RE: That's it!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


superdan -> RE: That's it!! (19/4/2011 12:31:41 PM)

How well a film is crafted isn't the be-all and end-all of what makes a film good or not though, is it? Some films would seem to be well-crafted but fall well short of being 'good' (Meet Joe Black springs to mind for me). Sure, the reviewer could acknowledge that it's well crafted but is still within their rights to say they didn't enjoy it and give it a poor score, which is where opinion will shape a review. Equally, for all you say that Die Hard 4 is poorly crafted (and I disagree with you there -where does that leave us?), I still enjoyed it as a 'strong entry into the canon'.

Otherwise, as I said, every review must inevitably be simply a piece about how well a film is made, rather than if it is enjoyable, funny, romantic, thought-provoking, scary etc. (basically, is it worth the price of a ticket) I would not particularly care to read reviews so dry. Even the most respected reviewers will offer their own personal opinions (or judgements as you rather sophistically call it).




Gazz -> RE: That's it!! (19/4/2011 12:47:49 PM)

I thought it was an enjoyable slab of horror-comedy if a little forgettable and though the franchise has long since lost it's new car smell I still think there's a lot to enjoy in Scream 4. It doesn't quite compare to the original (despite it's wish to) but it's far better than Scream 3 and if this is the last we see of the franchise then I'm more than happy to sign off on it.

3.5/5




Inked_Chick -> RE: That's it!! (19/4/2011 2:18:10 PM)

More what he thought was wrong with the movie would have been better instead of the history and comparisons written. I liked the movie. Witty and Bloody.
I like the Australian review better [;)]
http://www.empireonline.com.au/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=1000001007




horribleives -> RE: That's it!! (19/4/2011 3:19:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
1. I saw a clever, funny, riveting horror which outclassed any other that I have seen for a while, certainly the likes of Paranormal Activity and Saw. 2. The review avoided talking about these details for the most part, and was lazy and misjudged.


1. You may well have done. The reviewer, however, didn't.

2. Why would the reviewer talk about details that you saw? He didn't think it was clever, funny or riveting, hence the two star review.

You're clearly not stupid so it's quite baffling that you seem unable to grasp the simple concept of differing viewpoints.



If the reviewer didn't see these qualities then he isn't fit to review, because they're there whether one likes the film or not -  1.are you staring to get it now? Subjective response PLUS objective critique. You're getting the subjective part, 2. now you just need to wrap your head around the objective part and you won't be baffled anymore.



1. Yes. You're saying it's a FACT that Scream 4 is scary and rivetting. Despite the reviewer being neither scared nor rivetted. Either the reviewer was asleep, he's lying or maybe, just maybe, what an individual finds scary or rivetting is based on their own reaction to it. It's a crazy idea but it could catch on.

2. Thanks. I've been reading Empire, numerous other publications and general film theory/criticism for nearly twenty years and it's only now, here, today that I've wrapped my head around the difference between subjective and objective. I'm sure I don't need to point out the irony in you making distinctions between the two while proffering an entirely subjective view (Scream 4 IS scary and rivetting and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong) as fact.

The other ironic thing is I actually liked Scream 4. But I liked Paranormal Activity too. And I also found it scary while the missus didn't. Clearly one of us is wrong. I'll let you decide.





Drooch -> RE: That's it!! (19/4/2011 4:12:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
1. I saw a clever, funny, riveting horror which outclassed any other that I have seen for a while, certainly the likes of Paranormal Activity and Saw. 2. The review avoided talking about these details for the most part, and was lazy and misjudged.


1. You may well have done. The reviewer, however, didn't.

2. Why would the reviewer talk about details that you saw? He didn't think it was clever, funny or riveting, hence the two star review.

You're clearly not stupid so it's quite baffling that you seem unable to grasp the simple concept of differing viewpoints.



If the reviewer didn't see these qualities then he isn't fit to review, because they're there whether one likes the film or not -  1.are you staring to get it now? Subjective response PLUS objective critique. You're getting the subjective part, 2. now you just need to wrap your head around the objective part and you won't be baffled anymore.



1. Yes. You're saying it's a FACT that Scream 4 is scary and rivetting. Despite the reviewer being neither scared nor rivetted. Either the reviewer was asleep, he's lying or maybe, just maybe, what an individual finds scary or rivetting is based on their own reaction to it. It's a crazy idea but it could catch on.

