MovieChat Forums > The VVitch: A New-England Folktale (2016) Discussion > Most overrated/hyped "horror" film of 20...

Most overrated/hyped "horror" film of 2016

posted 7 years ago by tresm87
22 replies | jump to latest

When I saw the initial trailer released for this I was so excited to see such a terrifying atmospheric looking film about witches. The trailer knocked it out of the park and it showed at the end of a very creepy old witch lying on the ground and I was absolutely enthralled by how eerie it looked. I then went to the theater to watch it and was completely bored the entire time waiting and waiting for anything to happen other than the family arguing in English accents that are barely understandable. The film was so dull and amounted to barely anything that I honestly wanted my money back. It essentially came down to the oldest daughter wanting to rebel against her overly religious family so she listens to a *beep* black goat that was supposedly giving her satanic orders. That somehow wasn't the most ridiculous thing about this movie in my opinion . The biggest travesty of this movie was the fact that they show an entirely different witch in the trailers which we never even got in the movie and if they would've went the route with that creepy old witch it could've been so much better. They mislead with the trailer and they got people to come to a movie that the trailer portrayed as completely different. The camera work and the atmosphere were the only two saving graces of the film. I cannot believe all the praise that this movie is still getting about how terrifying and how horrifying it was when it's not even a horror it's a period drama. 5.8/10 at best

[–] fede_4488 7 years ago

Maybe you should stick to watching any of the 27 Insidious movies if you want a jump scare every 10 minutes to keep you entertained.

[–] leyenda61 7 years ago

I might give this a go. I rarely watch most scary movies cuz my interest falls off and i fond myself doing more surfing than watching.

-- Sent from my 13 year old P.O.S. Desktop®

[–] Narcissist00 7 years ago

Time for anew computer?

[–] MovieGuy92 7 years ago

I share your opinion on this movie. It just wasn't scary! I give them props for historical accuracy and character development, but there were next to no scares in what was supposed to be a "horror" film. The witches were barely in the film and when they were they didn't really do much. The majority of the film was just the family arguing. Huge letdown.

[–] HippieDrillSealOfApproval 7 years ago

I don't know how historically accurate it was. But even if it was I don't watch films wanting or expecting historical accuracy so that would mean little to me in any case. As for character development there hardly was any. The parents were one dimensional superstitious puritans. The only character with any depth that was semi interesting was the oldest daughter.

What are words for when no one listens anymore

[–] loveagoodstory 7 years ago

I completely agree that it's over-hyped.

It's not the scariest horror that will leave you stunned or breathless or pondering it or whatever else I'm paraphrasing from the media.

When you throw all that junk away and just watch what's in front of you, you get the film itself. I just saw its title on a satellite channel and watched it for that, been a while since I'd tried a supernatural film and all that.

I thought it was a brilliant film. A small-scale film and all the better for it.

It reminds me of the feeling I had when I saw Gangs Of New York for the first time. Not anything to do with the storylines, it was seeing a world I knew so little about painted clearly and vividly and in detail on the screen.

I have to separate the supernatural story elements from the real-world ones here.

I think the supernatural story was fascinating, very well executed on film and got the balance between excess and not delivering on scene promises just about right.

But I found the real-world story just as alarming. The trap that the period's view and take on Christianity had made for these Puritans, watching the directions they could go off in, made some of dreadful consequences inevitable. You realise that they're able to make what I'd call some small measure of Hell out of their day-to-day life as their situations and predicament progress, yet Hell is what they devote such a part of their day trying to avoid.

---------------------------------------------------------
Free your mind and the rest will follow

[–] vltu222 7 years ago

Agreed. It was dreadful.

[–] fjk1138-731-161881 7 years ago

I felt like it was an incomplete and unfinished film, as if it were trying to develop into something else but wasn't allowed to. The pacing was horribly slow and I really had a hard time understanding the accents for some reason. The oldest daughter was easily the best part...She was at least interesting and had some character development. The ending was the best part to me but hardly worth the wait to get to it.

[–] Uncle-Jemima 7 years ago

Agree. Absolute garbage. Well done garbage, but garbage none the less.

[–] Leika20 7 years ago

I thought it was just ok. The movie picked up a bit on the last quarter, and the performances were universally excellent. The premise is intriguing. But there's not much depth in the movie you can really grab on, like I have already seen this before. I gave it a 6/10 but I'm being very generous.

[–] ModernHorror 7 years ago

The biggest travesty of this movie was the fact that they show an entirely different witch in the trailers which we never even got in the movie and if they would've went the route with that creepy old witch it could've been so much better. They mislead with the trailer and they got people to come to a movie that the trailer portrayed as completely different.

When you're trying to criticize a film, you should back up your points with actual facts instead of sh!t you just make up. Every shot from the trailers showing the witch was in the film.

when it's not even a horror it's a period drama.

Moronic statement.

You're dumber than you think I think you are.

[–] sbrooks839 7 years ago

Oooh, someone got their fweelings hurted because someone else doesn't like a movie they like, and has to come on here and hurl insults, SMH, lol. Get a life and realize that not everyone likes the same thing, and everyone has (and is entitled to) their own opinion, no matter how different it may be from your own.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 7 years ago

Saying it is not horror IS moronic. You don't have to like it, but it is horror.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] sbrooks839 7 years ago

Uh, that's like your opinion, dude, lol.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 7 years ago

I suppose, Dude...but it's hard for me to understand how you could say a movie is not horror in which a witch is shown mashing up a cute baby into bloody baby sauce to smear on her body, and later a woman is shown thinking she is breastfeeding her baby but actually has a raven sitting on her pecking at her bloody breast. (That latter scene still gives me goosebumps to think about it.) Now, if you've seen so much super gory horror that you're desensitized to being horrified by this, that's one thing. It's not effective on you.

But how can you argue that a movie with images like that (and many more) is not even in the horror genre? What essential qualities is it missing that keep it from being part of the genre? You can't answer "it's not scary", because it is scary to many people. And no horror movie is scary to everyone. Any horror movie you can name, I guarantee you there are some people who will cross their arms and say "Didn't scare me a bit". So what are your essential criteria?

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] sbrooks839 7 years ago

I frankly don't recall ever saying it isn't a horror movie. Think you've got me confused with someone else, lol. And, love how passionate you are about this movie that you reply with an almost short story length post, SMH.
"So what are your essential criteria?"
And, sorry, I don't owe you any explanations or answers. You're just some random stranger on the Internet to me.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 7 years ago

I said:

Saying it is not horror IS moronic. You don't have to like it, but it is horror.

You replied with the "Dude" quote. If you agreed with me, that was just a pointless waste of everyone's time. And engaging someone in conversation or debate, and then pivoting to a denial and "I don't owe you any explanations" is rude. Basically, you could have just summed it up with "Sorry, I'm a troll."

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] sbrooks839 7 years ago

Uh, no, you're the one trolling! And, since you're too dense to get it, the whole "That's like your opinion, dude" is a quote from the movie "The Big Lebowski". Now go harass someone else since you're so starved for attention.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 7 years ago

That's hilarious that you think I didn't get it. Why do you think I capitalized "Dude"? Do you not understand that Jeff Bridges' character was "The Dude", capital D? Dense, indeed...

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 7 years ago

BTW, I'm not passionate about the movie. I gave it 7/10. I'm just annoyed that anyone would try to claim it's not horror.

--------
My top 250: http://www.flickchart.com/Charts.aspx?user=SlackerInc&perpage=250

[–] sbrooks839 7 years ago

Again, I never said one thing about whether I thought this movie is a horror movie or not, you've obviously got me confused with someone else - and confused with someone who cares. Bye now, troll.