This movie is a thriller. It's intention is to deliver suspense and action, and to give the viewer a fun experience. It did this in spades. It's full of mounting tension and anxious moments, with some great pov stuff when people are falling/dangling to give us the sense of height/threat. It's packed with good suspense situations.
Stop bitching and enjoy the film.
"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."
"It's packed with good suspense situations."
Yes it is. For the first two-thirds of the film there is good suspense and action. It was entertaining and engaging.
Sad to say, the film runs off the rails when it shifts from the mountains to the town. While Sean Harris is a bright spot, the script becomes ludicrous and sloppy. I'll touch on a few of the low points. While we learn that the small town has skilled fire and emergency crews, the police force consists of two men. One of the hikers pulls a knife on the police officer for no good reason. One of the kidnappers shoots from a roof-top position, which makes no sense whatsoever (cue laughter from the audience). Kidnapper dons pig mask and takes to the streets wielding firearms (cue loud laughter from the audience). The brave heroine assures the slaughter of an innocent man. She tosses the child from a second story window, yet the child is unscathed. I could go on.
Bravo to the part of the film set in the mountains. What a shame about the part of the film set in the town.
You're obviously one of those people that picks apart every little thing that you don't like or don't think should have happened. I've seen many movies where I think certain things are too far fetched or silly but I don't bitch about it. As long as I enjoyed the movie for the most part then I'm good. Movies are never going to be perfect just like real life isn't. People complain about all the little mistakes in a movie and they think characters do stupid things and what not. Well if movies were completely perfect and no one ever did anything stupid, crazy and so on then people would complain as well because like I said people in real life are not perfect and mess up/do strange things. Movies are the same way.
share"As long as I enjoyed the movie for the most part then I'm good"
Yeah, me to, and this is the point. I enjoy some films even knowing they are "bad", just because I found them entertaining. But I just could not find any single enjoyable thing in this film. Sorry, but not everyone need to have the same opinion. Landscapes were nice, though.
EDIT:
Just to clarify: With this I'm not saying this movie shouldn't have been made. As long as someone is enjoying it, good for him. I'm just saying that it's not that anyone talking about things he doesn't like is because he is no happy without complaining, as it's been stated in this thread. There will always be someone who doesn't like things yo do like and, not accepting this, is much more childish than saying why you don't like the film.
I did not nothing childish, I didn't say I didn't accep anyone not liking them film. I was just stating I don't know why people have to complain about every little thing they didn't like. I was just stating my opinion as well just like everyone else.
share"You're obviously one of those people that picks apart every little thing that
you don't like or don't think should have happened"
Considering that he just say he didn't like it and why, this seem to me like not accepting (or at least questioning) his opinion, but I must say that the edited part wasn't meant specifically for you, but in a more general way talking about what I use to see in iMDB.
Thus said, at least it is true that you have not been irrespectful, like plenty of people use to in this forums when someone doesn't agree with them.
Summarizing: It would be a nonsense if someone says you can't enjoy the film because it's bad, this is something completely up to you. Same goes the other way. And, again, this is for the people who acts this way, and for every movie.
Another glaring omission. After Alison revived the kid out of the water and they started to climb back up, the gunshots started and both gunman had clear shot of Alison and yet both their guns got stuck at the same time. How convenient.
Alison tossed the girl from the second story window, not impossible perhaps with all the bushes around. It beggars the question why she didn't jump through the window herself? If the kid could land without a scratch, so could she. Instead she chose to choke to her death.
The attitude of the police was also quite far-fetched. The hikers report 3 murders and a kidnapping and the fat cop carries on as if nothing had happened. And yes, the whole police station had only one cop who was conveniently shot from the roof of a building.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither ~ B. Franklinshare
I agree with the OP. A lot of petty complaints, and a few are unfounded.
The viewer is led to believe that the two hunters are the bad guys until the real bad guys are revealed moments later. Nothing wrong with that - it was actually a pretty nice little twist.
Alison survives her fall from the cliff into the water. You think she shouldn't have survived the fall? That's your opinion. A lay audience doesn't know whether she could have or not, only an experienced climber could know this, and even then it's mostly speculation.
