This is literally one of the worst, most nonsensical films ever made. And yet, SOMEHOW, every reviewer keeps giving it 10/10 and praising it for being "deep," "intelligent," and "Unique!" Have I fallen into some sort of alternate universe or something?
shareI just finished watching it and am as confused as you about the rave reviews. I can only assume that they're mostly fake reviews written by the production company or by people related to the director or something. It's the only feasible explanation. lol.
shareI actually wrote a review of this movie a few days ago. It was immediately (almost) given one unhelpful vote, and no one's seen it since. And yet so many people are finding these reviews where this film is praised as a masterpiece helpful!
I'm going to have to agree with you, the people who worked on this film are pulling a bigger conspiracy then the stupid conspiracy in their movie.
I just finished watching it and am as confused as you about the rave reviews. I can only assume that they're mostly fake reviews written by the production company or by people related to the director or something. It's the only feasible explanation. lol.
I think is it is powerful and awesome, and I did not work on the film.
Expand your mind and realize there are different kinds of people in the world.
'only explanation' you say. Wow you've got brains!
People have different opinions. Not all good reviews are from studio plants. I, for one, liked this movie a lot. Wouldn't give it a 10 out of 10, but it sure beats a lot of the thrillers they're releasing these days.
What I liked the most about it was how it started out as a movie that we'd expect to see Biel kicking some Tall Guy's ass in the climax before she saves her son, but it went into a completely different direction. It surprised me, and I find that almost always a good thing when I watch movies.
Again: different opinion.
Anatidaephobia — the fear that somewhere, somehow, a duck is watching you.
I agree that there are different opinions, but this movie is just mind-bogglingly bad. I can understand liking The Room, Battlefield Earth, Ghost Rider and all that, because at least people realize how bad they are!
This, though... People treat this like it's a masterpiece thriller when it easily one of the most mediocre ever made. If people would say, "Yeah, I understand how bad it is, but I like it anyway," that's one thing. But people are PRAISING this for the very same reasons it's flawed. This movie is only a slight step above SyFy originals in terms of quality; it's something you'll find in the bargain bins of DVD stores. I can't think of a single thriller in the past DECADE this movie could beat.
Ah, you think so? I sort of feel the opposite way, because I know the types of bargain bin DVDs you're referring to and I actually think the movie isn't one of them. It's no Taken (and by that I mean not "so crazy and kinda damn cool that it's actually brilliantly entertaining while staying pretty gritty" type of movie), being somewhat of a worldwide hit. But I think it deserves more attention than it's getting.
And c'mon, SyFy originals have become its own genre. I don't think it's fair comparing such a simple story to one of those horribly CG-filled movies. It looks ten times better than those.
I think also what appealed to me was both an interesting twist on a been-there-done-that story, and the rich look the movie had. It was very grey and at some times quite dark, it had a layer of sadness and grimm, yet I found it very beautiful to look at. It had some very good shots and angles going on.
OK, I'm almost praising it. Sorry. I liked the movie quite a lot.
Anatidaephobia — the fear that somewhere, somehow, a duck is watching you.
I will concede, it had a nice look. Still, it had two ample opportunities to end the film on a good note and zoomed past them to that dumb child abduction organization. I went over my problems with it in my review, it just annoyed me so much...
I definitely shouldn't compare it to SyFy, you're right about that. Sharktopus was infinitely better than this. At least SyFy movies KNOW they're bad, this movie thought it was some kind of high art. That's my major problem with it, too: Aside from the twists, this movie pretends to have a deep message.
I mean, I don't hate anyone for liking this movie. I like a lot of AWFUL movies myself, I have a whole list dedicated to my favorite bad/cheesy/campy movies. It just annoys me when people would try and elevate this mediocre film to the levels of such thrillers as Taken, Silence of the Lambs, Red Dragon, and Oldboy.
I feel this would have been better as a supernatural horror film and not a thriller; the premise lends itself to an almost Slender Man like story, and yet they decided to go with an underground child kidnapping ring. The plot choices boggle my mind.
So yes, I won't argue that the movie isn't VISUALLY good... But everything else is just bad.
I feel this would have been better as a supernatural horror film and not a thriller;
"I agree that there are different opinions, but this movie is just mind-bogglingly bad"
Funny quote LOL
BTW, I liked the movie a lot. But that cannot be, because it's "one of the worst non-sensical films ever made" LOL again
Yes it is, I'm glad you realize it.
And there are different opinions, but some things are just completely un-subjective in their awfullness. Like Blood on the Dance Floor, The Last Airbender, and this movie.
This movie is an insult to the intelligence of everyone watching it, so I'm glad you at least understand that it's nonsensical. Unless you were using that quote sarcastically, then I feel sorry for you.
You are an insult to my intelligence.
I love the film. Many others do according to ratings.
They cant all be part of the crew.
Therefore your theory on '...everyone watching it...' is patently, irreversibly, clearly and provably incorrect.
You just don't like the film. Thats fine.
Big *beep* deal bud.
And that's your OPINION. My opinion is that this was a very good movie. I really enjoyed it from start to finish, and didn't figure it all out until the middle of the second half when I had things confirmed which I had theories on in the beginning.
EMOTICONS ARE BACK! YAY!
