When a poster tries too hard as this one then you know something's
amiss. Look at all those blurbs, 'unrelenting...' 'powerful', ' a
stunner' and on it goes. Alarm bells should be ringing and if you watch
this you won't be surprised they were warning you. Clear the building,
something's gonna blow...
I agree. But why the fck do those reputable (and some not-so-reputable) publications even have blurbs like that in their reviews? the Ebert one is a mystery. The blurb is basically the entire review! WTF?!
💀 "That fückin' Flowers." - Lucas Davenport
I haven't seen this movie, it might be awesome. But to address your question, I once wrote about a zero budget horror movie with something like "This movie could have been creepy and intense, but instead..." I was quoted on the box as having said "Creepy and intense."
shareDamn. Was excited about this when I saw it compared to Carpenter. Came on here to see a 4.4 rating. I too am baffled that the positive blurbs are from typically reputable sources rather than some no-name blog. I'm still going to give it a shot.
shareSame boat. Baffled.
I can see it being a 'thing' now to sell movies. Might just be relating to the movie industry getting shaky because of online leaking, hence the push for sales.
I'm guilty of that ^ for things I cannot view anywhere in my country, nor want to pay $50 to buy from overseas, if it's a sub par film ie. Lord of Tears.
Anyway, it's just an inkling why all the poster exaggerations are seen a lot now.
A lot of reviewers try to find some good in low-budget films that have even the slightest merit. I get wanting to give them a bit of a handicap against the studio blockbuster budget flicks, but it's frustrating when they're too easy on them. Having said that, I still haven't seen it, so maybe it does have its redeeming qualities.
shareIt's a character study of fear, helplessness and rage. The director succeeds in this aspect but if you like plenty of exposition this will not be for you. It is a show but don't tell movie that tells the story visually and puts more emphasis on music than dialogue. Sadly many people don't seem to either like this style of filmmaking or don't get it.
There's quite a lot of positive feedback on movie review website but on here the reviews and ratings are mostly scathing and low. Personally, I quite enjoyed it after the confusion and pacing of the first 30 minutes but it does suffer from running to illogical places. I'd say it was average at best in terms of being captivating and believability but it does have a vibe or mood and provides a little food for thought. It is a thinking man's revenge flick. Overall a 5 or 6 out of ten.
I'd rather regurgitate a full grown cat than watch this again.Hahaha. share
ha! wish I would have seen that poster first! I am a little more than halfway done with this film so far, and really not sure if I have it in me to finish. so far, the film is 90% in slow motion!! I don't mind slow moving films, but this is a 30 minute student short stretched into a feature length film via slow mo! ugh!
Edit: okay, I finished it! really, there were some truly good, solid parts of this film, and I liked the use of music. but, the overall film felt unfocused, there were lots of parts that were just kinda goofy and dumb; which could have easily been fixed after another few rounds of editing the script(?). the ending was just boring and typical. overall, I felt bummed out because there seemed to be something really strong buried in this mess, and it will never get a chance to see the light.