I agree with you 100%.
HUSK is neither intelligent nor thought provoking. To me, it comes across as a film of empty nothingness masquerading as something "clever". It's a pity because I think it starts off okay (not great, not good, but okay). For a few minutes after the initial crash there's a buildup of mood and atmosphere. But then it just goes downhill after, until the ditch. It's also amazing how a film that's less than eighty minutes long can feel like an eternity. That's all this movie is, really: a husk. It's just an outer covering of something worthless. A really poorly told story and a poorly written script.
Also, think it's funny when people attempt to defend a film of nothingness by saying it is "smart" and "thought provoking". I mean, there are films where people KNOW it's stupid (like TRANSFORMERS); some people go with it, others don't, etc. And then there are films which disguise themselves as "intelligent" by explaining not a god damn thing (like SPHERE). There's a difference between a film that gets you thinking naturally and a film that ASKS and/or BEGS you to (usually through script defects). In the former, the questions don't get in the way of the viewing experience. In the latter, such questions tend to take the audience out of the movie.
HUSK is an example of a poorly written script that makes audiences ask all sorts of wrong questions. It's almost forced on the viewer, who then has to try to answer questions of who, what, why and how all at the same *beep* time while having no clue as to what is going on. How can you expect an audience to enjoy a film that way?
"After figuring out how to escape, why don't they just run? Why do they *beep* around? They have to burn the place down? If need be, why can't they escape first, go to a Wal-Mart, get a bunch of supplies, come back, and THEN burn the place down?"
"Why aren't they concerned at all that a murder of crows bashes into their god damn windshield?"
"Why don't they just go around pulling the hoods off all the scarecrows? It seems to incapacitate them?"
"Why don't they just try destroying the sewing machine? Or just burn the *beep* house down?"
"Why did that one dude walk into a *beep* cornfield without notifying any of his friends who were injured? Come to think of it, why did he leave his injured friends to dick around? And why aren't the others concerned at all? He just casually decided to find a gas station after a car wreck except he walked into a cornfield?"
"How is it possible that a film that's less than eighty minutes long can feel like an eternity?"
"Why am I watching this piece of *beep*?"
Questions like these are more an example of terrible, half-assed writing than of addressing something clever.
There's a difference between a well-told story or a well-written script that is ambiguous or contains ambiguous elements (IE can be interpreted different ways or can potentially have different meanings) or asks relevant questions... and a poorly-told story or poorly-written script that explains nothing.
reply
share