2. Thanks. I've been reading Empire, numerous other publications and general film theory/criticism for nearly twenty years and it's only now, here, today that I've wrapped my head around the difference between subjective and objective. I'm sure I don't need to point out the irony in you making distinctions between the two while proffering an entirely subjective view (Scream 4 IS scary and rivetting and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong) as fact.

The other ironic thing is I actually liked Scream 4. But I liked Paranormal Activity too. And I also found it scary while the missus didn't. Clearly one of us is wrong. I'll let you decide.





Where did I say it was 'scary'?

Yes, it is riveting. If you find yourself un-rivetted by the massive levels of suspense and thrills that these skilled filmmakers (including master of horror Wes Craven) delivered then you're not fit to be a paid reviewer and make recommendations to a public wanting to know whether or not to pay to see the film - you simply lack the sensitivity to appreciate this kind of film, and shouldn't be damning it with a two star review. If you can't detect that this is a strong example of a slasher film, then you don't have a full enough appreciation of the genre to be making recommendations.

Paranormal Activity is not an empirically bad film - it's something of an anomaly and more of an experimental film, it's certainly brave and made with integrity. Neither you or your missus are 'wrong' because you haven't said whether you each found it good or bad, only that you found it scary and your missus didn't - which are subjective responses. What are your objective judgements about it's quality?

Scream 4, however, is one of many slasher films, and there is a right way to make a slasher film (an effective one like Scream) as well as a wrong way. Much like a good Hitchcock film, Scream 4 was constantly playing with audience expectation - fully aware of where the audience was psychologically and emotionally, and teasing you with hints, clues, red-herrings etc., all the while maintaining a serious emotional core (thanks to Neve's excellent acting throughout the series) and a witty, amusing tone amongst the savage horror. It takes skill to balance those elements. It also takes integrity to write a film that would thrill the writer, and not pander down to a lowest-common-denominator audience (like Die Hard 4 did, which neutered the intelligence, maturity and brutality of the series to appeal to a younger, dumber demographic). Nope, this is a very good film and deserves more than two stars.





BatFan -> RE: Scream 4 (19/4/2011 4:40:20 PM)

SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I quite enjoyed it, I mean I had low expectations but I found Scream 4 to be really entertaining. Thought it was a great opening and some great and surprising kills. As said before Hayden Panniterre was the best character by far, being cool and self-aware of being in a horror film without coming off as annoying or smug, was genuinely gutted (no pun intended) that she was killed off.

As for the ending, I at first found it weird that apart from Deputy Judy, every single new character was killed off then I realised that Scream 4's ending is essentially saying 'Fuck You' to reboots, The two killers want to become the new survivors and are creating a Woodsboro reboot, just when you think they're about to succeed (well one of them anyway) and becoming the new blood, They're killed off, leaving just Dewey, Gale and Sidney left telling you 'Never fuck with the original'. An entertaining film much smarter than what it should have been. I just have no idea where they would go now with Scream 5 without repeating themselves, but if this is a finale to the Scream franchise, it's a pretty good one.

p.s. I didn't find Emma Roberts attractive in this film until she started acting homocidal and revealed herself as the killer. I'm worried about what that says about me.

Also an observation I had during the film, to the general audience Scream and its sequels is a horror film but to film geeks and horror fans they're actually pitch black, blood soaked comedies. Anyone agree with me?




horribleives -> RE: That's it!! (19/4/2011 4:45:36 PM)

Apologies, you said funny and rivetting, not scary and rivetting. My point is exactly the same though.
You talk passionately about why you loved the film in your final paragraph which is great. Can you not for a second grasp that someone may have equally disliked the film with the same passion? To suggest that they (and anyone who was unrivetted/unamused) are simply wrong or do not understand the genre or should have given it four stars regardless is arrogant in the extreme, and has more in common with the imdb-user types you keep mentioning than anyone on here defending the reviewer.
As for Paranormal Activity, you say finding it scary or not is a subjective response. You're right. But so is finding a film rivetting or funny, yet you said earlier it was FACT that Scream 4 was both of these. Make your mind up.  




redpaw -> RE: That's it!! (19/4/2011 5:33:55 PM)

Hayden Panettiere is cute - nice tan.

