makes you wonder the whole time...is the dude crazy or not? also the acting was superb! Ashley is outstanding actress...she can cry n u can see shes not acting! great little flick 8/10
shareI didn't hate it. It was obviously low budget and had some cinematography and acting issues... but the plot idea was pretty good, as was the monster. It managed to do something which very few horror/sci fi's tend to do now and that is maintain it's sense of mystery.
share1.) You say it maintained a sense of mystery, but it doesn't. The first 5 minutes reveal that the brother has come across something malevolent. We watch as the other two characters take nearly 50 minutes to catch up to what the audience knows.
2.) Tell me. What depth or context did you take from the film? What pointed statements did it make?
3.) You have the characters arguing about if there's a pod or not. However, the film provides literal answers w/ the creature at the end and the opening sequence. If they wanted to go a more psychological route then they needed to go more ambiguous like Blair Witch Project. At the end, you don't know if the Blair Witch exists or even what it is, if it's a cult or a rumored serial killer?
4.) There's no real beginning or end. Just a middle act.
5.) The story is poorly thought out from every angle.
6.) The cast wasn't bad, but they were working with poor material.
7.) The cinematography is solid in some spots. Agree w/ that. However, it wasn't so striking that it made it stand out when compared to say a 70's Dario Argento film.
Spoilers below:
You say it maintained a sense of mystery, but it doesn't.It did in my opinion. Martin reacted with a sense of horror re discovering what he'd shot, but we don't get to see what he shot. It cuts away before it shows us. It could have easily have turned out that he was just bonkers, and maybe there was nothing in his basement (maybe he didn't really shoot anything), maybe there was a kid in his basement, alive or dead, maybe, well, it could have been anything. share
It did in my opinion. Martin reacted with a sense of horror re discovering what he'd shot, but we don't get to see what he shot. It cuts away before it shows us. It could have easily have turned out that he was just bonkers, and maybe there was nothing in his basement (maybe he didn't really shoot anything), maybe there was a kid in his basement, alive or dead, maybe, well, it could have been anything.
[deleted]
Yeah, something killed the dog, but we don't know what. It could have been a person. It could have been another animal. Whatever he shot could have not been related to the dog getting killed even.
shareThat's not the movie being clever and having depth though. That's just your own overactive imagination. It looked like a generic cliche in the beginning and it proved to really be nothing more than that in the end. If you read even the basic description of the movie, or even what genre it is, or even look at the damn cover, common sense should have clued you in right away that this was just another budget horror movie. If you liked it for some reason, fine, but don't try to act like it's something it's not.
shareI didn't say anything about "being clever" or "having depth" (and especially the latter isn't something I'd ever say about a film anyway--it's way too vague of an idea in my opinion). I'm simply noting that the assumptions people were making, versus what the film actually showed them at that point, could have turned out to be wrong.
shareDon't be a jerk.
share