MovieChat Forums > X (2022) Discussion > Don’t buy into the hype of the reviews

Don’t buy into the hype of the reviews


It was an average at best horror movie. And this is coming from someone that doesn’t have huge hopes for “artistic” horror- but midsommar and hereditary (which I didn’t care for) I felt were better entries to the horror genre than this.

reply

I agree. Those movies which critics like are usually those that tend to suck. This was a painfully average movie.

reply

If you read reviews for this, the critics are gushing because the director/writer 'nails' the aesthetic of 70s/ 80s era movies... like it's never been done before.

Which it has. And better.

It's fine, but you're not going to watch it twice.

reply

He nailed the 80s aesthetic with "House of the Devil". Not sure why people think this movie is so special.

reply

My favourite "homage" movie is Rob Zombie's The Devils Rejects. Aside from the look of the movie, the writing and acting is terrific for a low-budget movie. You find yourself actually rooting for this family of psychopaths because of their loyalty to each other.

reply

80s? This is 70s through and through. And well done.

reply

Typo.

reply

This wasn't artistic horror and nothing like midsommar and hereditary. So not really sure how to take your feedback.

reply

ACCORDING TO A LOT OF DICKHEADS ON HERE...ALL NEW FILMS ARE TRASH...SO WOULDN'T AVERAGE MAKE "X" THE BEST FILM OF THE YEAR?

reply

Yes. For the time we live in X is considered good. It's up against films like Bye Bye Man, Conjuring, Annabel, Paranormal Activity 7? Halloween Kills. All kinds of garbage.

reply

Kills was good tho

reply

Agreed is not a bad movie but ridicolously overrated (at least so far)

It had potential to be great if it wasnt so slow an unoriginal.

6/10

reply

This is NOT elevated horror. So midsommar and hereditary have nothing to do with this.

reply

Hereditary isn't elevated horror either.

reply

What is then?

reply

It took way too long to start the horror it was billed as.

On the 60-minute mark, the first kill happened. Before that, a couple of creepy shots of figures in windows, and a gory shot of a dead cow. They could have wrapped this film up in a satisfying 1 hour 30 mins. In and out. Every shot is not gold, every scene is not needed. Cut it down and tighten it up. Not every movie needs to be 2+ hours. Especially a horror movie about kids getting killed by red necks.

The porn plot was somewhat fun, but not completely engaging for a full hour during the beginning half. If I wanted porn, I'd watch porn. I've seen Boogie Nights, Red Rocket and Serbian Film, so imho I've seen better films with porn related plots. It dragged a little too long without much happening character or story wise. Just showing "tiddy" isn't enough for long sequences. It could have been condensed.

Most of the film making was great, cinematography excellent. Some great shots. The story was just a little loose when they arrived at the farm, and the porn plot took over until the hour mark. That long stretch wasn't funny enough, wasn't scary enough, barely built up tension.

Then I'm supposed to be scared by two old people who could barely get out of bed, let alone overpower a group of young people.

Motel Hell meets Jada & Will Smith. It's a 6/10 from me. House of 1000 Corpses did it way better.

Any metaphors or meta, I just didn't care about. They showed a car half submerged in the lake just like Psycho. Whoopee doo, have a lolly.

reply