Beware THE LODGE! Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

RAMSEY CAMPBELL » Discussion » Beware THE LODGE! « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.8.17.77
Posted on Sunday, March 17, 2013 - 09:59 pm:   

THE LODGE (2008). The British DVD released by 101 Films carries a quote from horror.net: "THE SHINING meets CABIN IN THE WOODS Truly disturbing" (no punctuation). Bullshit. It's a cheap and nasty little film in which a young couple are brutalised by two sadists. That's all. I would have checked horror.net, but apparently the site is risky to visit. The packaging of the film also has rottentomatoes.com saying "Will creep the hell out of you." Really? This is what the site actually says: www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lodge/

And there's also a glowing quote from dvdfilm.com/

- you will judge how critically reliable they are. Don't waste your money or your time, as I did. Ordinarily I would just have shrugged this sort of film off, but the packaging is so dishonest that I think folk need to be warned.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.24.62.55
Posted on Sunday, March 17, 2013 - 10:23 pm:   

Thanks for the warning, Ramsey. Hadn't heard of the film but will be avoiding on your say so. I never make snap purchases before checking a number of reviews online first, no matter how tempting the bargain may look or appealing the blurb makes it sound.

By my reckoning at least 90 to 95% of all the horror films ever made are amateurish rubbish. Many of them, say 40%, enjoyably so, for hardened genre fans, but that still leaves half of all the horror films ever made as a complete waste of time. That precious 5 to 10% of true quality make it all worthwhile though, IMHO.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Sunday, March 17, 2013 - 11:32 pm:   

Curious—how many (roughly) new horror films a year do you see, Ramsey? I see so few myself... I'm too paranoid that every film I try, will be exactly as you describe this one being.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.24.62.55
Posted on Monday, March 18, 2013 - 12:07 am:   

Go see any of the three new genre films I saw last week, Craig, and have your faith in quality horror/suspense cinema restored. 'Stoker', 'Sleep Tight' & 'Side Effects' would all have a strong shout of making my Top 100 list. Seeing three such high quality new productions - bang, bang, bang - all in a row, still has me somewhat dazed.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Monday, March 18, 2013 - 01:19 am:   

Will do, Stevie! And with Joel's recommendation elsewhere, that makes for four good films!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Giancarlo (Giancarlo)
Username: Giancarlo

Registered: 11-2008
Posted From: 109.52.28.176
Posted on Monday, March 18, 2013 - 07:44 am:   

What about "Sinister"? Not a masterpiece but good creeps, a solid not-juvenile entertainment.
I'm waiting to see "Mama", coming out in Italy as "The Mother".
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.24.62.55
Posted on Monday, March 18, 2013 - 08:44 am:   

I really have to see this film 'Sinister'! Missed it last year and everyone seems to be raving about it as the scariest thing since sliced bread.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.24.62.55
Posted on Monday, March 18, 2013 - 08:46 am:   

'Mama' is a great spooky frightener, Giancarlo. You're bound to enjoy it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Huw (Huw)
Username: Huw

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 1.169.143.38
Posted on Monday, March 18, 2013 - 10:14 am:   

I saw Sinister recently and thought it was quite good. It makes an interesting companion piece to Insidious, which has a similar sort of feel. The commentary is worth listening to, as well - I liked that the filmmakers don't shy away from calling their work 'horror', pointing out that horror films can have as much artistic merit as any other type of film.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.212.230.154
Posted on Monday, March 18, 2013 - 11:39 am:   

My comments on Sinister are in the films of 2012 thread. Or the grimmfest thread. One of those. Fantastic film. Scared the crap out of me to put it politely.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.13.59.15
Posted on Monday, March 18, 2013 - 02:33 pm:   

I too liked Sinister. I'd guess I see a few dozen horror films a year, Craig.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Monday, March 18, 2013 - 02:50 pm:   

Like Stevie, I too must go back and catch up on Sinister. Interesting aside: Ethan Hawke has said in an interview something to the effect you will never see him in a Transformers or Beethoven 5, because he doesn't live above his means and need the house payments: he has ordered his life, as an actor, to be in a position to only choose the best projects. So if he's in a film?... it says something right away about its potential quality.

