[ChemEng]

Has anyone caught this movie yet? Or is everyone caught up in Pirate fever?


Im jonesing for a good scary movie, but there hasnt been any reviews up here yet. Its got a 60% rating on rottentomatoes (compared to a 48% for Pirates) which is a good sign.


Just curious of the thoughts about the movie from people who have seen it.

 

[Wytchone]

I went to see Pirates my wife went to see Bug. I will see bug very soon.


My wife's assessments (and she is a much larger horror fan then I) was that this was a pure Horror film.


Not Thriller or slasher but pure Horror.


She was in a small crowd who saw it. Most said the movie sucked and wanted their money back.


They totaly missed the point of the movie. Horror

I cant' wait for it.

 

[IAM4UK]

A co-worker of mine saw this. He's a movie fan, and sees very many films at the theater. He said he was tempted to walk out of this one, and absolutely could not recommend it to anyone.

 

[wmwilker]



Quote:
Originally Posted by IAM4UK /forum/post/0


A co-worker of mine saw this. He's a movie fan, and sees very many films at the theater. He said he was tempted to walk out of this one, and absolutely could not recommend it to anyone.

A friend of mine who's opinion I respect (at least with movies

) also said that it was really bad.

I will probably still rent it when it is released.

 

[PooperScooper]

Wow. I guess everybody is different.

This is one of the best movies I've seen in a while. Ashley Judd did an excellent job in this movie. It is a horror/sci-fi movie in a drama sense with a conspiracy theory of sorts thrown in. I thought the dementia/paranoia portrayed was very real and it left a question, at least in Judd's case, of how it was induced.


If Spydie is still around, I wonder if he saw it.


larry

 

[Wytchone]

Yes i'm waiting to watch it here Larry. As I said wife said this was one of the best HORROR movies in a bit. However she also said that most people would not get it.


Hope it get here soon.

 

[mattg3]

Good acting but simple plot with no payoff.Not worth the effort.

 

[kevinp8192]

I saw it in the theaters some months ago, and I liked it too. But the people I saw it with hated it. HATED it. Said it was one of the worst movies they'd ever seen. Not only that, everyone in the theater was booing and laughing when the lights came up. I was kind of afraid to post about it--thought I might be off track.


If you're not alienated by the first two-thirds, the end really pays off. Otherwise the end will be absolutely the most ridiculous thing you've ever seen. I promise. It's going to be tough for many posters on this board, who I think have just about lost all of their ability to suspend disbelief.


I will say this: whether you like Ashley Judd's performance or not (I thought it was great)--you have to give her credit. She really laid it all out there on the line for this one.

 

[Airboss]



Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinp8192 /forum/post/11783146



If you're not alienated by the first two-thirds, the end really pays off.


I will say this: whether you like Ashley Judd's performance or not (I thought it was great)--you have to give her credit. She really laid it all out there on the line for this one.

Agree with both of your statements. I liked this one.

 

[Tulpa]

Saw the play it was based on, but haven't seen the movie yet.

 

[PooperScooper]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa /forum/post/11784563


Saw the play it was based on, but haven't seen the movie yet.

Interesting. I can see how the story is easily done as a play. You really only need 1 room and it's all character development.


This is a movie, like kevin says, if you don't pay attention to what's happening in the movie when you get to the end you miss out on the "conclusion" of the whole twisted logic of the psychotic(s). In a way this was a love story too. Also,
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) the teeth pulling was extremely intense - I had a real hard time watching, something about me and teeth.

The stabbing was well done also.
Michael Shannon, Judd's counterpart, did a great job too. And, I just noticed that Harry Connick Jr. played Judd's ex-husband, I didn't recognize him.


larry

 

[Tulpa]



Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper /forum/post/11787194


Interesting. I can see how the story is easily done as a play. You really only need 1 room and it's all character development.

It's easily done as a play, logistically speaking, but I actually thought (as a play) it was style over substance. I mean, it was okay, but I was expecting more.


