As for the paintings/photo's on the wall in the basement: I think it was very offensive to place Bush in the same 'category' as Hitler, and I don't even like Bush.
Actually I found that quite humorous. I mean, big shmeal. Bush was a jackass.
I agree, it had some cliches, but I liked it because it was surreal, like a real dream. Film makers usually fail when attempting to make a dream seem like a dream. In this movie, the reason a lot of things didn't make sense is because it
was a dream, and most of the time real dreams don't make a whole lot of sense when compared to reality. People don't act like they should, they don't move as they should or react predictably, etc. I've seen people nit-picking details in movie like crazy, and it's like taking an actual dream and going, "well, he flew by flapping his arms but he didn't have wings or anything, he defied gravity and it made no sense!" Yet a lot of people dream they're flying like that, don't they?
I love all the classic Italian horror movies, and I agree that this movie tried to emulate that. Even the soundtrack sounded like Goblin, who did a lot of soundtracks for Argento movies. But rather than copycatting, it was more of a nod. I didn't
not like it for trying to capture that feel & atmosphere. Maybe younger people who viewed this movie would get into the older classic stuff because of it, which isn't a bad thing, y'know? It just seems kind of snobby & elitist to be ranting about how this movie shouldn't be praised because it emulates older Italian horror movies...if anything it rather revives them. And let's face it, those classic movies were rather cheesy and at times quite flawed themselves (which is one of the reasons I love them); it's not like we're talking about Academy Award quality films, here.
»«ëÕ|{¥(V)
I can't understand your crazy moon language.
reply
share