Seems that's all I paid my 5.30 for since there's not much else going on here. The fuck of it is - I already knew that.

Hmm, maybe next time I go to the movies there'll be something resembling characterization - c'mon, Hollywood, you remember what that is don't you?

The Ward - best horror film I've seen this year - by no means groundbreaking, still, pissed all over this dog shit.




ukacidman -> 4 stars 4 scream 4 (19/4/2011 6:58:26 PM)

I liked it.. not as good as the 1st. it was never going to be. but better than parts 2 and 3.
I was suprised with the reveling of at least one of the killers..
I did enjoy the beginning. rather inventive I thought..
go and see it. Its alot better than certain crictics are saying




BenTramer -> In 2011, No One Can Hear You Scream (19/4/2011 7:10:12 PM)

Scream didn't need any sequels and the series got worse with every movie. I expect the decline will continue with this one. Even Wes Craven said he normally has a shot list and feels prepared but here he was getting new script pages just before he shot them. WTF, that's chaos. No way can a good movie be made like that.




Drooch -> RE: That's it!! (20/4/2011 12:08:20 AM)

quote:

Can you not for a second grasp that someone may have equally disliked the film with the same passion?


Re-read my posts, anyone can dislike the film as much as they want - that's their subjective take, but a paid critic should detect that it is a work of good quality, and reward it appropriately, not damn it with two stars. It is, objectively, a very good slasher film and if you really disliked it then you're not fit to review such films - you'll only end up punishing good filmmaking and sending a VERY destructive message to Hollywood - 'don't bother making good films' which, given the amount of junk spewed forth by Hollywood these days, is a bad message to be communicating.


quote:

To suggest that they (and anyone who was unrivetted/unamused) are simply wrong or do not understand the genre or should have given it four stars regardless is arrogant in the extreme, and has more in common with the imdb-user types you keep mentioning than anyone on here defending the reviewer.


It may sound arrogant to you, but it's true and someone needs to say it. A two star review is damaging to a film and Scream 4 doesn't deserve that treatment because the highly skilled filmmakers cared about making a good film and fully succeeded in doing so. Anyone giving it two stars does not have the faculties to appreciate, and soundly judge, such a film. BTW I didn't say it should get four stars, but a competent critic would certainly deem this worthy of three, four, or five stars.


quote:

As for Paranormal Activity, you say finding it scary or not is a subjective response. You're right. But so is finding a film rivetting or funny, yet you said earlier it was FACT that Scream 4 was both of these. Make your mind up.


Firstly, I never said it was a 'FACT' - you used that word, not me. I simply observed those qualities to be present in the work - the creators intended it to rivet, I was suitably riveted, and so I described the film as riveting. Anyone who went unriveted, and was blind to the humour and cleverness, and other inherent properties of the film, is not fit to review it properly, and shouldn't be hurting it with a two star review.

You didn't describe Paranormal Activity as being 'scary' (if you had done, our statements might be comparable), you said that you 'found it scary' - a description of your subjective response, rather than objectively calling out an inherent property of the film.





Shifty Bench -> RE: That's it!! (20/4/2011 12:40:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
Re-read my posts, anyone can dislike the film as much as they want - that's their subjective take, but a paid critic should detect that it is a work of good quality, and reward it appropriately, not damn it with two stars.


But if he didn't personally like it, he has every right to give it whatever rating he wants.........




horribleives -> RE: That's it!! (20/4/2011 4:51:19 AM)

You might not have used the word 'fact' but you said those qualities were there whether the reviewer liked the film or not and you've just said anyone who doesn't pick up on that is blind to it. Implying you think the film IS funny and rivetting and anyone who doesn't find it thus is wrong. Which is clearly balls. Because, 'funny and rivetting' is a description of your subjective response, not (as you put it) an inherent property.
Right - I'm out. Anyone who's read this thread and hasn't lost the will to live, feel free to take over.




sanchia -> RE: That's it!! (20/4/2011 9:06:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
Re-read my posts, anyone can dislike the film as much as they want - that's their subjective take, but a paid critic should detect that it is a work of good quality, and reward it appropriately, not damn it with two stars.


But if he didn't personally like it, he has every right to give it whatever rating he wants.........