That's a lot of horror films, Ramsey! I'm going to guess the amount that end up being quite good, isn't so high....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 213.233.148.10
Posted on Monday, March 18, 2013 - 11:30 pm:   

I agree about Ethan Hawke. I can't think of a single bad film he's been in. He's in the little-seen adaptation of WOMAN IN THE FIFTH - quite a Campbellian story that I'd recommend.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 213.233.148.10
Posted on Monday, March 18, 2013 - 11:36 pm:   

I caught up with two films this weekend. I had hopes for INSIDIOUS but was disappointed, but I had lukewarm expectations for the remake of THE GRUDGE bur found it chilling in places, and what a good use of sound from a creature trying to speak: like an old hinge.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Seanmcd (Seanmcd)
Username: Seanmcd

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 193.113.57.161
Posted on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - 02:26 pm:   

I sat up late and alone last week to watch 'Sinister'. Big mistake. It scared the bejesus out of me too. I tossed and turned all night.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David_lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 92.16.241.233
Posted on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - 03:00 pm:   

Ooh, my mum has a copy of Woman in the Fifth out the library at the moment, I'd never heard of it before but it sounded interesting. Definitely going to have to give it a try myself now.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David_lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 92.16.241.233
Posted on Tuesday, March 19, 2013 - 03:03 pm:   

The big problem I have with horror films these days is thanks to modern technology: people can make awful movies on micro budgets with a couple of digital cameras and a lot of good will, then pu them out with misleadingly impressive packaging and box art. There was a Lovecraft adaptation called Chill that caught me out that way. I gave up on it in about ten minutes.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 2.30.193.144
Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 12:55 am:   

For any horror film, no matter how hopeless, you can find someone in fandom willing to acclaim it as a classic. This is because horror film fandom has a dislocated notion of quality whereby 80% of merit consists in being 'so bad it's good', and the other 20% consists in the viewer being drunk.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 05:51 am:   

Well, going back to your comments on Sinister from that "Films of 2012" thread, Weber... I guess there wasn't much scary released in 2012.

Seriously, okay, I thought the super 8 films in Sinister the best part (well, at first—by the end, those films got silly). So frustrating: if they just had attached a better story around them.... No, I'm very disappointed: apparently feature films need make no sense at all nowadays. I mean, the super 8 films found in the attic were truly chilling, brilliantly conceived, extremely well-rendered—but not a lick of explanation behind them?!? I wish Ramsey had written this screenplay, or rather the novel this could have been based upon: with this kind of potential, then, it would have been perfect. But sadly, I can't say I was satisfied. Sadly, no.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.212.231.168
Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 09:37 am:   

If you don't think there was any explanation behind the films them you seen to have missed huge segments of the film. Sit down and watch it again and concentrate this time. The massively creepy atmosphere and the soundtrack alone make it one of the scariest things out of hollywood in a decade at least.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 12:25 pm:   

My breakdown of horror cinema, and many other forms of cinema for that matter, would be:

1% genuine [*****] masterpieces (i.e. 'The Exorcist' or 'The Shining'),

4% great [**** to ****½] classics (i.e. 'Zombie Flesh Eaters' or 'Dracula, Prince Of Darkness'),

15% fine [*** to ***½] entertainments (i.e. 'Friday The 13th' or this year's 'Mama'),

30% cult classic loads of loveable or deranged [**½ to ***½] nonsense that make up in freewheeling energy and/or against all odds creativity what they lack in cinematic talent (i.e. 'Attack Of The Crab Monsters' or 'At Midnight I Will Take Your Soul') &

50% worthless [0 to **] rubbish (i.e. 'Snuff' or 'Faces Of Death' and all that straight to video bollocks that winds up going for a quid in Poundland).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 12:41 pm:   

There is a large crossover between those films that genuinely entertain for the right reasons and those that do so for getting everything hilariously wrong, but doing so with charm and spirit.

Of the 50% of unwatchable rubbish being produced all the time I have seen very little but I still bear the mental scars of those that I did have the misfortune to stumble across. The worst horror film ever made, in my experience, was the unimaginably execrable 'Scared To Death' (1947) directed by Christy Cabanne and starring Bela Lugosi & George Zucco. Jesus, it's bad!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 02:20 pm:   

**SPOILERS** Weber, I did think the shown super 8 films in Sinister were by far the best part. I feel it was like someone had come up with an idea for these, and showed it to some exec; he said, "Wow, creepy! Now make a film around it!"; and then that film, didn't remotely live up to that potential. I instantly guessed the "missing" child in each murder was the killer, but thought it so obvious, I dismissed it as being too banal an explanation... was I wrong.