This was an original movie. Loved it!
sharebecause it is a brilliant movie!
shareIt wasn't. It was absurd, nonsensical, and an insult to the viewers intelligence. The ludicrous amount of twists and the really horrible messages the movie gives makes it all the worse. Maybe if the director had stuck with a supernatural horror film, it would have been good, but no, he decided to make a half-baked thriller instead. This is a movie I'm going to be seeing in the dollar bin at video stores soon, which is where this garbage belongs.
share^ most thrillers are absurd anyway. I loved the film, it actually treated the audience with a brain. Plus the theme of the film is definitely one to talk about.
shareThrillers are usually a little more realistic than this. Silence of the Lambs, Seven, stuff like that is how thrillers should be: Slightly outlandish but still realistic enough that it's believable the stuff in them could happen.
This movie's 'worldwide child kidnapping ring that has gone undetected' bullcrap is too outlandish; like I have said previously, this movie would have sucked a whole lot less if it was a supernatural horror movie instead of a bargain-bin Lifetime movie as made by a fan of The X-Files.
I'd also like to reiterate how abhorrent the message conveyed in this film is. "If you think that a kid is in a bad home, kidnap them and give them to a family somewhere else so that their life might be better" is not a message you'd see in a good movie, and that seemed to be the message the film was conveying.
^ thats not the whole message. The message in the film never suggests that kidnapping the children is always and only better for them. Hence the last scene of Jennys closing monologue. It suggests that the child must want a different life for it work.
If you think Seven and Silence of the Lambs is more realistic than this film you obviously don't know anything about child slavery or even human trafficking. And you described this film perfectly outlandish but still realistic. Like most thrillers.
If I want a thriller with human trafficking portrayed well, I'll watch Taken. And still, the whole kidnapping children thing is horrible, whether or not they want a different life. This film portrays taking children away from families in an almost positive light; Biel came off almost as a hero, and that's absolutely disgusting.
And even if Seven and Silence of the Lambs aren't as 'realistic' is this crappy film, they're still better by leaps and bounds.
^ yeah but is it? Jenny had to live in an area where she couldn't go to school. Her mothers boyfriend impregnated her sister. She was also a victim of physical abuse from her mothers boyfriend. The idea behind it is right, but the way they executed the idea maybe wrong though.
Is it really wrong to give a child a future their parents could never give them.
Not by kidnapping them, no.
And that's what I don't like about this, it almost seems to glorify kidnapping children if you can give them a better life. Well, it's one of the things I don't like.
really? why not? So this big bad organization is taking kids away from their parents not for money or perversion or any gain to themselves. They are taking kids from *beep* homes who don't want to be in that life anymore and who asked to be taken. your right its completely wrong. screw the kid and its messed up life the fact its *beep* excuse of a parent put it in that life is fine as long as said parent is happy what does it matter about the kid anyway. How about go watch THE KID 2010 true story about a kid that grew up in an abusive life that wanted help and was given back to his parents by the people who were meant to help him. If someone walked into his life and took him to a better life then no its not wrong the only person it would hurt is his screwed up parents. its illegal yes but its not wrong. Wait hold on social services do exactly the same thing right but they have to follow the law so sometimes they are too late.
shareWow. Do you even hear yourself? "It's illegal but it's not wrong"... kidnapping a child is wrong, no matter what good intentions you think you have. How dare you defend the deplorable message of this crappy movie.
And by the way, pretty sure that the first kid, the one that got Biel's stupid character caught, was specifically taken away from the mom because she was poor, not because she was a bad parent.
Is it really wrong to give a child a future their parents could never give them.
Well, if you give them this 'better life' by kidnapping them, brainwashing them, and 'giving' them to the high bidder, yeah, I do kinda think it is a very bad thing. Especially when it is some anonymous do-gooder deciding which is The Better Life, and not the child itself.
I always wondered if the Tall Man had a catalog of available kids he mailed out to customers, or what.
Actually I was surprised by the low score of the movie. I watched it only because of strong recommendation by a friend, didn't expect much but it turned out pretty good with quite a few twists. I liked it. I'd say it's not a 10/10 but maybe 8/10.
shareWell, I guess everyone likes crappy movies sometimes. I just wish I could understand why anyone likes THIS crappy movie.
shareDid we watch the same film? The movie doesn't really glorify child kidnapping. It leaves an open question about it being a possible positive thing but doesn't glorify it. You could say certain characters glorify kidnapping but not really the film.
shareIt really seemed to glorify it, what with the kidnapped children all getting happy endings. There really is no way kidnapping a kid could be positive; getting a kid out of a bad home is good, but there's a right way to do it, and it isn't by kidnapping them.
sharethe movie just shows the kidnapped. children in rich families and mostly kids that won't really remember that they were kidnapped when they grow up.
We can see by the last line that even children who can remember and wanted a better life are not sure
if it was the right thing to do.
True the movie makes it "a grey area" which is not but still the movie is a
good thriller that surprised me more than few times.
Oh sure, there were surprises. The movie threw way too many plot twists. It's like if M. Night Shymalan wrote something WORSE than his recent films.
'Good thriller' is really stretching it. Silence of the Lambs, Taken, Seven, Red Dragon, North by Northwest, Psycho... Those are good thrillers. The Tall Man doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as any of those movies.
I thought this was a great film. My own opinion is that most of the people here complaining about it, really did not understand it.
And "way too many plot twists"? There was really just ONE real plot twist, namely the reveal about Biel's character and her actions that reversed our understanding of what happened earlier in the movie.
But there's nothing to really understand, is the thing. The movie is straightforward; it goes from one thing to the next.
I honestly hate when people say that, you know, "You didn't like it because you didn't UNDERSTAND." No, I hate this movie because I think it sucks.