And as we all know there is no such thing as an all sizes fit opinion of a film and by crikey it would be a boring review if all it was about was the lighting and how well built the sets were.




bobatim -> RE: That's it!! (20/4/2011 11:21:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch

Re-read my posts, anyone can dislike the film as much as they want - that's their subjective take, but a paid critic should detect that it is a work of good quality, and reward it appropriately, not damn it with two stars. It is, objectively, a very good slasher film and if you really disliked it then you're not fit to review such films - you'll only end up punishing good filmmaking and sending a VERY destructive message to Hollywood - 'don't bother making good films' which, given the amount of junk spewed forth by Hollywood these days, is a bad message to be communicating.

Firstly, I never said it was a 'FACT' - you used that word, not me. I simply observed those qualities to be present in the work - the creators intended it to rivet, I was suitably riveted, and so I described the film as riveting. Anyone who went unriveted, and was blind to the humour and cleverness, and other inherent properties of the film, is not fit to review it properly, and shouldn't be hurting it with a two star review.
It may sound arrogant to you, but it's true and someone needs to say it. A two star review is damaging to a film and Scream 4 doesn't deserve that treatment because the highly skilled filmmakers cared about making a good film and fully succeeded in doing so. Anyone giving it two stars does not have the faculties to appreciate, and soundly judge, such a film. BTW I didn't say it should get four stars, but a competent critic would certainly deem this worthy of three, four, or five stars.





First off, let me just say that I've seen the film twice now and really enjoyed it. I thought it was smart, funny and had some good jumpy moments. Your post is very arrogant in saying that a paid critic should detect that it is a work of good quality. You're right BUT only if that paid critic DID detect it as a work of good quality. This particular critic didn't, he didn't enjoy the movie and his review reflects that. As others have said it is subjective, that's his opinion and you can agree with it or not; that's your choice. Now, if your commenting from a technical angle; the film isn't actually that well crafted. There are quite a few editing issues (which, if resolved, would've made the film much scarier.), there is also some very ill concieved camera angles, particulary at the very beginning when the backs of people's heads block most of the shot. There is also a few ADR problems, occasionally people speak or make a noise without moving their mouth, Maybe the reviewer picked up on these things and they effected his enjoyment. Again his rating reflects this. You could argue that he didn't mention them, but as someone as already mentioned, it would make for a boring review and you also have to take into account word count limitations. Your view that somebody who is paid to review a film should praise a well made film whether they enjoyed it or not, is very patronising. I only picked up on the technical faults because I did a degree in film making and I also teach it for a living. Most reviewers are qualified journalists, they're job is to give you an idea of the quality of the film based on their experience of it, which is what this reviewer did. You don't have to like his review but there it is.
As for damaging the film, that's just nonsense. The sheer amount of people posting in this thread about how much they enjoyed it, shows that while they took notice of the review, they still went to see it. Infact, they may have enjoyed it more because they went with their expectations lowered, thanks to this review. Both times I saw the film, the screen was full, not a spare seat in the house. So I seriously doubt that people are reading this review and staying away in their masses.
You keep mentioning about how a competent critic would give the film 3 or 4 stars because you and others keep saying how much you enjoyed it. A competent film critic doesn't write reviews to keep the fans happy. As I have already said, they rate the film based on their experience of veiwing it. In this case the reveiwer had a two star experience and wrote a review that reflects that, I'd say that makes them extremely competent. Also, if you know so much better about being a competent, paid film critic, then why aren't you doing it for a living. There's a well worn (often highly inaccurate) phrase in my profession 'Those who can't, teach.' Those who still can't criticise those who do.  
You have also talked about how anyone who didn't find it rivetting, amusing and clever, doesn't have an understanding of the genre. On my first viewing, I went along with somebody who is a huge horror & genre fan, to the point that he has written books on the subject. He is also well educated in film and he didn't get anything from it. Now, this guy has been watching horror films since we were kids, it was he who introduced me to the genre; so I think it's safe to say he has a pretty well rounded understanding of it. I came out of the screen with a big grin on my face, he was decidedly non-plussed. That was just his point of view. It is very arrogant to suggest that because somebody didn't enjoy a film that they don't understand or appreciate that entire genre. One man's 2001 maybe another man's Skyline. It's all down to individual points of view.






apedanger -> This reviewer does not know what he is talking about... (20/4/2011 11:35:19 AM)

Please get Kim Newman to write this review! David Hugues should not be qualified, it sounds as if he wanted saw 8 and ended up with something too un-rapey.