When Alison tossed the girl from the window she had to swing and throw. I assumed it was necessary to swing the girl sufficiently to get her to land in a soft area - something she could not accomplish herself by jumping.
The attitude of the police was not out of the ordinary. We've all dealt with people who don't take us as seriously as we expect them to. He may have thought they were pranksters, or he did not fully believe their story, or he had his own problems, or he wasn't too bright.
Some people have commented that the shooting from the rooftop didn't make sense. Why not? If you don't want to get caught or be seen, it's not a bad idea.
Some people have commented that the shooting from the rooftop didn't make sense.Also, just like all of these folks complaining about it, we can assume that the kidnapper assumed that there would be more than two policemen in this village (and more than one at the station). If the character believes that, then why would he go into the police station guns blazing rather than taking them out with a sniper rifle from a distance?
Also, just like all of these folks complaining about it, we can assume that the kidnapper assumed that there would be more than two policemen in this village (and more than one at the station). If the character believes that, then why would he go into the police station guns blazing rather than taking them out with a sniper rifle from a distance?
Where are you getting measurements from (40 yards versus however many for the police station), where are you getting accuracy percentage figures from for his shooting, and where are you getting info about the exact angles re the windows, the building, etc.?
"Also, he's bold enough to kill a police officer in his squad car."
Wait--we didn't see who killed the police officer in the squad car. Okay, but assume it was him. He would have seen that there was one officer in the car.
"So why isn't he bold enough to kill an officer in a station?" (by walking into it) -- because he couldn't see how many officers were in the station, and like you geniuses talking about the film, he assumed there would be more than one in the station.
"So I doubt your theory that he was shooting from the roof out of caution" No, it's not a theory about that. It's about the inconsistency of you geniuses. You assume that there should be more than one officer in the station but do not allow characters in the film to assume the same thing.
"If he had caution, he wouldn't kill innocent bystanders in a crowded street while leisurely walking around with a firearm." Because what? There's a reason now to assume that they'd be armed or something, too? They're the same as police officers? Also, note that that was after he shot at the police officer and would have realized that in fact (in the film's world, of course), there was only one officer in the station.
http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies
Where are you getting measurements from (40 yards versus however many for the police station), where are you getting accuracy percentage figures from for his shooting, and where are you getting info about the exact angles re the windows, the building, etc.?
"Also, he's bold enough to kill a police officer in his squad car."
Wait--we didn't see who killed the police officer in the squad car. Okay, but assume it was him. He would have seen that there was one officer in the car.
"So why isn't he bold enough to kill an officer in a station?" (by walking into it) -- because he couldn't see how many officers were in the station, and like you geniuses talking about the film, he assumed there would be more than one in the station.
So I doubt your theory that he was shooting from the roof out of caution" No, it's not a theory about that. It's about the inconsistency of you geniuses. You assume that there should be more than one officer in the station but do not allow characters in the film to assume the same thing.
"If he had caution, he wouldn't kill innocent bystanders in a crowded street while leisurely walking around with a firearm." Because what? There's a reason now to assume that they'd be armed or something, too? They're the same as police officers? Also, note that that was after he shot at the police officer and would have realized that in fact (in the film's world, of course), there was only one officer in the station.
What is rarely disputed is that the UK has more cameras per citizen than anywhere else.
If it isn't 40 yards, how many yards do you think it was when he was shooting at the people in the forest and missing?The film doesn't give enough information for this. Just making up a distance doesn't work.
Also, answer me this: how do you shoot the ceiling lights out while on the roof?By looking at the ceiling lights and shooting. There's no reason given in the film to believe that this isn't possible in the film's world.
He would have also have seen that there were bystanders around.Again, you're just making crap up. There's no information given in the film about who,if anyone, was near the police officer in the car at the time he killed him (and again, we're just assuming he killed him).