Biel's reveal wasn't the only twist. What about her husband being alive? The kids not really being murdered and buried? The chuild kidnapping organization bullcrap? There were quite a few 'twists' here.
Obviously you're the only one with taste in movies, and everyone else has *beep* taste. You should make them all a list of movies they should like, that way you don't have to waste your time coming onto the forums wondering why people could possibly like a movie you don't.
I collect dead pigeons then I press them between the pages of a book.share
I'm having a hard time telling if you're serious or just a sarcastic idiot who didn't read any other posts in this thread besides the top few.
shareWanna understand? Get more education and life experience.
shareBut this movie has nothing to do with Slender Man, sadly. If it did it probably wouldn't have sucked, or it least would have sucked marginally less.
shareFor someone who didn't like this movie mcfjr42 you sure can't stay away from the forum. I must question YOUR intelligence of continuously coming to a film board you supposedly dislike.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to eat a slice of cheese. I hate cheese but after I eat that slice I think I will eat another slice.
I only axed ya for a smoke - Jack Frost
Hmm, funny you say that I keep coming back to a thread I started. A thread I started so I could find a satisfactory answer to my question. I have yet to find one, so I keep coming back.
If you're serious about that cheese thing, I'm pretty sure you're an idiot. I hope that was just a lame attempt at sarcasm/wit/what have you.
Of course the cheese thing was sarcasm, Stevie Wonder could've seen it. Surely you are not that moronic? Not familiar with humour in your household are you? I bet you are the life of the party when you go out and about.
You lost all logical reasoning and any right to be taken serious when you put this film on par with SYFY originals. Don't get me wrong, I love SYFY original movies, the cheesiness and tongue-in-cheek are fun and the horrid CGI make the movies so bad they are good mostly.
This was a decent film, and different to what we usually get.
I even saw you insult people's intelligence for liking this movie?
No, you are not after a satisfactory answer, you are degrading anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Back to my cheese thing by the way...
"If you're serious about that cheese thing, I'm pretty sure you're an idiot"
Exactly the point I was making with my sarcasm. I've seen you post the same drivel in about 4 continuous posts a way back. So you just basically called yourself an idiot. Clever lad.
I only axed ya for a smoke - Jack Frost
You... seriously thought I didn't understand the cheese thing was sarcasm? I literally said I hoped it was your lame attempt at wit, that should have been the tip-off for you that I realized you were making an incredibly stupid attempt at sarcasm.
I am not degrading anyone who doesn't agree with me. I AM, however, getting rather annoyed that people are treating this as high art on par with truly great thrillers, when it is actually only comparable to bargain-bin straight to DVD films.
The SyFy comment, by the way, I was comparing to the quality of the movie, not that it is like it in content. SyFy movies, which I enjoy, suck. They have bad acting, terrible CGI, etc. This movie takes the worst qualities of a SyFy movie (minus the CGI) and none of the good. I've also mentioned on numerous occasions (maybe not on this message board) how it is similar to a bad Lifetime original movie crossed with a bad episode of "The X-Files," which may be a better description.
"Exactly the point I was making with my sarcasm. I've seen you post the same drivel in about 4 continuous posts a way back. So you just basically called yourself an idiot. Clever lad."
If I have posted the same thing, it's only because every poster on here uses the same points trying to defend this dumb movie. I don't see how it makes me an idiot to point out the flaws in a movie that says that kidnapping children can be considered a gray area.
mcfjr42 I disagree with you completely... I am a movie buff and I chose this film the best of 2012, I watched it 3 times, I actually cannot believe the low score. You really should not have the hubris to believe that soo many people who praise this movie are only company plants, etc. You, should try and reason that most likely you missed something that most people didn't.
But let me just answer your original post.
This is literally one of the worst, most nonsensical films ever made
To me is the best film of 2012, one of the best thrillers of the last 5 years, and I love thrillers, it's my favorite genre. But the "nonsensical" part really bothers me. You may not like the story, whatever, good or bad are just point of views, but nonsensical?? that is objective, something can be bad but still make sense and the movie made A LOT of sense. It just makes me believe you didn't understand it, but then again it was not so hard to follow. You should watch it again, you definitely missed something. Again, it's all a matter of taste but objectively speaking, the story made sense. Nonsense is something lacking coherent meaning, that meaning might be bad for you, might not be your cup of tea, but IT DOES MAKE SENSE, I would love for you to expand on why was nonsensical. I tell you what doesn't make sense: "Things are a lot more like they used to be than they are now." THAT is an example of something that doesn't make sense. In a movie: "Hide and Seek" Dakota fanning keeps getting blamed for the bad things, NOT ONCE she tells her father that he is crazy. Maybe she does off- screen. For what we see it doesn't make sense. Nonsensical in a movie is when the story breaks its own rules of logic. The tall man DOESN'T do that.
And yet, SOMEHOW, every reviewer keeps giving it 10/10 and praising it for being "deep," "intelligent," and "Unique!"
Because it IS intelligent and IT IS Unique. The movie fools the audience into thinking they are gonna watch another "bogeyman" type of film and ended up being something COMPLETELY different, IT'S GREAT!! as an audience I love being fooled, it's sooo refreshing, that's the essence of good cinema, when a movie can fool the audience, that's one of the main characteristics of cinema since it exits. Good cinema has always fooled audiences, in many different ways.
And ultimately, the movie has a great message which I love and subscribe, which I must say some people missed. The message is not poor=bad, rich=good, it talks about intellectual differences, about ignorance and about parents transmitting these paradigms to their children and how it becomes a cycle that never ends, and the way they use to break this cycle, which is through kidnapping, and no, I don't condone kidnapping but is just a movie and it was an original decision to help the plot, and the end the movie raises a question and it's for us to answer. But what I kept for me was the line that puts it all together "knowledge is the key to open all the doors" that is one of the best messages.