Wild about Wilder -> RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking about... (20/4/2011 1:09:26 PM)

While i'm not a fan of the franchise I did find this 1 amusing "NOT SCARY" but quite funny which to me is it's main problem Ghostface as a character is 1 of the least scary characters in the Horror/Slasher genre.
Question why is it in the 1 of the biggest biggest gun cultures on the planet is nobody ever strapped?[sm=33.gif]
3/5 for humour   1/5 for scaryness    overall 2/5




bobatim -> RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking about... (20/4/2011 1:39:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: apedanger

Please get Kim Newman to write this review! David Hugues should not be qualified, it sounds as if he wanted saw 8 and ended up with something too un-rapey.


Oh dear




linkinpython -> Screw Empire (20/4/2011 5:26:12 PM)

Fed up with empires inaccurate reviews, this was easily the best of the sequels.

End Of!




Shifty Bench -> RE: That's it!! (20/4/2011 7:29:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanchia

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shifty Bench

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drooch
Re-read my posts, anyone can dislike the film as much as they want - that's their subjective take, but a paid critic should detect that it is a work of good quality, and reward it appropriately, not damn it with two stars.


But if he didn't personally like it, he has every right to give it whatever rating he wants.........




And as we all know there is no such thing as an all sizes fit opinion of a film and by crikey it would be a boring review if all it was about was the lighting and how well built the sets were.


Indeed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Linkinpython
Fed up with empires inaccurate reviews, this was easily the best of the sequels.

End Of!


Weeeeeeellllllllllllll.....I still say Scream 2 is the best sequel. The new film is better than Scream 3 though, without a shadow of a doubt.




ElephantBoy -> RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking about... (20/4/2011 8:46:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild about Wilder

While i'm not a fan of the franchise I did find this 1 amusing "NOT SCARY" but quite funny which to me is it's main problem Ghostface as a character is 1 of the least scary characters in the Horror/Slasher genre.Question why is it in the 1 of the biggest biggest gun cultures on the planet is nobody ever strapped?[sm=33.gif]
3/5 for humour   1/5 for scaryness    overall 2/5

I guess he is quite scary in the first one because of the mystery about him, and because of the idea of the phone calls, and how chilling his voice is when you first hear it, and the comic questions almost makes it all the more off putting. But apart from that I guess Crevan being such a master at this sort of thing, just by the atmosphere he sets, and knowing when to do the jump scenes. The opening scene of Scream is still very chilling.

I don't think saying this new film is better than Scream 3 is saying much really. I have not seen that film since its release, so will have to take another look at it at some point. I remember that being a confussing mess, oddly this suffered from the oppisite as I knew excatly where it was going most the way though.




bobatim -> RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking about... (20/4/2011 8:54:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ElephantBoy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wild about Wilder

While i'm not a fan of the franchise I did find this 1 amusing "NOT SCARY" but quite funny which to me is it's main problem Ghostface as a character is 1 of the least scary characters in the Horror/Slasher genre.Question why is it in the 1 of the biggest biggest gun cultures on the planet is nobody ever strapped?[sm=33.gif]
3/5 for humour   1/5 for scaryness    overall 2/5

I guess he is quite scary in the first one because of the mystery about him, and because of the idea of the phone calls, and how chilling his voice is when you first hear it, and the comic questions almost makes it all the more off putting. But apart from that I guess Crevan being such a master at this sort of thing, just by the atmosphere he sets, and knowing when to do the jump scenes. The opening scene of Scream is still very chilling.

I don't think saying this new film is better than Scream 3 is saying much really. I have not seen that film since its release, so will have to take another look at it at some point. I remember that being a confussing mess, oddly this suffered from the oppisite as I knew excatly where it was going most the way though.


Interesting points of view. I still find Ghostface quite scary in the fact that in all of the films, he could literally be anybody; An anonymous mask that any psycho can hide behind. That's where the appeal of the character has always laid for me.