Okay. To answer these two quotes I wanna ask this: how was he planning on getting the girl out of the station if he assumed there was more than one police officer? This is where you lost me. What was his plan? Was he planning to kill every adult in there and then get the girl? If he assumed that there was more than one police officer in the station that he couldn't see, he must have also assumed that the officers he couldn't see wouldn't go to the window and get into his line of fire after he started sniping.First off, just what his plan was doesn't matter. Absolutely no information is given in the film about that. I'm just pointing out that you folks complaining about it are morons, because you're assuming that there should be more than two police officers in the station but you're not allowing characters to assume the same thing.
Just because there is more than one officer doesn't mean he'll get away. There were bystanders who saw him kill. The UK has more surveillance cameras per capita than anywhere else in the world:Doesn't answer any question I'd just asked you. Why not? They weren't rhetorical questions. I want to know how you're reasoning what you are.
There are bystanders with camera-phones, surveillance cameras,Where in the film, exactly, is this shown?
I just found the whole part where they got into town with one stupid scenario after another.Whereas I find your criticisms, and everyone making similar criticisms to you, incredibly moronic. I'm pointing out why. Let's continue to do that for the benefit of others.
I was seriously going to answer you, Deezen. But I am convinced you are just trying to bait me with your trolling. I don't have the patience for this bs. You win.
My sig: why do almost all movies on imdb have a "worst movie ever!" thread?
In other words, you realized the conceptual errors you were making. No one online is going to say, "You're right . . . that doesn't really make sense, does it?", and in this specific case, "I'm not sure why I was just making up facts like the distance or why I was expecting the film to match random facts (like surveillance cameras) from the real world that have absolutely nothing to do with the film as a work of fiction. I agree that's misguided". So a bow out like yours is close enough and admirable for what it is, because it indicates that you're not completely averse to critical thought and you're not interested in simply arguing for argument's sake.
http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies
Like any other things in life, people are not happy unless they are complaining. i liked this film. The film was suspenseful and enjoyable
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2604794/
Agreed, the complaints here are petty and stupid. Meanwhile "epic blockbusters" get away with having plots you could drive a bus through, and still recieve ratings much higher than this one has
[deleted]
Every instance of implausibility tends to become a distraction to the story flow and makes it harder to be immersed in the movie. IMO, audiences will tend to be tolerant of a few mistakes, but are acting appropriately to sound off when they become too numerous - and especially so when it amounts to the writer's choices ruining all the work done by the rest of the production crew. Doubly true when the movie would have been much better if they hadn't tried too hard with their little "creative twists".
I was tolerant of the numerous implausibilities leading up to about when the scheming, malicious looking hunters were killed and had to look at this site;s threads for clues on what happened there. Why did we need to think the hunters were the bad guys stalking the people when it would have been more plausible and even more shocking if some normal hunters had been murdered for their guns, like john malkovich's character did with the duck hunters in "in the line of fire". ...So what if it was bizzare that the big guy wielded a club to swing at an emerging child victim underground (hey, the voice could be a ruse, eh?)- ...or that i saw the climber's rope snap at a point some distance down the cliff - ...or how could someone see where to direct falling rocks to hit the girl. It was more realistic that hitting tree branches didn't prevent the falling guy's death, but the girl recovered quickly after her torso whacked large branches and boulders during her fall. Hitting water afterwards would have been deadly for most humans.
All of that could have been overlooked until the evil, mean, nasty looking hunters were whacked. (yay! huh, whatt?) Then, each of the following plot goofs stuck out alot more. Way too numerous too. What would it take for you to believe a movie was ruined by plot goofs? The bummer is a less creative script/plot would have made this a great movie.
"When the pig mask came off, his face Still looked like a pig"
No, That would be a dumb comment. The comments i've read here are few in worthless opinion - instead, they're constructive complaints because of their detail. The reason they're appropriate isn't just because they have the right to complain after investing their time in the movie. Keep in mind that this is valuable feedback to the movie's producers and future filmmakers. It will contribute to their being more careful not to repeat the kind of implausibilities - or plot goofs - there were in this movie.
So, its all good.
"Death, has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war".Donald Rumsfeldshare
Plausibility problems are almost always the fault of the person assessing them having mistaken beliefs, generally including beliefs about their own intelligence.
http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies
[deleted]
People are petty. Period.
share