I never thought anyone was a company plant, thought it honestly wouldn't surprise me.
Perhaps I was unclear on the nonsensical part; what I meant to say is the film is nonsense. I would not watch it again, because it was a tedious slog of a movie.
It isn't really intelligent or unique. Did you ever consider maybe I wanted to see a boogeyman movie when I sat down and was pissed off when the movie twisted into a mediocre thriller. I like twists and stuff, but this was just infuriating. And then it keeps piling on more and more stuff about some child kidnapping ring... I wanted to watch a movie about some sort of Slender Man-esque boogeyman figure, not a movie about child kidnappers. If I wanted to watch a thriller about child kidnapping, I would have watched Taken. There is a time or place to fool audiences into thinking they're watching one thing (From Dusk Til Dawn did it good), but this is not the right time or place.
As for the message... It's really, really dumb to put a message like that in a film like this. If the director wanted to convey that message, make some sort of drama film, not a thriller about child kidnapping rings. That kind of takes away from the message and frankly it just seems wrong.
I mean, maybe I can see why someone would like it. It's been a while since my original post; I still hate it, but you know, whatever, other people like it. But best of 2012? Django Unchained, Wreck-It Ralph, Brave, The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers, Dredd, The Hobbit, Argo, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook, ParaNorman, Pirates! Band of Misfits, Rise of the Guardians, 21 Jump Street, Les Mis, Life of Pi, and Skyfall all came out last year. I can see liking this movie, but better than all or even any of those? No.
I saw all the movies you listed, and liked most of them and yes The tall man to me was the most thought provoking film of them all, I even watched ParaNorman, that was the best animated film of the year.
You still didn't expand on the nonsense part, again, the movie might not be your cup of tea, which is fine, but tell me exactly WHICH part didn't make sense to you, because the movie, good or bad, MAKES SENSE.
And putting the finger on the real issue here, you talk like you are some sort of God of filmmaking who decides what movies should be, what they should not be and what and how... really man? Art is like that, everybody is free to express things the way they want, how they want, and when it is creative and original then it is good! and talented, and that is what the tall man is, you don't get to decide what the movie should have been, that's for the maker to decide.
Second, another reason why I cannot respect your opinion:
"Did you ever consider maybe I wanted to see a boogeyman movie"
Why would you want to watch that movie, IT'S BEEN DONE TO DEATH... there are literally 1 million movies like that, WHY would you complain when a movie tries to be something different!! It's for people like you cinema quality is being going down, you want the same thing over and over, and for people like that studio only invest in formulaic, predictable crap!! you can say whatever you want about the tall man, but it was NOT predictable, which is always a good sign.
and Ultimately, if you want to see another bogeyman movie (and there is actually a bogeyman movie) close your eyes, throw a rock at any direction and you WILL HIT A MOVIE LIKE THAT... geez, ever heard of originality? of bravery in film? they guy tried to do something different, that should be encouraged!
And the message (excellent message, again) is perfect, and it doesn't matter where, or in which kind of film they put it, 35 min into the film when the movie reveals itself, it's obvious it was not the bogeyman movie you expected. I remember when it was revealed who the tall man actually was, I sat up at the edge of my seat and said... well this is interesting, finally a movie like this with a new twist. Any good movie fan would appreciate that... That's the ESSENSE of good thriller when something happens that you didn't expect, and for the last time, IT MADE SENSE... whether you liked it or not, which is fine eaither way, it still made sense, the movie didn't break any logic rule...
At the end of the day, we both watched a movie, I had a hell of a time, and you were left with bitterness and resentment... I know who got the best deal and I would choose that deal any day of the week.
Well, I guess that's it then. The bottom line is that we both watched the same movie and got something different out of it. You had a good time, I watched a dreary, dull thriller.
One comparison I can do is when I saw Battlefield Earth. Most people saw one of the worst films of all time; I saw a mind-bogglingly stupid sci-fi disaster that had me laughing hysterically. Different people take different things from different movies. I don't think you're wrong, but I don't think I am either.
I think you are not wrong by not liking it. But you are wrong by calling it nonsensical, which you have yet to explain.
At first I thought you were kidding with Battelfield Earth, that is unanimously called the worst piece of crap ever made, and you enjoyed it??? but did you enjoy it ALA plan 9? So bad is good kinda thing? Because really, I cannot fathom someone liking battlefield earth and trashing the tall man. Really, then I'm done.
Oh, of COURSE I liked it in a "So bad it's good way." I myself in a film buff with a certain fondness for amazingly bad films. The Room, Street Fighter, Freddy Got Fingered... Of course I don't think they are genuinely good, I just enjoy them for the sheer ineptness. Of course, I still ENJOY them for being bad, so I did indeed enjoy Battlefield Earth more than this. Not in the way the filmmakers intended, but I actually laughed for two hours straight at it, which is more than I can say for the Tall Man.
As for the nonsensical bit, I probably chose the wrong word; no, definitely. I was really annoyed when I wrote the original comments. My REAL problem isn't with the movie being nonsensical, it's with them explaining everything.
