When that movie came out I was excited to see it. I love horror movies and I had read the premise for the movie. I knew it was fictional, but I loved the idea they had for the storyline. I had also heard people were leaving the theater because they couldn't handle it. So I drive an hour away to see it because our local theaters weren't showing the movie. Well, when the movie ended and the credits popped up, I thought to myself, " You've got to be friggin' kidding me! " Talk about falling WAY short of the hype! My mother said, " I see why people were leaving the theater, it was boring as *&*" ! I would have at least liked to have gotten a glimpse of SOMETHING! The camera was moving around so much I thought I was going to get motion sickness. Now I understand that it was low budget, and they used improv actors who didn't know what was going to happen because they really didn't have a script, but come on! It was a great idea, but it fell way short for me! How did you like it?
2006-12-01 12:56:10 · 13 answers · asked by THE DYNAMO FROM OHIO 3 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
I thought the way it was made was original, and the main concept of it was good, but it really made me angry that they never let you see the Blair witch, and the camera was moving around too much. Also, I was getting sick of all the swearing. It seemed like every other word was f*uck. I understand that it's a horror movie and in real life no one is going to try and watch their language being in a situation like that, but I tihnk they over did it.
2006-12-01 12:59:59 · answer #1 · answered by that one girl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This was easily the most overrated movie I've ever seen. I read and actually heard friends say that they thought this was going to be a movie that influenced films for years to come. They were right. Hopefully filmmakers now realize how important it is to have a good script, ESPECIALLY if the budget is small.
The extra motion from the hand held camera was crap. Look, I'm a 50 something guy with arthritis, and I can hold my video camera steadier than that. These were supposed to be film students and they couldn't do any better than that? So they were obviously overcompensating to convey to their audience, whom they must have assumed to be idiots, that this was "real" hand held camera shooting. (And for what it's worth, I have a friend who is a graduate of the NYU film school. She was offended by the way the characters handled what was obviously a very sophisticated and expensive camera. She insisted the NO decent film student would try to carry that thing across a river by walking on a log.)
In bad movies, I usually find there is a tipping point where I cease to have sympathy for the main characters and start rooting for the monster, serial killer, or whatever. For me, the tipping point in this film was when we find out one of the characters has thrown away the map in frustration after they've had trouble finding their way. What neanderthal would ever throw away even an imperfect map if he was in an unfamiliar area?
I will say the original idea was a good one. And I did actually like the mock documentary stuff they shot with real people from the town and surrounding area. But as soon as the "stars" got on camera, I lost it every time. And by the way, have we ever heard from these people who "changed movies forever" again?
And the bottom line worst thing you can say about a horror film? It wasn't scary.
2006-12-02 16:58:09 · answer #2 · answered by ktd_73 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because of the low budget, the movie had to rely on psychological terror instead of special effects. Yes, they could of thrown in something to see even on their low budget. They decided to go ahead and show nothing, instead. In a way this made it more scary. I think it was very resourceful of them. The real point is that good movies can be made with little money. What you think, can be scarier than what you see !
2006-12-02 01:22:25 · answer #3 · answered by Count Acumen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought the movie was awesome. When I saw it I was told it was a real story with real video. I have been to the town in Maryland and driven through MANY times. The town is really creepy so naturally when I left I was pretty shook up.
2006-12-01 21:06:52 · answer #4 · answered by ctws79 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I couldn't have explained how I liked it any more perfect that what you said. It's too bad too, the basic idea was great.I was really let down cuz I wait for good horror movies not like Freddy horror but like The Ring horror.
2006-12-01 23:23:20 · answer #5 · answered by Piper 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great Idea for a movie but you are right..It fell very short of the hype..
2006-12-01 20:57:58 · answer #6 · answered by tchem75 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it was very odd ,, didn't care for it much ,,,,the actors couldn't act and i found myself laughing at most of it ,,,,,, Ive seen some low budget movie that were very good but this one was a crapper ,,,,,,, i agree the idea was really good and would like to see the story line made out again but with more excitement ........
2006-12-01 21:02:56 · answer #7 · answered by just a mommy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah,they did have the camera movin' around like crazy!
I guess they did it like that,to make the audiance believe that it was real,and wanted to freak them out or somethin'
When I first watched it though I was ALL BY MYSELF,and I got chill bumps all up and down my legs and arms,I had to go out side for some fresh air.I was scared !
2006-12-01 21:02:47 · answer #8 · answered by ~*meli$sa*~ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An absolute let down. Left me feeling nauseated due to camera work and time wasted!
2006-12-01 20:58:47 · answer #9 · answered by Thinker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By far the absolute worst movie I ever saw!
2006-12-01 20:58:20 · answer #10 · answered by Answer Master Dude 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