What I mean by "no explanation" for the super 8 films (and beyond), is this: Why were these films made at all? Why did they have to appear to Ethan Hawke? What started off the films in historical terms? Why was the first murder the first murder—what inaugurated this series of ritual/supernatural killings at all? Why did the evil spirits have to wait for the families to leave the last home to actually kill them (what kind of stupid random film-"law" is that?!)? Who was filming these things? Why a super 8 at all? (And always color film? B&W was common super 8 stock back in the 60's, btw.) Where did they get the film stock, develop the film, etc.? Why did the kids mug the camera and then disappear in each super 8 film? Why was there portions edited out oh-so-conveniently until Ethan Hawke and family moved back to their old home, and then he was allowed to see it? Where did his daughter get the drug to put in his coffee, and what kind of drug was it?--

I better stop there, or I'll keep asking questions forever. The children were the single worst part—their make-up was awful, and they were silly to the point of dull. The "ghoul" was meh. The more I dwell on the film, the less I liked it, I guess....

But oh those super 8 films! How they could have been the basis for a really great horror feature!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 80.239.243.78
Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 03:25 pm:   

Spoiler .The films were supernaturally generated and left for ethan hawk's character to find, as was made clear in the film. The phrase that springs to mind reading your post is 'a fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer'. You can ask that many why's about any aspect of any film. There comes a point when you accept the explanation given without looking any deeper. The demon behaves that way because that's what it does. Why ask why it does it that way? You are the first person i've seen make negative comments about this film. It just goes to prove that what we say about you is true.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 03:39 pm:   

Puh-lease! Things have to make sense! Well, things used to have to make sense....

The film had so much potential to be so much more than it was! Seriously, Weber. Are you telling me this is the best these filmmakers could do?!

Remove the super 8 films from the movie; say Ethan Hawke had accounts of the killings placed before him, supernaturally even—drawings, writings. No super 8 films. Same story, though; same characters, development, etc. You think you'd be praising it this highly?... Mmmm, I venture, nope.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.212.231.136
Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 03:54 pm:   

It did make sense. The internal logic of the film is pretty much flawless. This is the demon. This is how he works. If the atmosphere was as creepy with drawings or whatever then yes, i would certainly still be praising it. There is a lot to praise about the film other than the super 8's. The acting is great. The central family and their non-supernatural problems feel completely real. The comic relief of the friendly cop is perfectly judged and never becomes overbearing or detracts from the scares. As i said in my initial comments, some of the scares are too telegraphed and needed to be a bit more subtle but this is easily the scariest thing out of hollywood for a long long time.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 04:58 pm:   

Trying to avoid reading this debate and will make a point of picking up the DVD of 'Sinister' next pay day. Sounds like a must for one of my triple bills.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.66.23.11
Posted on Wednesday, March 20, 2013 - 05:23 pm:   

Why does Michael Myers never die? Why does Freddie come out of the dreamworld with you if you grab hold of him as you wake up? Why don't the police just find out who built these incredibly complex works of engineering Jigsaw uses in the Saw films and chase the money backwards to find out who he is? Surely the builders of the crushing room (as one single example) would remember installing such a device. Why didn't Jigsaw just pay for his own medical treatment instead of spending all that money on these incredibly intricate and steadily more expensive traps?

If you ask why why why about every detail, you'll pull any film in the world to shreds. There have been very few genuinely scary films out of hollywood in recent years. Sinister is by far and away the best and scariest since the Descent. It's not perfect, as per my comments on the other thread, but it did scare the crap out of me, which rarely happens - especially from the film factory there with the sign on the hill...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 03:01 am:   

Nope, those aren't applicable analogies. Michael Myers never dies because that's the nature of an undead evil being—common horror story convention. Freddie comes out of the dreamworld if you hold him, because it riffs on the nature of dreams, that nothing can come out of them no matter how real they seem in the dream: integral to the nature of dreams. As to the Saw example, it'd be a silly non-horror-genre element—and as to the last question, Jigsaw is clearly not just concerned with his own medical treatment, the entire point of the film! (He's teaching others' lessons of life/death.)

