Why do people assume if someone rates high movie they personally didn't like, the other guy must have somehow been involved in making of that said movie?
Different people have different criteria for movies, depending on how many movies they've seen, or in most cases, those few selected "specials" that think they are God's Gift to mankind.
Giving this amateurish flick a 10/10 rating. I can only believe, the reviewer must be involved in the production somehow.
There. It's actually not *that* amateurish, it's just low budget. It's not high class editing that will blow your mind, but it's not up on pair with dozens of other "we made this in our backyard" type of movies. Some effort was at least put into this and for a change, it's one of few newer horror movies that's actually shot on film and not cell phone.
To the point: The color grading feels like plaque, cinematography is not just wide angles, perfect editing, what?? Solid performances, I've seen mediocre acting, nothing more, really. I'm not here to bash the movie but it is far away from being one well executed film. Any review saying it has high production value can not be taken seriously.
It's definitively not high production. It's very low budget. I didn't like the overall look of the movie to be precise, it's too "washed up" for my taste which gives it even more low budget look.
But effects were much better then usual for this type of (low budget) movie as well as acting. Of course, acting is not superb, but at least actors didn't felt like they are reading from paper. For this type of movie, acting was fairly descent.
Screenplay itself, I find it much more enjoyable then I thought I would. It has several silly moments, but I never find it to be boring. It's well paced movie on that regard. Oh and overall movie is "Scalps meets I Spit on Your Grave with bits of The Crow" so... go figure, quite enjoyable mixed bag.
reply
share