I watched the film yesterday and I cannot forget about it. I loved it, no idea why you guys rate it so bad, it deserves better opinion.
shareI agree. I totally saw the ending coming, but still liked the movie.
share[deleted]
I didn't think they turned their phones off. I thought they just didn't have any signal out there. When Derek was barely walking into the woods, his phone started cutting out, so I figured that if they got much deeper in, their phones would stop working.
I want it with whipped cream on it!
I don't think the plot was weak at all. It was a clever idea. The acting was good too. The weakness was the PG-13 rating that keep them from showing much horror or gore. It could have been better than it was if it had been R rated.
I think it was clever too. One of the better thriller horror pictures that I have seen.
raygun-3
I agree, I thought it was clever too - the ending totally got me, I know his brother is weird but not that weird. I like it, rate it 6/10.
http://teendramaforum.proboards.com/index.cgi - cozy forum!
I thought this was pretty OK. I didn't think the PG-13 rating hurt it. CGI gore has absolutely no effect on me because I just look at it and say, oh, it's CGI gore. It was also a kind of a movie made for and starring teens, so you can't expect sex and nudity or anything.
I'm not saying it was a masterpiece, but given some of the "horror" dreck, I've seen on the movie channel lately.
[deleted]
The characters are what spoiled it for me. I simply didn't like any of them.
shareWhy does the old man kill dogs? There is no reason for this. Pointless.
shareWhy does the old man kill dogs? There is no reason for this. Pointless.
I think he did kill the dogs because of the human remains.
They were buried in the backyard, so the dogs could easily dig them.
It was, for me, the only "rational" motive for doing it.
Apart from that I think it was a nice movie, but the end was way too much.
How improbable is to have 2 serial killer children in the same area with a crossed story and with the families protection? Even with a time span of 50 or more years I consider it highly improbable, and it killed some of the tension that the ending gathered till then.
I think the old man didn't kill dogs. It was his younger brother who did. He was probably allowed out during the day (hence he was still attached to the long chain) and probably caught and killed strays when he found one.
I enjoyed the movie. I avoided it for a long time because of the low rating, but once I got around to watching it I was really pleasantly surprised.