I know, I know, most horror movies are bad anyways, but I wanted to rent this one so bad and I was really disappointed...
2006-07-05 14:05:34 · 17 answers · asked by Angelrebel 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
I am with you. Most horror movies suck now days. I rented Hills over the 4th. I wasn't really scared by the mutants. And why when they are being chased by a killers do the people always freak out and do stupid stuff? Note: If you got a gun, don't shoot til you see something to shoot at. And then take aim (don't just fire over your shoulder). Come on. Anyways it was bad. Sorry we had to waste our money.
2006-07-05 14:44:11 · answer #1 · answered by RussellMania 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree....they should have had M.Night Shamylan direct it. Or had some more special effects. The matches on the camper door and the deaf mute girl helpin them in the end blah blah.....i am glad i only spent 3.00 renting it instead of 8 bucks at the theater. And the ending which i won't spoil was the cheeiest cliffhanger i have ever seen next to freddyIV. I was really dissapointed tho with the decisions made by the "adults" in the movie and how the younger generation barely made it alive. The best part in my opinion was when the dog killed the people when he saw them... the dog was the best character in the movie.....not the first dog but the 2nd one.
2006-07-05 14:30:23 · answer #2 · answered by qban1der 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its just a typical paint by numbers horror movie that really does nothing to set itself apart from anything else in the genre. Its sad to, because Kane could be such a great horror movie star, but they need to give him better then this if they want him to suceed. The one thing that makes Kane so scary (besides his massive size and look) they dont even use in the movie and thats him setting up after what looks like something that would totally kill the average person. That was a HUGE mistake to not do at least one time in the movie IMO.
2016-03-27 05:30:28 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yea, it was pretty sucky. Though I did like the village..it was thoughtful to put in there when you know what the Army did during Nuke testing.
You might check out the original...its B grade...but it might actually be better. I'll tell you one that really let me down Hostel...that movie sucked...I thought House of Wax with Paris in it was actually a better movie....
2006-07-05 14:19:27 · answer #4 · answered by Steven S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah- I do think it was a let down. I was looking forward to seeing it but it turned out a disappointment. I thought it would be good but it was just really bloody and that is basically it.
2006-07-05 14:56:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was a pretty ok movie, was gory. Ranked with See No Evil and Hostel
2006-07-05 14:08:59 · answer #6 · answered by Texas_at_its_best 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes i had a friend that told me to go c it and said it was the best movie ever but i think it sucked it was entertaining but not scary like i thought it could have been better
2006-07-05 14:07:59 · answer #7 · answered by avery s 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You wasted five points when you could discuss this at the Yahoo Message Board for free?
2006-07-05 14:11:23 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i agree. you should see the origional version of the movie. it was directed by wes craven back in the late 1970's. it's not as advanced, but i think it's overall better.
2006-07-05 14:12:50 · answer #9 · answered by princess_Simone 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I was extremely dissapointed. It had a good plot, and a pretty good trailer. It was entertaining, but gory, and not at all interesting.
2006-07-05 14:10:40 · answer #10 · answered by a;lsdkfjadls;f 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