What was the last movie you watched? III

[prince0gotham]

how was the movie not obvious about everything it tried to do, WHILE and even BEFORE doing it? and what about the 'creepy/scary' scenes was interesting at all or surprising or likeable

most of them were in the trailer anyway too....... not to mention that after one point they had somewhat of a negative effect on you because of how NOT scary the woman in black was

link me that review, i'm very interested

[RIFA]

how was the movie not obvious about everything it tried to do, WHILE and even BEFORE doing it? and what about the 'creepy/scary' scenes was interesting at all or surprising or likeable

most of them were in the trailer anyway too....... not to mention that after one point they had somewhat of a negative effect on you because of how NOT scary the woman in black was

link me that review, i'm very interested

James Berardinelli gave it 3/4 with a really nice review to back that up.
Roger Ebert's review... 3/4 as well.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120201/REVIEWS/120209996

IMO, you should give the movie a second chance and take it for what it wants to deliver... I think you overlooked many details in the film. It was really well made. It's nothing really new or groundbreaking... but it's refreshingly good in this time when we have few decent horror flicks.

[Vader182]

the movie failed, it wasn't a movie with cliches in it, it was a movie where everything was a cliche, there was barely anything natural about the course of events or barely anything between the cliches

it wasn't even scary at all, there was no tension, the way it tried to 'play' you was so obvious and repetetive and it didn't help that daniel's character was brave as hell and barely cared despite the horrified look on his face which is just so natural about daniel


there were no stakes and the

dead wife thing

was so forced and expected

it was like The Haunting, tho that one's much better, bigger scope, more chatacters that at least are able to fool you and are in the same time not trying too hard to be serious about it in any way... in The Haunting the main character had a trauma that kind bonded her with the mansion (which is one of many cliches there are in movies like this) and we had the same thing here (basically the same ending too... oh and the children thing was the same...) but so underdeveloped that it makes The Haunting look like some genius film while it's just a great/classic 90s B movie

Daniel maintained the same HP level of acting, maybe slightly better but the fact that it couldn't work in this movie (maybe because it's not an HP movie) made it look worse than it is

The house was too small to create any sense of horror for me. It appeared bigger on the outside but they showed so little of it that I just can't understand why they thought that it would be frightening. The creepy child toys couldn't bring anything to the tension build up or atmosphere at all, the woman in black just fuckin stood there and went all jedi on furniture, no one was harmed except kids (till the end).

In The Haunting the mansion was HUUUUUGE, you could get lost in it. Rooms were spacious, the house itself was breathing and alive and horrifying. Then again the movie WAS about THE HOUSE and how Crane and the children spoke through it. But it made it so much more epic and is more interesting as a concept. Or at least much more interesting than the way the woman in black was approached as a concept. Not to mention you had characters interracting with each other, not just Daniel checking dark corners out and seeing shadows and dead things in the woods. Basically you can make any idea seem great if you approach it the right way. Which is not what the creators of The Woman in Black did, which leaves me bashing what could've been a great idea IF...

There's so much wrong with this movie and i could go on. Anyway i saw it some days ago and gave it a 5.9. Was gonna tell rifa but he wouldn't visit fuckin chat.

Your review mirrors every reaction from my closest friends. Meh. I'll skip this one.

-Vader

[prince0gotham]

how was the movie not obvious about everything it tried to do, WHILE and even BEFORE doing it? and what about the 'creepy/scary' scenes was interesting at all or surprising or likeable

most of them were in the trailer anyway too....... not to mention that after one point they had somewhat of a negative effect on you because of how NOT scary the woman in black was

link me that review, i'm very interested

James Berardinelli gave it 3/4 with a really nice review to back that up.
Roger Ebert's review... 3/4 as well.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120201/REVIEWS/120209996

IMO, you should give the movie a second chance and take it for what it wants to deliver... I think you overlooked many details in the film. It was really well made. It's nothing really new or groundbreaking... but it's refreshingly good in this time when we have few decent horror flicks.