Let me elaborate: I actually thought the movie was okay for the most part, nothing special and really dreary but not TERRIBLE, until it got to the reveal about Biel. Now, that was fine; I thought to myself, "That's a good twist, I mean, I feel like this movie was a little short but overall it wasn't that bad." Then I noticed there was still a good amount of time left in the movie. It explained every aspect of the child abductions and how it's part of some organization and all that garbage; I would have preferred if they ended the movie with a little mystery instead of overexplaining what happened with the children. Leaving it to the imagination would have been a lot better.
Also, in response to the earlier comment about there being a lot of boogeymen movies I could have watched, well, that was why I watched this movie. I had heard good things about this director and people were giving it good reviews; I thought perhaps the director had breathed new life into a done-to-death genre and made an intelligent, interesting, and/or enjoyable boogeyman/supernatural horror/slasher film, the likes of which have only incredibly rarely been seen since the days of Halloween and A Nightmare on Elm St. When the movie twisted into a thriller and explained everything as a child kidnapping organization, I felt really annoyed. I'm not the kind of person who gets made when a movie twists into something different, but the fact that EVERYTHING was explained away and there were no mysteries irked me. Not to mention I felt the whole kidnapping children thing created a lot of plot holes.
We are getting into something now.
I felt that the movie didn't explain everything and it ends with a question, remember the character looking at the camera and saying "right? right? right?" like she doesn't know if what they did was right or wrong, it is for us to figure out. The movie doesn't say that what Biel and her husband did was heroic or right, doesn't even attempt to portray them as the good, it's just about people who have this ideal and are ready to take it to the extreme to follow this belief. This movie takes a very unique idea and allows itself the license to explore it. I found myself thinking about the movie for a long time after it was over, just to let you know that not everything was explain. And if it was, what's really wrong with that? Slasher/bogeyman movies DO explain everything and you forget about them the minute the credits start rolling.
Another thing I left out before. You found amazing the switch of genre in from dusk till dawn (like I did) but you couldn't tolerate it for this movie?? I see double standar, I know the 2 films can't be compared but the switch is pretty much the same. Salma hayek turns into a vampire = Biel turns out to be the Tall man. The same impact. I just find it weird that you praise it in one film but trash it in the other.
Your taste for bad movies sounds like a film-fetish to me, not something I subscribe, I never found a bad movie I enjoy... I do have some guilty pleasures "patrick swayze's road house" I don't know why I like it, it's not a bad movie anyway, it's just I dont know why I like it. Or Battleship, it's not that good but I enjoy it, it's definitely NOT Battlefield earth. And ocasionally the rom com. It's like the fast food of movies.
The tall man worked very well as a thriller because it's like an onion that looses a layer each time, the first is the reveal about Biel's character, at that moment you think she is a psyco and a killer, then you don't know what to think, then it is revealed the kids are not dead and it looses another layer... IT'S GREAT!! it keeps surprising you and all in less than 2 hours.
And again, I didn't see any plot holes, and of course it's fictional but if you think is not plausible you need to get out more, there have been and still are networks of child abducting groups that do EXACTLY what the movie portraits although for different reasons $$$. In my country there was a huge case and the responsible was sentenced last year. Im talking about 1000s of babies.
Everytime someone says about a movie: "that would never happen in real life" "it was so unbelievable" I want to scream to that person YOU ARE WRONG, you are DEAD WRONG. I read many history books in my life and never got nearly as shocked when I read a novel or anything else. Real life beats fiction any day of the week. Real history is soo shocking I wouldn't believe it if it wasn't that it says "history book" in the cover. You want to be shocked? read a history book, then talk to me about unbelievable.
The tall man is fiction, but very plausible, like many other things.
lastly, do you think there can be something new in the slasher-bogeyman movie? If they change something... it stops being a slasher-bogeyman movie! the tall man is a good example, but it doesn't have to be that extreme! And how can a slasher movie be intelligent?? they never were! they are the porn of horror. We just don't see eye to eye.
I guess not. I really disagree with a lot of what you just said.
Slashers can't be intelligent? An enjoying of bad movies is a 'film fetish?' Rom coms are the fast food of movies?
The original Halloween and Nightmare on Elm St. at didn't insult the viewer and were both high quality. They were effective and well made, and were most certainly NOT comparable to the pornographic gore-fests released today. There are other examples, such as Scream, which was an excellent satire of the genre, but the first two are the ones that stand out as incredible quality and not anywhere near to being something comparable to porn. I might say they are two of the finest horror films ever made.
Enjoying bad movies is just what it is; enjoying bad movies. I don't like EVERY bad movie. I hated The Last Airbender, Crash, Breaking Dawn, and this movie, and I believe all of them to be bad. It's more of a guilty pleasures thing.
And if you think rom coms are like fast food, well, you aren't watching the right ones. Harold and Maude, When Harry Met Sally, Shaun of the Dead, Warm Bodies... There are plenty of excellent rom coms out there that defy the vapid stupidity of most other recent films in their genre.
And obviously child kidnapping is a real problem, I don't doubt that. But what bugged me is: how did no one recognize the abducted children? From the ending it looked like the kids were still in the U.S. You'd think child abductions would get some sort of international attention, or at least news coverage or something. I see cases of abducted children on the news quite often from far-off states. You would think that someone, ANYONE, would easily be able to recognize these missing kids as they walk around in broad daylight with their new parents.
From Dusk Til Dawn didn't lose steam for me and keep adding and explaining everything. I still think the Tall Man explained too much about the child kidnapping; the of the children would have been a better unsolved mystery, like how at the end of FDTD they didn't explain where these vampires were from (they merely ended with a zoom-out showing the bar was on some kind of Aztec pyramid, which doesn't answer too many questions and raises many more). I just felt they portrayed Biel too heroically, her husband too, and they just went into too much detail on the whole thing. If they had explained less and ended the movie sooner, it might have been better off.