In terms of where Scream 4 ranks in the franchise, I think that I would go with the general consensus of better than 3. I would however, say that it is as good as 2. I like to think that 3 can be ignored and that this makes a better trilogy cap than 3. 




NickHilton -> RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking about... (20/4/2011 10:28:44 PM)

To weigh in:

Didn't think this was a good review for several reasons:

First, only the two small final paragraphs are saying anything about the film. The majority of the review is preamble. Preamble is fine but it certainly shouldn't make up the bulk of the review and when talking about the film, when he finally gets to it, it's all very general stuff. It would be easy to believe that they hadn't actually seen the film, not because they don't like it, but because they have nothing to say specifically about it except some 'joke' about Twitter that bares no relevance to the plot as anyone who's seen it knows.

Secondly the whole comment about the knife stabbings not being brutal enough is very odd. This film is significantly gorier than the first three, despite the decreased rating, so one must assume that the reviewer would also have disliked the original Scream. But a film not being as gory as Saw is not a reason to give it two stars- if there are faults in the execution then perhaps, but if it would have taken a Scream movie where Neve Campbell's head is trapped in a nail mask or whatever for this movie to get three stars then I find it hard to take the review seriously.




bobatim -> RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking about... (20/4/2011 10:47:02 PM)

[image]http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z136/Sithis_18/facepalm.jpg[/image] [image]http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0808/jesus-facepalm-facepalm-jesus-epic-demotivational-poster-1218659828.jpg[/image]




bobatim -> RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking about... (20/4/2011 10:55:03 PM)

There was supposed to be a facepalm picture there. To show my dismay at people still banging in about the review. GIVE US YOUR OWN THOUGHTS ABOUT THE FILM, YOU DIDN'T LIKE THE REVIEW, GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!




Shifty Bench -> RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking about... (21/4/2011 12:47:06 AM)

Dammit






kenada_woo -> RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking about... (23/4/2011 12:36:13 PM)

Really, really liked this...when I thought I wouldnt.

Found it a very clever, well written and plotted horror with a massive "stab" at the current American horror trend of remakes and sequel while keeping itself very self-aware.

The opening set it up perfectly and had the right blend of scares, gore, and surprises while making a comment on its own franchise as well as everything else.

Personally feel its far more clever than some give it credit and something that could've easily have been a mess of a film full of winks and contradictions.

Really loved it.[:D]





elab49 -> RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking about... (23/4/2011 1:50:12 PM)

[image]http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z136/Sithis_18/facepalm.jpg[/image]


Happy to help, Bobatim.

quote:

 Original: Nick Hilton

First, only the two small final paragraphs are saying anything about the film. The majority of the review is preamble. Preamble is fine but it certainly shouldn't make up the bulk of the review and when talking about the film, when he finally gets to it, it's all very general stuff. It would be easy to believe that they hadn't actually seen the film, not because they don't like it, but because they have nothing to say specifically about it except some 'joke' about Twitter that bares no relevance to the plot as anyone who's seen it knows.


Some might say the better the review the less detail of the narrative, frankly. Leave it to the tabs to go through the film bit by bit, for the most part.

My tuppenceworth - I am in fairly close agreement with the review. Not a particularly good film, the overly gloopy blood made it look like a pastiche rather than a horror film and there were pretty much zero jumps in the film. Overly happy with it's self-referential approach it left the decent film at the door. And one had to laugh at one character explaining how proud she was about lying convincingly when her acting was one of the poorest performances on show. A couple of good lines (but only a couple - and the 'don't fuck with the original' was badly undermined by that presumably ironic popping up behind them gag which was just bad.

Extremely disappointing. If they waste celluloid on a 5th I'll wait till it hits the TV screens.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking about... (23/4/2011 2:01:07 PM)

It was rubbish- and what dull kills! 




kenada_woo -> RE: This reviewer does not know what he is talking about... (23/4/2011 5:54:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

It was rubbish- and what dull kills! 


Wouldnt you say that was because every other horror is trying to out surprise or OTT each other - Saw, Final Destinations etc?

I think the kills were good and basic, which is probably the point. Every franchise is trying to out gore, out creatively kill each other (and the Scream films have done the same in the past) that going back to basics is the new "original" way to surprise people.

They play that up a lot in the film and openly say it from the opening etc. Its a fun film to dissect as a horror fan.




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.076172E-02