Now I haven't seen the movie yet, so don't take that as a judgement on the film. Some things work better on screen than on stage, and vice versa.

 

[PooperScooper]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa /forum/post/11787628


It's easily done as a play, logistically speaking, but I actually thought (as a play) it was style over substance. I mean, it was okay, but I was expecting more.


Now I haven't seen the movie yet, so don't take that as a judgement on the film. Some things work better on screen than on stage, and vice versa.

Ah, expectations.

I had none when I saw the movie. Of course in a movie you can do much more with special effects, close ups, and such which does add to experience. However, the "meat" of the movie is in the dialog and character interaction. I see that Tracy Letts wrote both the play and the screenplay.


larry

 

[Tulpa]

Well, don't get me wrong, I didn't know anything about the play or movie before I saw it. It's just that in theatre, you have a HUGE emphasis in character, dialog, etc. So by those standards, it was pretty pedestrian. It wasn't BAD, but with the gore and whatnot, etc., I was like, "I could watch this on film, done better. This isn't why I go see plays."


It's not that I thought the story was bad, I just don't think it's suited for stage.

 

[kevinp8192]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa /forum/post/11788197


It's just that in theatre, you have a HUGE emphasis in character, dialog, etc. So by those standards, it was pretty pedestrian.

Well, the film may be a bit more grisly than what you saw on the stage, but I wouldn't expect it to be too much more action-packed. It's definitely a very dialog-intensive flick. In fact, if I remember correctly, dialog is just about all that really drives it.


Larry (MAJOR SPOILER):
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Who do you think was on the telephone?

 

[Tulpa]

Hmm, well, what I saw was pretty gory and graphic.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Blood sprayed all over the bathroom, tooth pulling, naked people...
all just a few feet in front of you. You don't see that on stage very often, and it was pretty entertaining.


When it wasn't doing that, though... I don't know, it just didn't seem that impressive, compared to other plays. I mean, I see conspiracy theory plays quite often (kind of the nature of some small theatre out here), some better, some worse. I'll watch the film, though, to see if it does better.


I hope you don't take this as me ragging on the film. I'm not, as I haven't seen it. I'm just giving my honest take on the play. If the play does come to your town and you liked the film, you might like the play, too. It's also probably available at a bookstore or library.

 

[PooperScooper]

One thing about the play is that it won't have the same actors as the movie. That can make a difference as can camera angles and such. It's interesting they did the things you mention on stage. I don't know if I'd like to see this as a play or not.


Kevin, I really hadn't thought about what you asked. I'll have to mull it over some.

larry


Edit: Well, Kevin, I've thought about it some.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) I don't think the phone rang in real life. It could have been an indicator that showed Judd as being more progressed into psychosis than what showed. Both of them hearing it could mean they were "in sync". Other than that the other possibility is her son. But why? Also, why didn't she just disconnect the phone?

 

[GreySkies]



Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper /forum/post/11790439


One thing about the play is that it won't have the same actors as the movie.

Actually, Michael Shannon was in the original production of the play here in Chicago. But that's pretty rare.

 

[PooperScooper]



Quote:
Originally Posted by GreySkies /forum/post/11791158


Actually, Michael Shannon was in the original production of the play here in Chicago. But that's pretty rare.

Cool. I guess he was a shoo-in for the movie then.

He did a great job too.


larry

 

[kevinp8192]

Larry...interesting thoughts. I may rent it and see it again. I would be interested to see if
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) they both react to the phone at the same time, or Judd's character reacts, and then the guy does. I guess I took the telephone literally. At least at first--and I can't even remember how the son fits in. I thought he was dead? Or was he just missing? I can't remember.


The phone thing is definitely an interesting mystery thrown in there.
I'm just glad there are others out there who liked the flick...I was beginning to think that I was crazy.

It's kind of like that movie "May" from a few years ago. Both were kind of raw, character-driven horror flicks that either click with you or don't.