MovieChat Forums > Wake Wood (2011) Discussion > What an overrated movie!

What an overrated movie!


I'm really at a loss as to how this movie has been so roundly lauded. I mean a 7.1 rating on IMDB, at time of writing, is pretty damn high for a scary movie. Now, I use the term "scary" rather loosely when referring to this film as it really was anything but.
This film was awfully contrived, predictable, derivative and uninspired. I mean this film is like a poor man's Pet Cemetery (and that was pretty crap too). I have no problem with the micro budget, or even the occasional clunky dialogue, but this film was simply dull, with nothing new to offer. There was no feeling of dread that pervaded the story, nor were the characters particular sympathetic (we need to get to know them for that to happen, or at least it helps).
You know something's wrong when even the great Timothy Spall can't rescue this piece from the realm of mediocrity it so belongs to.
Anyway, just my two cents. Everybody has their own tastes and opinions I guess.

On another note, I just finished watching an excellent Japanese psycho-thriller, Confessions - now there's a movie!

reply

Don't agree at all. Wake Wood has some plot holes but I found it very watchable and gripping. To me it was more Don't Look Now than Pet Cemetery. Your entitled to your opinion, of course!

Don't cheese me off.I'm running out of places to hide the bodies.




reply


Yes, I agree! I thought it was like Don't Look Now and in a way Pet Cemetery. I also found it quite gripping. I liked it.


reply

This movie has a 5.1 rating at the time of my writing, which seems fairly appropriate. It's not the most original story(complete Pet Semetary rip off), but it still remained fairly compelling. I think it just goes to show you how important expectations can be. If I had seen a 7.1 rating, I would have been disappointed with the movie too. I saw a 5.1 rating beforehand, so for me it turned out better than I expected.

reply

Totally agree,
Having seen the newspapers give this 5 stars i was looking forward to it very much.
Having just watched it, i don't know what movie they have seen!
5/10

reply

Yeah, poor film. It was slow to start but had some good build up until the proper stuff started to happen. To me it was a good idea but a real let down towards the end.

reply

Worst movie I've ever seen. After 5 minutes I turned the *beep* off! *beep* piece of *beep* movie!

Trailer Park Boys is the best series ever made.

reply

Not truly awful but pretty damn disappointing.

I found it very unconvincing (especially in it's premise) and the rest was dull and raised a few too many questions.

And it was terribly predictable.


"See it with someone you love...Go by yourself"

reply

If a movie is intended to keep you entertained for an hour or so then this movie managed to do that in my opinion. Yes, it could have been better, but if the person above who thought this was the worse movie ever is going to be taken seriously at any point from now on they need to get out more and watch some more stuff. By no description could this be said to be the "worse movie ever" and I thought the acting throughout was pretty good, even the child actor did a reasonable job. Okay, there were so bits that irritated such as the car conking out for no reason, the torch cutting out, "shake it man" and some of the characters were a bit naff but for a low budget "Hammer" film it serves its purpose.

reply

"...and raised a few too many questions."

That's what really annoyed me. Did they actually explain anything in this movie? Why did the daughter (a supposed animal-lover) start slaughtering animals? Why did she not kill the dog (you'd think that if she had something against an animal it would be a dog, sense she was killed by one)? Was it really their daughter that was resurrected and had just gone bad somehow or did someone else inhabit her body? What was with the close up of the surgical tools at the end?

These are all questions that may have actually been answered, but it's impossible to tell because the director seemed to have told his actors to whisper as quietly and incoherently as possible. That's really what killed the movie for me; the fact that I had to crank the volume all the way up in the hopes of maybe hearing a word or two, or, if I was really lucky, maybe even half a sentence, before having to quickly turn in all the way down once the music started ('cause while the dialog is barely whispered in this flick, the music is cranked up at a volume that can disintegrate water). So have a feeling that maybe they're aren't as many plot-holes as we think; all the questions may have been answered, WE JUST CAN'T TELL WHAT THE *beep* ANYONE IS SAYING!

reply

"Worst movie I've ever seen. After 5 minutes I turned the *beep* off! *beep* piece of *beep* movie!"

If you turned it off after 5 minutes, you haven't seen it.

reply

[deleted]

"Worst movie I've ever seen. After 5 minutes I turned the *beep* off! *beep* piece of *beep* movie!"