But at the end is when it really hit me: this movie was absolutely joyless. It just wasn't fun to watch. Even some of the darkest and grittiest movies I've ever seen were at least enjoyable to sit through, but as I looked back I just found this movie to be miserable and off-putting.
Maybe is just a matter of label, I believe when a movie contains some intelligence is not a slasher film. For example, Nightmare on Elm St is not a slasher film, or at least NOT only a slasher film, that movie was highly original when it came out, but it was also very psycological, the whole "if you fall asleep you die", is a horror movie, but not slasher, because the main thing about Freddy was not the gore, it was the psycological horror. Halloween is a slasher film through and through, is not even scary, it was a good movie when it came out, I guess because there wasn't any other movie like it, but Im sorry I don't consider it intellingent at all... it was good, I mean I love carpenter, but no.
Like I said, is a matter of putting the right label to things. Slashers are precisely dumb movies that are only about a killer chasing after the blonde who, like sidney said, chooses the stairs instead of the door. Period. Scream is a horror-satire, NOT slasher. I mean, it makes fun of slashers, that was its appeal. But is not just about a guy killing people, like slashers are, it had some nice content and a whodunit appeal, which is absent in slashers, where you always know who the killer is beforehand.
By your definition we should call also The terminator slasher, because there is a guy chasing and killing people, and the terminator is my favorite movie I would NEVER call it a slasher. It is definitely NOT a slasher, is a horror-sci-fi-noir film. Not a slasher.
When you said "Crash", do you mean Paul Haggis's Crash? the 2004 best picture oscar winner Crash Crash? If you did, do you have something against movies with a message?? That is a great film with a marvellous anti-racism message. You might not like it but you can NEVER call it objectively bad. Come on!
Most rom coms are sooo formulaic (I said the ocassional rom com, meaning "I don't put them all in the same bag) but very effective, and I enjoy them, unfortunately, I hate to admit but I do enjoy them, they are not bad, they are fast food, you like it but you know is junk food. There are ocasionally amazing rom coms, excelent fim overall: 500 days of summer might be the best example.
Shaun of the dead was a Zombie rom com, I don't put it in the same category, I loved it, but not for the rom com part. I just watched Warm bodies, wanted to watch it since I saw the trailer, knew I would like it... and I did, though it was a bit too silly.
Of course I enjoy these films, but still rom coms, in general are fast food, examples: all Katherine Heigl and kate hudson films (no, not almost famous), no strings attached and its clone friends with benefits, what's your number? etc. formulaic and effective, ergo: fast food, don't make them bad, I did say I enjoy them. it's the movies you know exactly how they are going to end the moment you start watching, actually the moment you see the poster of the movie you know how it ends, and the movie doesn't try to cover it.
how did no one recognize the abducted children?
That's the voice of... I was gonna write ignorance but I don't want to sound too harsh, let's say lack of information. Believe me, it happens and it makes sense. 1st because it depends WHO you take the babies from, and in the Tall man was this god-forsaken town, nobody cares about these people, makes it a LOOOT easier for abducters. Many of these people don't have the resources to bring the attention, let alone search for their children, they might not even care, and ultimately, NOBODY gives a *beep* that happens in real life. If you paid attention in the tall man, this is actually explained, the kids don't get the new parents right away, they stay with Biel and her friend in the house for an "adaptation" period, and when Biel decides they are ready to go, meaning: they don't miss the parents anymore, then they get adopted. In real life in my country, there is this famous group of mothers and grand mothers who fought for more than 30!! years, not exaggerating, to find and track abducted children, and in some cases the child (now adult) didn't want to abandon the new family. I'm talking about 1000s of babies kidnapped in the 70s and till this day most were not found even though they were adopted in the same country.
In the tall man the kids change their names, they act happy with their new family, and they grow fast and change fast, why would someone recognize them? in any case, it is completely plausible because... yes! it happened in real life!! reality beats fiction.
You insist on the "explaining too much", that is so arbitrary, why would've been better without explaining?? then it wouldn't have made any sense at all, and where is it written that that is a bad thing to explain what happened? it is part of the story, the story is about what happened to these children... it was the point of the movie. This is easy to detect from the beginning of the film, how the baby is born, that the mum's boyfriend had it with the daughter, when you see the portraits of Biel and husband with all the children, the fact that the Tall man kidnapps children, which we know from the beginning, and many other things it is quite obvious that the movie was always about WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CHILDREN! how can they not explain it? it's what the movie is about??
I keep your last paragraph, you didn't enjoy the movie, that's fine with me, it is really your loss, it is much better to enjoy something. To me, was hands down the best of 2012. Oh, by the way, Wreck it ralph? brave? brave dissapointed me so bad, Ralph was ok. Dark knight raises had brilliant moments and ridiculous moments, I mean, flying into the sun with the bomb to take it away from the people and thus sacrifying himself?? that was sooo clichee! I was surprise by Nolan, he doesn't go to common places. Not to mention the death scene of Marion cotiliard's character. All other movies are really great, none provoked so much thought in me like the tall man. Best of 2012.
I have nothing against films with a message, but I do have something against tedious black-and-white racism dramas that snatch away Oscars from more deserving films. Crash was not good and did not deserve an Oscar, as its message is sullied by its incredibly unflattering portrayal of Asians (a racism drama that uses the stereotype of Asians being bad drivers and then portrays the only other Asian as a slaver? Nice.)