Saw several reviews and I have no idea what these people are talking about. I think of myself as a person who's perfectly capable of enjoying a movie that not special with anything and not original in any way, but yet somewhat convincing or likeable and I saw nothing from the latter in The Woman in Black and I really liked how it looked before seeing the movie.

Starting from the poor character development with Daniel's character, about who I know only that he has a dead wife, likes to help people out and is incredibly brave and selfless. I mean the first scene and shot of him made me 'oh come oooooon' right at the outset. I don't think it was a proper way to introduce both the character and his reason for grieving and have the first 'there was no person there' moment in the movie at the same time. Basically, after that we really have the same thing for the whole movie mixed a bit with his general good guy behavior with nothing beyond that. Also there was no real reason for him to be so brave at all, I mean, I understand that he was in a tight spot and had to close that deal for the house but that was mentioned like two times in the movie. The first time there was a whole scene dedicated for that, second time it was just in the middle of conversation. Beyond that his whole 'let me check this room out' was so fake. I know that that's the usual behavior of characters in horror/thriller movies but this was beyond stupid. I mean the story was literally using a laser pointer for him to go and visit places he maybe shouldn't so that we'll have

another jump scare

I mean sometimes when I used to get scared and was alone at night as a kid I had this urge to actually run into the room shouting and waving just because the silence and darkness creeped me out so I could relate to his maneuvers... the first time. I mean there's little to no creativity in the creators' attempts to explain and justify his actions, or if there is an explanation you can barely feel its signifficanse. I know that on paper it might feel signifficant in the movie you can't feel it, or if you do I don't know how the hell you do it. Add that to my house-size complaint. Daniel just travels between the hallroom, the stairs, the 2nd floor hallway and that room. That on the background of predictable jumpscares that are in the trailer is not only not impressive, it's annoying. I mean even without the trailer I could predict what's gonna happen by just observing how the camera pans or how much space there's left empty in the composition of a still shot (so I know something will move or a shade will fade in/out there).

The ending is as abrupt as the introduction of Daniel's character. You get almost no sense of tragedy in the character's departing. Except on that guy's face, what's his name... the guy that drove him around. It was like it didn't even want to make you care or feel bad that Daniel and the boy died. It left me with a '...well that's that I guess' feeling. The whole movie was a one big 'hello-aaaah-tara-tara-goodbye' for that main character. There was nothing before that and nothing after. Probably a flashback scene with the dead wife? Whole scene maybe? No? Ok.

Again, about the ending, I understand there's these little details that are supposed to be well thought out, like for example the woman not leaving till she sees that a father risks his life for his child (and I got that from a youtube comment......) but there's so little accent on things that should have accent that... I mean part of the 'well what was that all about then' aspect of the ending (or more accurately the 20 minutes before that) is exactly because of the fact that by the last 20 minutes of the movie you're already used to the whole movie being extremely obvious and straight forward about everything. Then right at the end you have something that you need to tie together... but you won't or can't... because you (i'm ofc talking about myself) already barely care about anything and you have no interest in unravelling the LITTLE mystery there is.

As I said, apart from the acting almost nothing in this movie was convincing or had something clever or had the effect that it should have. For me. I don't understand why people thought it's scary. Browsing through youtube comments I see two opinions basically. That it was scary as fuck or that it wasn't scary at all. By this point, after this wall of text, I'm just too lazy to try and find the reason for that.

the movie failed, it wasn't a movie with cliches in it, it was a movie where everything was a cliche, there was barely anything natural about the course of events or barely anything between the cliches

it wasn't even scary at all, there was no tension, the way it tried to 'play' you was so obvious and repetetive and it didn't help that daniel's character was brave as hell and barely cared despite the horrified look on his face which is just so natural about daniel


there were no stakes and the

dead wife thing

was so forced and expected

it was like The Haunting, tho that one's much better, bigger scope, more chatacters that at least are able to fool you and are in the same time not trying too hard to be serious about it in any way... in The Haunting the main character had a trauma that kind bonded her with the mansion (which is one of many cliches there are in movies like this) and we had the same thing here (basically the same ending too... oh and the children thing was the same...) but so underdeveloped that it makes The Haunting look like some genius film while it's just a great/classic 90s B movie

