MovieChat Forums > Skjult (2009) Discussion > omg! WTF was this HORRIBLE movie I just ...

omg! WTF was this HORRIBLE movie I just watched????!!!! (spoilers)

posted 14 years ago by BronzeKeilani26
4 replies | jump to latest

I want my 98 minutes back!!

The story-telling & direction was HORRIBLE in this film. Pieces of the entire plot are fed to us in so many kibbles that the movie ends up a huge MESS. The director and writer attempted to use the element of surprise to make the film more jaw dropping by throwing in scenes to throw us off, such as the constant presence of this female inn keeper and finding a female officer's photo crumpled up & stashed under water. Than KK catching up to Peter in the forest and Peter mirroring his hand motions as if to say it's actually KK seeing himself. Because a number of scenes and ppl were totally irrelevant & unnecessary, instead of serving it's purpose, it made the film even more chaotic. It was all over the place. Just a big mess! The entire backdrop was of dark dense colorless woods through most all the film, and an old huge deteriorating "filthy" home that should have been less filth & more spook. Even worse, 75% of the film was filmed in this mess of a house. Unlike other foreign films, or another Norwegian film which showed beautiful landscape or country sides of their homeland, this film did not as some claim in their reviews here. I have the DVD on my PC right now and just glanced back through it. The reviews are completely dishonest so I assume were made by those affiliated w/ the film. The purpose of piles of ugly hand stitched dolls is never explained, which we assume would serve a reasonable purpose considering the film & camera also revolved around the quantity while keeping the dolls in almost every scene. I gave it a 2 for good acting by the lead actors and that is the lowest I ever gave any film in my IMDb career. So that should explain anything I left out.

'My goal is to be as nice as my pets think I am'

[–] maddening-1 14 years ago

The inn keeper's photo is what he finds in the water - not Sara's (the female officer's). It amuses me when people get very basic things like that wrong in scenes of movies they're blasting.

I liked that so much was left open to interpretation. What some people take as lack of plot, others (like me) take as a welcome respite from having a script force feed me the whole storyline. I appreciate a movie that doesn't take me for an idiot who needs everything explained to me.

[–] jhhlg1 14 years ago

I agree with maddening-1. I sat and debated this movie with my friends after it had finished. It was fantastic to think of all the different ways the movie could have been taken. And honestly? You're complaining about the movie not showing off its' homeland? When a horror movie is made in America (or wherever you are from if you're not american...) do we show off everything that is amazing about our country? No, we use the sets that are relevent to the film. I thought the waterfall and surrounding area to be beautiful, but of course there are probably more breathtaking places that could have been seen in Norway. It was a horror movie, not a travel guide. Relating to the scenery, of course the dirty house was going to be shown considering it is the heart of the movie, it's called atmosphere. Please learn how to properly enjoy a movie before you complain about it.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] UberNoodle 13 years ago

I love how the OP says that any reviews in favour of the film, therefore contrary to his own, must be the product of some conspiracy by biased promoters. His own review, of course, is undeniably true. Gotta love how a person can rant and rave and yet not see the forest for the proverbial trees.

I just watched the film finally (no English subs in my territory so it was hard to get a hold of) and I really enjoyed it. It was excellently filmed, acted and paced. I have to wonder if the red raincoat is not a reference to the amazing film, Don't Look Now, which is another film about being pursued by guilt.