I'm going to have to disagree with your criticisms of all of those movies (Brave, Warm Bodies, Etc). I can't defend TDKR too much, because it did have cliche moments, but I think that was part of the idea.
And while maybe I see your point about this movie... It may deserve to be liked, but it's really not deserving of THIS much praise. Maybe it's original, but original doesn't always mean good. If anything, this is the most overrated movie of 2012. I'd say it's the worst, but Breaking Dawn Part 2 did come out in 2012...
Well obviously far more qualified people than you and me to talk about movies certainly disagree with you on Crash, I for one, as well. And I didn't even care about the bad driver Asian, it was a female character and the point was that she was female! not asian. And again, like I said before, I don't know in which world you live in, you really need to get out more, but there are TONS of cases of slavery in ASIA, if it bothers you, it doesn't say anything about the movie, it says about you and your ignorance on the subject. And just because it portraits a very REAL situation with an Asian, that unfortunately happens A LOT even while I am writing this post, it doesn't mean it includes ALL Asians in this portrayal, that is SO narrow-minded. That asian happened to be a human traffic scum. Period. Millions of other Asians are great people I'm sure, and the movie doesn't deny that.
Brave wasn't bad just expected more. I said I liked Warm bodies a lot.
It's true that original doesn't always mean good, but I would love to encourage more filmmakers to take the risk than go for something old, known and formulaic.
The tall man is in my opinion underrated. It deserved more attention.
Ah, I misread about Warm Bodies. And Brave was only disappointing after seeing three of the other animated films nominated; I still think it's good, just not better than the other three films I saw (Ralph, ParaNorman, and Pirates).
As for Crash, I probably can't explain why I hate it so much, but it's just not good. It's a superflupous film delivering a message that's been done to death (racism is really bad), and stole an Oscar from the far more deserving Brokeback Mountain. American History X dealt with racism far better by narrowing its lens and not trying to encompass all races. Crash was a movie whos vision far extended its reach I suppose. It certainly didn't deserve best picture whatever you may think of it.
Well, in closing I'd like to thank you. You actually explained WHY you like this movie, unlike everyone else who just said "It's a good movie, blah blah blah." I may still think this movie is awful, but now I can see why someone would like it. Honestly, in hindsight, it doesn't matter too much... This movie is pretty obscure and will be forgotten in a few years. It really is pointless to argue about it.
I suppose the reason hardly anyone gave you a reason why they liked the film is because you simple said you thought it was the worst thriller ever and kind of left it at that. Then you amended the comment to say it wasn't terrible once someone actually pointed out a few things about the film that make it a decent piece of cinema. Which was good, because it is very annoying to constantly hear people saying something is 'the worst ever' (when obviously it isn't) like some kind of objective fact when of course it's just an emotional response hoping to get a rise out of people.
Like you I went in to see a boogeyman-type film with a little more intelligence than, say, I Know What You Did Last Summer - which I thought the director and Biel could probably deliver. Unlike you I wasn't annoyed about the fact that the film was far braver, more unique and interesting than your standard supernatural, slasher-style thriller/horror. The first act follows all the rules. Disappearing kids, the creation of a legend, the detective investigating and the chase sequence which we assume will lead to people in town discrediting Julia for being crazy and she isn't and she fights the Tall Man, kills him, and finds the kids - the end. I assume this is the kind of film you were hoping to see. But this is when the film decides to use the classic plot twist of turning the protagonist into the very legend, bogeyman, nutter she is chasing - but in a very unusual and psychologically arresting way.
This is when Julia should show us the psycho character - like Norton in Primal Fear - the schizo-psycho comes out from behind the mask and a cold, calculating nasty piece of work rears her satanic head and the film should head towards a climax where she escapes and the detective and real mother find her in a cave somewhere with the kids where she has a big speech before getting killed. But instead she is distraught and regretful and displays no signs of madness at all. Which should lead viewers to thinking that something else is going on here. She is sacrificing herself for a greater cause. And then we find what that cause is. Giving down-and-out kids a chance for a better life.
It's audacious, yes, but in no way does it say Julia and her husband are right. The last voiceover segment asks us to question something rather profound. The three mothers. The real one, the transition one, and the one that makes a fruitful life possible. It asks a very risky question. If your real family will only lead you down a path of ignorance, violence, and abuse - should we intervene and, whatever it takes, make sure the children have a future? It's not an easy question to answer. Biel's character is heroic in the sense of what she is willing to sacrifice for her cause. A cause that is noble at heart and tries to get people out of the cycle of poverty and degradation. But the cause denies biological mothers the control of their children - something most people see as a basic human right. Something 'God-given' so to speak. So the cause must be immoral. But there are social services that take children away from abusive parents and put them into 'better' homes. So it's not a far-fetched idea at all, in that sense. It's the means by which it is achieved which is controversial.
I love films that lull you into believing one thing, then takes you somewhere else. A very un-American type of film. More Spanish in that sense - Almodovar and Medem do this all the time. A very provocative, sneaky, clever piece of filmmaking.
You can chose to hate having been taken on that path. But accusing the film of being as bad as you have attempted with your tirades is a bit naive. It didn't do what you wanted it to do. It didn't follow the formula that you wanted when you put it on. You were in the wrong mood - and also it seems you want films to do what it says on the tin.
And you added another very well-made, clever piece of cinema - Crash - to your list of apparently bad movies. Well, that film is far more than simply racism. But I'll leave that for another day.