If you turned the movie off after 5 minutes, you haven't seen it. You can't give an opinion on something you haven't seen. Actually watch it, then post. Otherwise, don't post; you're not adding anything to any discussion.

Reality has a liberal bias.

reply

Ok, sorry my bad. Not the worst movie I've ever seen, but one among the worst. After 1 hour I turned the *beep* off! *beep* piece of *beep* movie!

Trailer Park Boys is the best series ever made.

reply

You have the *beep* rant of all time. Plus, It wasn't even that bad; I've seen dozens of films worse than this

"If you were in your office, we'd be having this conversation face-to-face."

reply

So it was the worst movie you've never seen then? Mouth-breather.

"Uh, I'm just gonna go find a cash machine"

reply

Agreed. Crappy movie all-around. But the worst part of it for me was the music. Music and sound help immensely with building tension. The music they through at this thing is more suited for an American Beauty type movie, not a horror. Awful.

2/10

reply

I liked the movie. It aint of course a Masterpiece,nor it pretends or claims to be one.But it succeeds in what a Horror movie it is supposed to offer to the viewer without offending him,entertainment.Bear in mind that although there is gore,the main focus is psychological,sure maybe in a little pretentious or superficial way,but ... who told us this had to be something more lol? It could have been?Sure! But as long those 1 and a half hours were entertaining,who cares.
Sympathetic characters is also rather relevant.The movie starts with a family losing their child and being unable to overcome it.....so,empathy is kind of efortless imo....lol

reply

It was basically a mediocre TV-type movie, not even cable channel worthy. Not the worst I've seen, by any means, but pretty bland.

However, I did feel bad for the innocent animals being skinned alive by the little monster and for the bull being hit repeatedly with a metal rod by that guy. Guess he got his, though.

I've already seen the worst movie ever made, so it can only be uphill from there.

reply

[deleted]

Couldn't agree more. The plotting was an absolute shambles and felt like a second draft at best - who the hell has their two central characters go from tortured, bereaved parents to "let's dig up our daughter's rotting corpse and start hacking bits off it because someone we met about a fortnight ago says this is a good idea" in the space of about three days? And Alice simply wasn't frightening enough; supernatural shenanigans or not, I fail to see why it apparently didn't occur to anyone simple to hit her repeatedly with a shovel.

reply

That's something I found odd. Specially after watching Insidious last week. I don't get how you could believe you can bring the dead back to life so quickly?!?!?! without much question they are digging up a dead child. Why I mention Insidious is because the Father in that questions everything and doesn't believe what's happening while the Mother is swaying towards the unnatural.

So I was interested enough to watch the entire film. Someone said previous "it's watchable" it's exactly that and nothing more. It was a good idea that has many flaws and was executed badly. It didn't really explain why the child went on a killing spree? other than she was pissed off cos she was dead. I thought it was going in the direction of someone/something else had possessed her body. Been done! but at least it would of made sense of the killings. The fact that their little girl was angry at being dead and not wanting to go back doesn't justify the death in this film; maybe the people who wanted to send her back, but not the animals? and she had the opportunity to kill everyone? but chose not to? understandable that she wouldn't want to kill her parents, but five chins who wanted her back in the ground???

reply

I liked the part where the bull finished the guy. That scene was a cool one.

reply

I was killed by a bull, so I really do not like your comment at all!

For those that think it is overrated, I'm in with you. Was thinking "Pet Sematary III: Sorry, Low Budget"

Wasn't a complete flop as in the worst movie ever... but considered it below average in "B" movies with an ending that boosts the entire movie. At least hire people who can hold their breath for 10 simple seconds if supposedly dead.... 10 seconds for crying out loud! lol

reply

[deleted]

I have the belief that if you bring something/someone back from the dead,
it would not be them or would be in the flesh but filled with something else, or a mixture. hence what little girl would go around killing animals. She must have remembered the dog killed her and she took revenge. But was giving some type of evil power when she returned, like how did she know her mother was pregnant, crows dieing around her ? it may have not been her from the start. I rate this film highly, even a 9! for me it all made sense!! the "slow mows" with the windmills made good sound and visual effects near the end, when she walks out of range while her mother was calling her. I guessed her mother was going to get pulled down by her before it occurred, but still made me jump. I would like a part two, looks like the father is going to have to make the mother give birth in 3 days, that's why hes got all those cutting blades lined up, maybe they are the same ones used to help the cow give birth at the start of the film.

reply

I thought it was a little overrated as well. I think the score rating has dropped a little on IMDB since then. Many people were rumbling about this one so I finally picked it up and I was a little disappointed. Some of the gore in the birth was awesome but overall I was kind of bored. It does look great on Blu-ray too. I would give it a 6/10.

