

Noel Clarke was good too. I wish they'd done something more interesting with his character rather than just having him disappear for no reason. That sequence where the demon was eating his head was awful.

reply

More importantly, it seemed to lack focus. I do like how everything tied together at the end... but for the first hour and 10 minutes it was just these unconnected vignettes that were ultimately dull and preachy.



"Weirdness was all he cared about. Weirdness and sex and plenty to drink."

reply

I second that. It was indeed awful.

__________________________
1up-games.com Last watched: imdb.to/K4tvL9

reply

Wow I am so surprised to feel so differently. I thought the film was beautiful. There were moments that I wished the film had a higher budget because some of the make up wasn't perfect but I though the plot and acting and cinematography was great. While watching this film I realized how much I appreciate film making where the director appreciates beauty. I felt the scenes were constructed through an eye that appreciated beauty and it enticed me. The symbolism of many things was well done and I thoroughly enjoyed the acting and the storyline. It certainly wasn't the action packed horror I was expecting to watch...but once I began the story I couldn't look away. It's so interesting that we can feel so differently about the film!

reply

I actually felt the same as you, sexyca_3! In fact, this film definitely goes down as one of my all-time favourite films. I thought the atmosphere was perfect for the genre-- like you, I had issues with some of the budgetary constraints, but I thought for the most part, they did an admirable job with what they had. For me, the biggest thing was that the characters were, for me-- unlike, apparently, some of the viewers-- completely believable as real people, from the self-conscious lead (who in many ways reminded me of myself), to the man with the troubled past (the lead's next-door neighbor); mostly, I found it absolutely refreshing for a modern movie to take a high (and conservative) stance on family-life, with a family that wasn't torn apart because of divorce or any lack of loyalty (even the dumb thief kid seemed spurred on not by any lack of loyalty but out of sincere fear of his situation), but by death and the violence around it (things that are all but impossible to avoid-- and thus easy to relate to). The loving son who supports (and is supported by) his mom reminded me of how much I love having tea with my mom and just chatting about nonsense (and it didn't hurt that I watched the film with her my first time around; now I've seen it many times).

Is the film perfect? Nope. I think some of people's issues with the film are pretty valid-- some melodramatic moments, some pacing issues; overall, though, it was the sincerity and sweetness of the film (surprising for a horror flick) that won me over and continues to win me over each time I watch it. I still get chills when... well... a bit of a spoiler, but when a character finds out he didn't get everything he thought he did, I thought the delivery of that moment (those who seen the full movie know what I'm talking about) was perfect and filled with humanity.

To each his own, I guess-- I disagree highly on the remark that the film would have failed in film school. As a film school graduate, I can say that the cinematography in the film would have garnered a lot of praise, and the performances were sincere and strong enough to be quite above most student films.

Also, I've seen some "hollywood" films that would have failed by my teacher's standards... so I think maybe there's a certain degree of subjectivity even in that, but I just don't think you can fake the sincerity this film displayed to me, and really, that is the highest praise I can give the film.

I do find it interesting people had such a different reaction-- I always wonder why this happens when it does. Am I white-washing the film because I'm such a lover of the genre (especially the faustian/beauty-and-the-beast themes)? Are people being unfairly critical of a film that wears its budget on its sleeve?

I'm legitimately asking, I don't know the answer to those questions :p

reply

This is an EXCELLENT movie.

If you think it was awful, then it was probably too deep for you. Or maybe you just can't relate to someone who had to endure a life like Jamie's. Or maybe you just don't give a damn.


Actors do not have a job...they have a blast!

reply

Ive come to the conclusion that the English are some really sick, sick people.

reply

Great film.

reply

It's not that bad.

reply