Daniel maintained the same HP level of acting, maybe slightly better but the fact that it couldn't work in this movie (maybe because it's not an HP movie) made it look worse than it is

The house was too small to create any sense of horror for me. It appeared bigger on the outside but they showed so little of it that I just can't understand why they thought that it would be frightening. The creepy child toys couldn't bring anything to the tension build up or atmosphere at all, the woman in black just fuckin stood there and went all jedi on furniture, no one was harmed except kids (till the end).

In The Haunting the mansion was HUUUUUGE, you could get lost in it. Rooms were spacious, the house itself was breathing and alive and horrifying. Then again the movie WAS about THE HOUSE and how Crane and the children spoke through it. But it made it so much more epic and is more interesting as a concept. Or at least much more interesting than the way the woman in black was approached as a concept. Not to mention you had characters interracting with each other, not just Daniel checking dark corners out and seeing shadows and dead things in the woods. Basically you can make any idea seem great if you approach it the right way. Which is not what the creators of The Woman in Black did, which leaves me bashing what could've been a great idea IF...

There's so much wrong with this movie and i could go on. Anyway i saw it some days ago and gave it a 5.9. Was gonna tell rifa but he wouldn't visit fuckin chat.

Your review mirrors every reaction from my closest friends. Meh. I'll skip this one.

-Vader

I'm actually very curious on your views but I can't think of any other reson why I'd want you to see this movie.

[Joeyjojo72]

I just watched most of the Green Hornet. I made it to the third act, got distracted by some paperwork i had from work, and never bothered to finish it. Its still on the DVR, but I'm in no hurry to find out what happens. A shame, because Im a huge fan of the director. From what I saw, the movie had some interesting moments, but nothing that made me give a damn. My two cents anyway, others may find things to like about it.

[ComptonTerry]

I just watched most of the Green Hornet. I made it to the third act, got distracted by some paperwork i had from work, and never bothered to finish it. Its still on the DVR, but I'm in no hurry to find out what happens. A shame, because Im a huge fan of the director. From what I saw, the movie had some interesting moments, but nothing that made me give a damn. My two cents anyway, others may find things to like about it.

All I know is that director made Eternal Sunshine, which is one of my favorite movies ever, but he really hasn't done anything else I've had any interest in. I didn't bother with Green Hornet because of how much of a disaster I've heard it is.

[dafox]

10/10

[mchekhov]

how was the movie not obvious about everything it tried to do, WHILE and even BEFORE doing it? and what about the 'creepy/scary' scenes was interesting at all or surprising or likeable

most of them were in the trailer anyway too....... not to mention that after one point they had somewhat of a negative effect on you because of how NOT scary the woman in black was

link me that review, i'm very interested

James Berardinelli gave it 3/4 with a really nice review to back that up.
Roger Ebert's review... 3/4 as well.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120201/REVIEWS/120209996

IMO, you should give the movie a second chance and take it for what it wants to deliver... I think you overlooked many details in the film. It was really well made. It's nothing really new or groundbreaking... but it's refreshingly good in this time when we have few decent horror flicks.

i still have to see this, but I remember Tom Hardy saying that he was very upset about not getting this part....So I'm gonna assume at the very least the character is well written.

[RIFA]

i still have to see this, but I remember Tom Hardy saying that he was very upset about not getting this part....So I'm gonna assume at the very least the character is well written.

It is and Daniel keeps it simple and honest. Brave move from him. Most would overact so easy.

[BlairCo]

Blade Runner: The Final Cut: 8.9/10

Even after around 5 different versions of the film, this film is still a wonder. Looking at the Final Cut, the editing is very well done, like how they removed the cables from the police cars and when the dove flys away with a different building in the background. It's still a classic film, even if the filmmakers change some things. George Lucus should learn something from this.