Also, I will have to check out Confessions.

LONG LIVE HAMMER!

reply

Well Total Film Magazine in the UK gave this 4 stars and on that basis gave this a go, and have to say it was terrible.
Didn't care for the characters that much ( A shoe in for dumbest parents ever award ) who let their daughter play hide and seek !! in the woods when surely you would not let her out of your sight.
The Director rips of every horror film he has seen ( Pet Semetary, Carrie, The Wicker Man, Don't Look now ) so nothing is original. Even had to turn on subtitles on the DVD to understand the Irish Accents.

The score rating on IMDB currently stands at 5.5. I would have to go lower as the final scene where the idiot of a father commits film's most awful crime by looking at the camera !

Oh please......

reply

[deleted]

This movie was a lot better than the majority of today's horror movies, which for the most part are ineveitably about a carload of college kids getting stranded somewhere, and then being dispatched by some maniac, with the "final girl" escaping or killing said maniac.
That's why I don't understand the Wake Wood bashing going on here.
I have to assume the critics are too braindead at this point to be able to appreciate anything that doesn't have the aforementioned plot, hip-hop or heavy metal music and actors under the age of twenty!

reply

I missed the beginning last week and am watching it "from scratch" now. It intrigued me last week and for me, it's worthwhile getting to know the entire story. Agree there are plot-holes, and the way in which Alice manifests the wrongness isn't the way I would have chosen, specifically because I don't receive this as a horror story. It's a bargain story, like the ones about the human who visits fairy land, breaks a rule and has to pay. The rules are arbitrary to us, but there are reasons.

SPOILERS BELOW
















The one-year limit makes sense to me because its a complete revolution of the earth around the sun, making a sort of closing of windows. It's a sort of gestation period.

The physical boundary of Wake Wood didn't bother me either. That's where the life-giving energy of Wake Wood ends. Out of bounds of the magic circle, so to speak, things don't last.

Timothy Spall's character explained the three-day limit. I buy it the way I buy the Beast telling Beauty she can only visit her family for a certain length of time. I'm assuming that after three days, the body gives out and the revived person dies. Around the end of the three days, the body begins to give out, as the "niece"'s body was doing in the pharmacy.

There's awareness after death: the "niece" tells Louise that Alice has a lovely voice so we're prepared for Louise talking to Patrick at the end about Alice; and it allows me to buy Louise's pregnancy.

I believe that hair continues to grow on a corpse?

Alice, for me, is not a monster. She's a child who was brought back wrong; she becomes aware that she died; she doesn't want to go back and be alone "in the ground". It's the fact of her being brought back past her due date that makes things go wrong. I feel the killings is a kind of degeneration on the writer's part, and taking the easy way out. I'm not sure what I would have done, but I was sorry when the killings started. Alice grabbing mommy at the end made sense to me, however.

Anyway. I'm liking it as I write and watch; I know what's coming and it's not spoiling it for me. Maybe I'm just "easy".

reply

>I believe that hair continues to grow on a corpse?

Nope. The skin constricts as the body dehydrates, pulling the tighter but leaving the hair, which remains the same length, sticking out just a bit further, giving the illusion that it has continued to grow. The same holds true for fingernails.

reply

Thank you, marcusturner-1: Very interesting to know.

Of course, it negates most of one of my favorite passages from _Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead_:

ROS: (cutting his fingernails) : Another curious scientific phenomenon is the fact that the fingernails grow after death, as does the beard.
GULL: What?
ROS: (loud) : Beard!
GULL: But you're not dead.
ROS: (irritated): I didn't say they started to grow after death! (Pause, calmer.) The fingernails also grow before birth, though not the beard.
GUIL: What?
ROS: (shouts) : Beard! What's the matter with you? (Reflectively.) The toenails, on the other hand, never grow at all.
GUIL (bemused): The toenails never grow at all?

Tom Stoppard. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (Kindle Locations 93-95). Kindle Edition.

reply