Okay. Now for Sinister. An ancient Babylonian ghoul-demon... creates a magical super 8 camera. Um, why? He swallows the souls of children—er, no, they're still alive and well and gleefully evil—but what are they doing, prancing around in this other dimension? They appear... and disappear, whatever. The new child is brainwashed into killing the family—but it doesn't take instantly, it requires, oh, 90 minutes of film time to get around to it. And so on.

It's called, totally random.

I loved the super 8 films, again, again. They deserved a far better film to be in. There was the spark of something good in the set-up of these characters: Ethan Hawke's being driven to write to be famous, throwing away his family's love, etc. Ironically (is this a valid criticism?) his changing for the better, his learning his lesson, seals his fate: if he had stayed in the new house, and remained selfish, he'd have been fine, since Mr. Boogie only kills when they move away—by choosing the path of righteousness, he seals his fate—pretty dismal, I'd say clumsy, in that regard (and such a tired choice by now in horror films); but to each his own horror-cosmology.

As to it being the scariest film to come out of Hollywood in years... well, the greasy McDonalds Big Mac I ate today was the best thing I'd eaten in many hours. So what?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 80.239.243.174
Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 09:20 am:   

Craig. You're in a tiny minority on this one. Maybe Michael Bay should have directed it and put some pretty explosions in it for you. The children were clearly dead. At least one of them would have been 40 something if s/he was alive and their skin tones weren't exactly natural. The demon used super 8 for ethan hawk's character because it decided that was the best way to get inside his head. The demon's methodology is clearly explained in the middle section of the film. It makes as much sense as the mythology in any other horror film and lots more sense than the freddy, jason or michael myers films. Why exactly does the ghost of a drowned 9 year old any appear as an indestructable 6 foot 7 zombie in a hockey mask again?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.158.253.123
Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 11:29 am:   

We've been projecting and loving the first two Friday the 13ths. On a big screen you appreciate the unflashy camera work, the 'plainness'. They have a dreamlike quality a lot of 'better made' films never achieve, and i never appreciated their strangeness before; is it me or is the lake the significant player in these films? Did it bring Jason back from the dead? (in part 2 the little dog is clearly killed, but returns at the end) Is the lake linked with the Arthur myth? The place seems to represent some blurring of boundaries been this world and the next, is akin to the subconscious, the dream world, like Oz or Skull Island. (In part 2 Jason even resembles Oz' Scarecrow, and the woodcutter/tin man).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.158.253.123
Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 11:33 am:   

I also found this, about an artist I admire very much;
http://thegirlwhoknewtoomuch.com/2011/04/04/friday-the-13th-peter-doig/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.158.253.123
Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 11:35 am:   

I think the first Friday the 13th is high art. It was made from bypassing the mind. It was cynically made, and that process can sometimes dig the deepest because it bypasses the intellect and throws out the deepest stuff by accident.
I think.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 01:06 pm:   

I would rank the first two 'Friday The 13th' films as seriously fine slashers but have no time at all for the rest of the franchise. Pure rubbish!

Have you seen Mario Bava's 'A Bay Of Blood' (1971), Tony?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 01:16 pm:   

And talking of Oz. If you haven't already you must go to see Sam Raimi's 'Oz The Great And Powerful' before it disappears off the big screen. It's utterly wonderful and has that dreamlike fairy-tale quality that all the great fantasies share. You can tell Raimi strived hard to get across some of the old-fashioned magic that made fantasies like; 'The Wizard Of Oz', 'The Thief Of Baghdad', 'La Belle Et La Bête' & 'The Singing Ringing Tree' so special. As much attention was paid to the make-up, sets and costumes as the tastefully done CGI and 3D (which seriously impressed me for once).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 04:37 pm:   

Weber, I would like to hear you expostulate upon a horror film, any horror film, you find deplorable. I have a sneaky feeling they would fall into the same categories I have listed here—when the tissue of disbelief is ruined in a film, then all things fall apart; if it's not ruined, then so much is forgiven. So, much of what we're arguing about is like two people of different religions pointing fingers at the absurdities of the other's beliefs. Is there any way to find objectivity in such a situation?

Well, to me, the issue of "randomness" (for lack of a better term) is a valid objective criticism. If you can remove an element of a story, and replace it with any other element fairly easily, that element is weak; and speaks to the lack of artistic integrity of the whole. There were simply too many "random" rules and reasons for things in Sinister, that (imho) it fails in that regard.