I certainly wouldn't say this is the worst film ever, even before hearing these reasons. It's still up there for me; it's not even about not getting what's on the tin, it just was such a dreary and dull film to me.
As for Crash, that isn't well-made or clever, certainly not enough to win an Oscar anyway. But maybe that's just a digression.
The point is, now I see why people like The Tall Man. I don't. I never will. I will always think this movie is bargain-bin garbage that will fade away and be forgotten. But people can like it, and that's okay.
"Fade away and be forgotten" - in your dreams :)
shareIt seems you missed the entire thread and just read my original comment, because I did admit it's not my cup of tea. I'd recommend reading more than the first post next time.
And I don't even have to dream, because this is a film that not many people have heard of and even fewer will watch. This wasn't some big blockbuster or anything that would attract any attention. I never saw any advertisements for it, never saw any reviews, the only reason I ever heard of it is because people were saying it was a movie about Slender Man (sadly it wasn't). While some people do like this film, it's not really going to be remembered a few years down the road like other thrillers.
I will always think this movie is bargain-bin garbage that will fade away and be forgotten.
Because I just don't think they're good movies. You can think a movie is well-made and not particularly care for it. If I don't like a movie, I think it sucks.
I found it to be dull, boring, miserable, and terrible (The Tall Man). I found Crash to be preachy, annoying, boring, and superfluous, as well as not Oscar worthy. That is my opinion; I don't have to follow what you think is the right way to look at films. I don't like them, and I'm not going to pretend I do. There are elements or bits I do like, but not enough for me to ever say they're good.
I will not say they are good, because I don't think they're good. If I were to say they were good in any way, I'd be lying to myself.
I don't get why you're so uptight about me not liking films I don't like. I think they're bad, that should be end of story. You can like them all you want, I won't ever like them.
You didn't read what I wrote. Liking or disliking something is unrelated to its quality. Something can be very well made but fails to get an emotional response from certain viewers. But no individual's opinion will suddenly make something either good or bad. It retains its quality regardless. Opinions can be based on all kinds of factors. On imdb there are constantly people insulting other people for their opinions - typically telling those who don't 'get' something to go see Transformers or Big Momma's House or something because they assume that individual likes that kind of film. Not sure why it's an insult exactly because everyone has different taste. People make value judgements on someone's personality based on what they like and don't like. That may have its merits, but the film still remains the same film. It doesn't suddenly change because someone said it was terrible or brilliant. There are people who say The Godfather is terrible, boring, overrated and so on. They are rather few, but they exist. Their opinions will not suddenly make it a bad film. There are people, like yourself, who enjoyed Battlefield Earth. That will not suddenly make it a good film. This is particularly true of goofy comedies starring Adam Sandler or Jim Carrey. Lots of people, including myself, strongly dislike these films. But mostly they are very good at being what they are: goofy comedies.
My point is that films like Crash and The Tall Man will neither get better nor worse because of people's opinions. They are competent pieces of filmmaking with strong narrative structures, acting performances, cinematography, music, direction and both approach their subject in a unique way. Some will respond to these things positively. Some will not. The films remain the same. My irritation with Requiem for a Dream is to do with Aronofsky showing off his skills too much making the film tedious - it has no build up, it simply launches into its style and never relents. I find it very indulgent. But I have admit that it is a very strong piece of filmmaking littered with powerful scenes and stellar acting performances. My opinion is not more important than the integrity of the thing being judged. If someone is able to point out to me, through insightful arguments, the qualities of the film that earn it praise I should be humble enough to realise that although the film is good at what it is trying to do I was unable to latch onto it. And this has more to do with me than the actual film.
So you can find Tall Man and Crash terrible films. It is your opinion, of course, and that will never change. But are you able to see that they are strong pieces of filmmaking regardless of your emotional response?
No. I don't find them to be strong pieces of filmmaking. That's why I don't like them. I understand people like those movies, that's fine. But I think they're both terrible, I think they're both mediocre, and I just plain don't like much about them at all.
shareWell said, thanks for the read.
shareYou ARE degrading anyone who doesn't agree with you. You have stated time and again that you think this movie is bad and shouldn't be in the thriller category. That is YOUR opinion. That does not change the fact that other people enjoyed this film and do think it is a quality film. That is THEIR opinion. You're not going to change their minds, and they're not going to change yours. Let it go. Their liking the film and thinking it to be good quality does not mean they lack intelligence. Your thinking the film is bad and not a true thriller does not mean you're lacking intelligence. What is making people question your intelligence is that you're very clearly coming back here to attack people for their opinion, and for feeling that they should be wrong for enjoying this film AND for thinking it is of good quality.
Fact: Many people enjoyed this film AND felt it is of good quality and a good thriller.
Fact: You feel it is not a good movie, nor a good thriller.
Fine. Points made. Move on.
EMOTICONS ARE BACK! YAY!
Sorry but your theory is incorrect. I love this film and I did not work on it. Therefore your theory is squashed :)
It is not a 'bad' film in the objective sense. It is just your personal opinion that it is bad. It is my opinion that it is great. Therefore, the final conclusion is that for this film, to call it 'bad' is purely a subjective view and not an objective fact.
It is just not your cup of tea. You did not connect with it. Accept it and move on. I want this brilliant director to keep providing stories for me, and you wont be stopping him.
[deleted]
You obviously didn't read anything but the first couple of posts I made. I still think it's one of the worst films ever made, but I can see why people like it now. I came to that conclusion after someone explained why he thought it was good, which you obviously skipped over.
And yes, I do like the Avengers. That was one of the finest superhero films I've ever seen.