Post a response to this discussion thread
Differing taste in movies? No need to be snotty. . .
"Plot: Three morons lost in the woods. This doesn't inspire me with confidence, even if you substitute 'College film student' for 'Moron', people lost in the woods doesn't inspire me with fear."
That's an oversimplification. Even if you want to call them "morons", it would still be: Three morons trek into the woods in search of a local tall tale. Then they get lost. Then they get killed. And is the plot itself supposed to instill fear? Pretty much every "scary" movie (and this is a relative term, obviously, as everyone's threshhold for fear is different) consists of a "A bunch of morons get together to do something, only to end up being murdered in a nasty fashion". Except for movies involving Satan, I suppose, and I find those to be more "freaky" than "scary". Again, it's subjective.
"Characters: Idiots. Even if these are average US citizens (in which case, I'd be very depressed!) I have no reason to identify with them or feel sorry for them. I'm totally disconnected from the events. I don't care about what happens."
Now, this is a legitimate complaint, and the one I have heard the most. Not from the most people, mind you, but the most from my Sweetie, who hates the movie with a passion. I think you need to ask yourself if there have ever been any "characters" (and I use the term loosely) in horror movies that you've really felt compassion or sympathy for. I also happen to think the nature of the film, a mock documentary, makes it impossible to go into depth regarding the three morons. The movie we watch is about THEM, but it consists of their footage. They weren't making a movie about themselves, why would they take the time to talk about themselves? If they left the camera running as they walked, or argued, I was willing to go with it simply because I could believe it was laziness. Easier to just keep the camera running and get rid of what you don't need than to try to get the camera set up in a hurry. So as far as feeling disconnected goes, well. . . It is a horror movie, technically, and I don't know anyone who goes to horror movies looking for some kind of warm fuzzy character development. We all know (or should know) they're toast from the get-go.
Thought: Looking for a legendary mythical being. Has potential, but the concept of witches isn't particularly scary to me, and even the term "witch" has been corrupted and redefined by time, translation, and deliberate manipulation by the Catholic Church.
So you're not afraid of witches - fair enough. I never felt any particular fear of witches either, less so than other imaginary frights - ghosts, werewolves, vampires, etc. But try to suspend your disbelief for a moment: A "woman" covered from head to toe in dark, matted hair, whose feet don't touch the ground when she walks, who may or may not be responsible for the murder of a bunch of kids AND men - if you were to meet such a woman, what would you do? Run like hell, that's what you'd do! If you aren't going to suspend your disbelief for this movie, then I don't want to hear you say you enjoy ANY "monster" or "horror" movies. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak.
"Diction: A stream of profanity and people screaming at each other. Ok, there was some interview footage toward the beginning, but not much else was really intellegible."
I really, seriously disagree with you here. Besides the interviews at the beginning of the movie, nobody really starts yelling until they are lost. Heather shoots a few scenes as well - one at the cemetery in the beginning, one at Coppin Rock (sp?), and any number of their conversations (when they're calm) are perfectly comprehensible. I would ask you how you would react if you were to get lost in the woods with two morons - would you be calm and cool, or would you get pissed and let the fucks fly? I think all the screaming and swearing is quite realistic, in the end. If I were being pursued by a supernatural being through the woods, with no food, in cold weather, you better believe I'd be screaming "Fuck!" at every opportunity. It is the realism of the film, I think, that scared me. It wasn't pretty or polished, it was a bunch of morons screaming at one another - which is what would happen.
"Action: Running around in the woods with the camera pointed at the ground. About 3/8ths of the footage is this."
Hardly. Are you trying to tell me you that you kept track of the number of minutes the camera was pointed at the ground while the characters were walking or running? If I had to guesstimate a fraction, I'd say it was closer to 1/8, and that's being generous. And anyways, this is a technical element that really has very little to do with how "scary" the movie is. Again, I thought it added a bit of realism to the film - they're making a documentary, not a nature film. It is not unreasonable to think that when there's nothing of "interest" to film (pertaining to their documentary), they'd just sort of let the camera do whatever. It's about REALISM.
"Spectacle: None The weakest element in drama, the most used element in films (aka eyecandy). This film was made so cheaply that there isn't really much spectacle to comment on."
You have no grounds for this complaint. If you go into a movie expecting to feast your eyes, and it doesn't deliver, that's YOUR problem, not a problem with the movie, necessarily. That's like saying Ben-Hur sucks because we never get to see Jesus' face. You can not fault a movie because you had expectations that were not met - In that event, your analysis is not objective. If you were disappointed at not seeing the witch, only you are to blame for that.
"Learn to discern."
Thanks for the advice. I suppose you think if I disagree with you, it's because I am lacking intellectually somehow. Me - I just think it's different strokes for different folks. Sorry to be so long-winded - if you're still reading, that is!
Post a response to this discussion thread