MovieChat Forums > Devil's Backbone, Texas (2015) Discussion > why did they make this movie?

why did they make this movie?

posted 9 years ago by StrayKing
13 replies | jump to latest

well the writer\director, was making a video tribute for his late father, who happened to be horror writer\ historian,

he ended up recording many hours, of different people talking about his father, because each one of them wanted to tell a story.

so he decided to make money out of it, by turning it into a found footage \ fake documentary,

but he is not creative, he doesn't know how to develop a story, so they just tell more of his father stories, but that's not enough

so he come up with 2 pranks a ghost truck ( never done before) and acting possessed, who is trying to axe down everybody (very original), he considered adding a chainsaw prank, but it was deleted ( distributor didn't like it)

in a nut shell, it is a very bad film,

cast is old , i mean really really old, the average age is 47
cinematography first 5 minutes may induce an epileptic seizure, but over all is very good
writing, very bad, i mean very very bad, there's no writing, and there's no story, 50% of the movie is badly edited interviews, with so many people you forget who's who

over all rating 3/10 or 2 of 5 on NF

" HERE WE ARE NOW ENTERTAIN US "

[–] strych900 9 years ago

I completely agree with most of your points. But what does the age of the cast have to do with the film? If anything, that was one of the only elements of this film that I found moderately unique. Usually it is a bunch of tweens or twenty-something's running around in these "found footage" b-horror flicks. That is generally the template anyway. In this film, at least it could be assumed that the characters could afford an expensive RV or a trip to help a friend memorialize his father, right? But I'm certainly not defending the movie as a whole.

Most of the dialogue felt ad-libbed from the principal cast, which I suppose helps conceal any lack of acting ability? I didn't feel like the performances from the main cast members were terrible per se, but I also didn't find a single one of them sympathetic in any way whatsoever. The redeeming elements (if there were any) can be found in the interview footage I guess? Those elements were shot decently. Otherwise, I felt like the story was scattered and a little incoherent. The concept of the "White Woman" wasn't exactly central during the build up, and it sort of felt forced in as a necessary way to close the film.

My only favorite part of the entire movie was the Whiskey Shivers song "Graves," which played over the end credits. I totally agree with the 3/10 rating you gave this film.

[–] StrayKing 9 years ago

I didn't mean to offend any body, but in my opinion, the cast is too old for the genre,

I understand that the writer made the movie based on real life experiences, but instead of casting old actors who match his real age, he could have set the movie in late 90's or early 2000, and hired aspiring young actors, after all, the only sign that the movie was made recently, is the smart phone, that didn't have service

he could have used an old land line without any significance changes,

[–] BlackDog123 9 years ago

The way he made the movie was about his actual father, with actual interviews. Why the hell would he hire a bunch of 20 year olds to portray a middle-aged man going on a quest to find out more about his deceased, 70 year old father?? The filmmaker "plays" himself! I didn't love the movie, but that is an incredibly weak criticism.

For the record, life doesn't end at 22. Most RVers are at least in their thirties - those things are expensive!!

They're coming to get you, Barbara!

[–] StrayKing 9 years ago

I wrote one line about their age, and I absolutely don't need to explain it further

the cast is too old for the movie, i don't mean their real age, they look old
all of them

there's no reason to cast actors who look that old to play single people living care-free lives with no families or jobs.

" HERE WE ARE NOW ENTERTAIN US "

[–] Indifferent_Observer 9 years ago

the cast is too old for the movie, i don't mean their real age, they look old
all of them

I'd say the ages were just fine if we're to believe the context of the film. And ultimately, like in most good films; if the context is right and film is good, the age of the actors is irrelevant..

Unfortunately this is not that great a film(average at best) so the actor's age are the least of the film's problems.

[–] LemonTastic 9 years ago

47 isn't old.

[–] sandrock41 9 years ago

You're in your 40's aren't you? 47 is kinda old.

[–] LemonTastic 9 years ago

What my age has to do with it I'll never know but I'm 25. 47 isn't old. Old is 70+

[–] StrayKing 9 years ago

I can see that i offended alot of you by my comment about the cast age , and I apologize for that " i'm a democratic king"

but the found footage genre was brought to public attention by " the blair witch project " (1999) and then popularized by "paranormal activity" which was produced in 2007, but released in 2009.

so assuming that the fans of the Blair Witch are the oldest fans of found footage genre, we can say that found footage fans are generally in mid 30's or younger.

but the cast look much older than that, so the fans of the genre can not relate to them

and that's not it

the movie is about a guy who invited his friends to join him spreading the ashes of his late father. but it turns out to be a prank

that's immature, and you cannot expect people to accept that from a man of his age

you me be insecure and offended but my comment, but i'm sure that producers loved it.

because it' honest, professional and thoughtful

" HERE WE ARE NOW ENTERTAIN US

[–] PennyPark 9 years ago

You're making an assumption about the age at which people stop watching horror movies. The fact that Blair Witch came out in 1999 will only limit the age of fans of found footage horror to mid-30s and below if we assume that no one over the age of 20 watched Blair Witch at the time. My mother watched Blair Witch. She's a lifelong horror fan. She's 71. We really don't need to be the same age or in the same life circumstances as a story's characters to be able to understand and enjoy movies. Pointing that out is not insecurity. I mean, how many of us horror fans saw The Exorcist as teenagers - well before hitting the ages of any of the stars (excepting only Linda Blair)? Accepting immaturity in older people? They made two of those Hangover movies and the stars were all in their 30s when they made the first movie.

This movie had many problems - the twist at the end being the worst - I just don't see how age of the cast was one of them.

[–] IMDb_cat 9 years ago

would you like a shovel to dig your own grave a little deeper? you made a seriously stupid comment that exposes your lack of knowledge about films and the world in general and people are angry that you still think it was a relevant thing to say not because you have offended people. accept that you are wrong or apologise for being an idiot!

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] crystal_delgado2003 8 years ago

The real story about the Devil's Backbone was portrayed on Unsolved Mysteries,and it's believable,

I guess he wanted his 15mins and it backfired