Why the low score?
I thoroughly enjoyed this. So much I can't help but watch it again when I catch it on cable. I gave it a solid 8!
shareSlashers/home-invasions, much like a majority of horror films, are usually not well-scored here on IMDb. You're Next is sitting at 6.5 which in my experience of watching films and comparing them to their scores on here, is not really all that low, especially for a low-budget hack-'em'-up affair such as this one. After Halloween (1978) and a few other widely-known films like ANMOES and Scream, the only other two of the countless slashers out there that I know of that reach the mid-6.0 scale are subgenre-classics like Friday the 13th (1980) and Halloween II (1981) - both rated 6.5 as well - so this movie doesn't fare too bad considering the slasher subgenre.
Not to mention that this film received 75% (certified fresh) on Rotten Tomatoes, so it has nothing to be ashamed of really.
That makes sense! I just feel that people who like this genre and watch this type of movie are way more apt to give it a high score. San Andreas (I use this because it just happens to be on cable right now) was fun but pretty horrible has a 6.1!!!
I guess I was fishing as to why people didn't love it like I did.
Complaints that I've heard, some which I disagree with:
- Movie was predictable; well yeah, it's a slasher/home invasion with a black comedy spin... people break in, lots of people die, and one girl fights back and survives. If they did anything radically different from the standard formula, they'd be criticized for it anyway. Just look at what happened with High Tension, which does maintain a high rating on here but a lot of people hate it for its ending twist that throws the formula (and logic, imo) out of the window. I think this is a film made for slasher lovers, and there's no way to piss off a fanbase more than to mess with the formula it loves too much.
- Characters were boring or unlikeable. The character development could have been better for sure on the victim side, but it's clear that Erin is the true star here along with the two brothers anyway. Everyone else was just carnage candy in a film like this. I argue against this criticism by saying that the film inverts the slasher formula and turns it inside out in a way that audiences would still love; while the masked killer usually offs a group of innocents one by one, this film actually has the final girl offing the guilty one by one. Back to the point of character development... if this movie did anything right, it was by humanizing the villains. In a rarity of this genre, these villains are actually given a little bit of depth, make mistakes, and actually seem incompetent in committing their crimes. And they actually grow to fear the final girl, which almost never happens. We know the villains a heck of a lot better than the victims by the end.
- Acting was terrible. This movie did have some bits of cringe-worthy dialogue, no doubt due to some of its improvised nature, but I doubt anyone truly came into this film expecting Oscar-material. It's a festival film that saw a wider release later; I'm not sure if people just don't know that or have forgotten that fact. Still, the key players here did a serviceable job I felt.
I guess my only true gripe about the film is that I wish that they had a better opening; it felt a bit lazy and weak, but beyond that, it was a great watch.
Well said! I actually didn't think character development was crucial for about half the players. I didn't need to know the backstory of each victim - especially the first one or two. I thought the "FUN" came from the fact that his girlfriend grew up on survivalist type camp, without his knowledge. Haha people! The joke is on you! Now if you can just explain the love for "it follows". Watched it twice and it still didn't do much for me. BTW I really like high tension. It scared the hell out of me!
shareExactly, awesome post, it is "predictable " but still good, good girl offs bad guys. Bad guys were "generic" however believable. Overall well done movie.
share