Weird movie


So the first half is a documentary and the second half is like a real movie? Don't know if I liked that part. Especially since I thought it was really scary to think all this could happen in real life with real people, but then it turned into a regular movie with obvious actors.

The teenagers were so annoying. I know they probably wanted them to be like the stupid teenagers who always get killed first in horror movies, but again I don't think this aligns with the idea of the first part at all.

Ah I don't know. I feel there are two movies in there. And in the first part of the movie, they were making fun of old horror clichés, but in the second part, they just fall right into them. And since the characters were like real people in the first part, it took me out of the movie to see them as carricatures in the second part.

At the end, why just not help Freddy Krueger instead of running away?

And what was the process behind the search for a survivor girl? A girl crazy enough to want to shoot a documentary about a serial killer? Did she need to be a virgin too? Because only the first criterion narrows it down a bit.

I just feel the movie didn't really know what it wanted to be so it tried to be everything.

reply

There were several points at which the movie switched from documentary to regular 3rd person style movie, before we even got to the ending. It's a running theme: we see Leslie set these things up via the camera crew, then the scene itself is normal movie camera style. It happened during the first scare scene on his main victim behind the diner, and that was like 15-20 mins into the movie.

I thought it was a great story telling setup. To see the behind the scenes stuff as hand held then the fruition of it like a normal horror movie.

reply