Post a response to this discussion thread
Take another look at the Nightmare on Elm Street series. While replete with idiots, some of the characters are intelegent and creative. Granted the plot isn't always much, but there's an effort at making both the people and the Villains interesting. Also look at Wes Craven's Shocker. Strong characters that kick ass all around and a good story. I think these qualify as horror movies.
Warm Fuzzy fealing? I never go to a movie for that. If I want a warm fuzzy feeling, I scratch my cat's chin.
Run from a woman with an obvious need for 'nair? Actually, I'm nuts enough to try talking to her first, UNLESS she's wielding a Knife or a chain saw: Then I run until I can find a tree branch longer than her weapon. But then, I've had some training. Floating above the ground? I might ask her A) does she know B) how does it work and C) can she teach me. OK, so I'm a little nuts. I could even ask these questions in a variety of languages. Not everyone is given to profanity when scared. When scared, I'm too busy finding a way out of the problem to waste energy and effort on pointless explitives. Nature film might have been more interesting. The leaves were pretty. From what I remember of the movie (and I admit freely that I'm trying to forget), they cut back and forth in and out of interviews at the beginning. In fact, they seem to cut in and out of the same interview a couple of times. This to me is not realistic. It shows signs of editing. I thought this was supposed to be "Unedited" footage. Spectacle: it is a very broad term. "eyecandy" is only a tiny portion of spectacle. Perhaps "Scope" or "Importance" or even "Lesson" would be better. Some things are best left unshown. If you can find a copy of "Guilty as Charged" with Rod Stieger, look for the scene that describes what happens when the power goes out in the middle of the electricution. Rather than show it, one of the characters Describes it to others. This makes for something far more ghastly than anything the FX department could have accomplished. My point? I don't need to see the witch. I need to be interested in the movie. If I'm not, I look at the situation: Did I fail, or did the Movie fail. In this case, I have to say that the Movie failed. Not an objective analysis? Of course not. How can anyone be objective about something they didn't like. The best we can do is come up with non-subjective grounds for commentary.
Me? Complain about you being long winded? My Hypocrasy does know limits.
"Learn to Discern" is my general advice to all, especially Hollywood, which spouts crap apon crap, expecting the public to gobble it up. Sadly, the public does.
No, I do not see you as an idiot. To be honest, you at least backed up your comments with some thought, which is more than I can say for anyone else trying to defend this movie.
Jar Jar Binks' head on a spike:
www.slip.net/~mtm/jarjarimpaled.html
Post a response to this discussion thread