Let's not play dumb here. The super 8 films within Sinister were the best part—right? Okay. Now then. Someone had to string a film around them, an entire storyline. They chose to pin a Babylonian demon who feeds on the souls of children (actually, gathers them like a harem—inconsistency?) but can't actually effect the taking of a child unless the family has moved to a new home from the last one where a murder took place. Why? Only answer available: because the writers need it that way. Why did the demon manifest super 8 film and a projector and all that? Answer: because the writers needed it that way. Why did the murders start in the 60's and end in the 90's, I believe? Because the writers needed it that way, in order to keep the super 8 films intact. Why didn't the murderer in each situation, instead of painstakingly invent a new method of killing (the tree-hanging alone would be a lot of work for a little girl!) just, say, slit their throats over and over? Because the writers needed it that way, to keep the films varied and interesting to the audience—

Nothing wrong with that answer, mind; but that's the only answer. For example: Why didn't Ethan Hawke show anyone else the super 8 films? Well, true, the writers needed it that way, but the cleverness here of the writers for once don't make a mistake: it fits Ethan's character aptly, not to have shown anyone the films. Now, if the whole film had been constructed that way so that I would not be here pulling my hair out over the random stuff that has no other answer but "The writers needed it that way," then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all... and the film would have lived up to its sadly-unexploited potential....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 80.239.243.233
Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 05:36 pm:   

But craig, you're the only person who believes this to be a weak film. The demon user different methods to kill it's victims because it chooses to. It wants to avoid boredom itself surely. Maybe when it first started out it did just repeatedly stab people. It's had a long time to build up it's creative power. Now it uses such tools as amuses it at the given moment. Nothing you've pointed at as an inherent flaw in the narrative is actually relevant to enjoyment of the film and the atmosphere it builds up. The super 8's account for maybe 10 to 15 minutes of the 110 minute running time of the film and i know i was on the edge of my seat for the vast majority of it and entirely sucked into the story. It's no more implausible than myers catching his victims no matter how fast they run when he only ever walks slowly, or indeed his sitting up when he's just been stabbed repeatedly through the eye. With sinister we have a film which has managed to scare everyone on this board who's seen it - and this is a board full of seasoned horror watchers. That's an achievement by any standard.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.212.231.132
Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 05:48 pm:   

Spoiler spoiler spoiler why does the demon not kill the families till they move to a new house? Maybe he could kill them where they are, there's nothing in the film to suggest that he couldn't. Maybe it just chooses to follow to a new residence just because if everyone who moved into a particular house died horribly then it would call attention to itself and the house would almost certainly be destroyed, leaving it homeless. There are simple motivations to every question you've raised.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.66.23.11
Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 06:08 pm:   

Someone had to string a film around them, an entire storyline. They chose to pin a Babylonian demon who feeds on the souls of children (actually, gathers them like a harem—inconsistency?) but can't actually effect the taking of a child unless the family has moved to a new home from the last one where a murder took place. Why?

just answered this one


Why did the demon manifest super 8 film and a projector and all that? Answered this one several posts ago

Why did the murders start in the 60's and end in the 90's, I believe? Because the writers needed it that way, in order to keep the super 8 films intact.

We don't know that they did. This demon's been round for a hell of a long time. Some of those children are in worse shape than the others. Maybe the souls feed him for up to 50 or so years before they disintegrate completely.

Why didn't the murderer in each situation, instead of painstakingly invent a new method of killing (the tree-hanging alone would be a lot of work for a little girl!) just, say, slit their throats over and over?

Answered this one in my last post as well.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 06:20 pm:   

If a film's scary, then it can commit no sins? Parts of Sinister were very scary, and not just the super 8 films part—the kid coming out of the box, for example (another pointless element: he had night-terrors, but it ended up having absolutely nothing to do with the plot). But that doesn't mean you have to overlook everything the filmmakers did wrong.

Have you never seen a movie with scary elements that yet didn't work for you? Why didn't it work? Come on, Weber, come up with a horror film you didn't like, and give me some reasons why you didn't like it....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.181.142.56
Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 07:09 pm:   

Dark Waters - US remake - a few scary moments, lifted directly from the original - but Jennifer Connolly wasn't convingly scared enough, the direction overall was flat and there was no real atmosphere to the film.

Insidious - some good scares again but the soundtrack was jarring and spoilt many other moments that could have been much more effective.

976 evil 2 - crap from start to finish, bad acting, directing, soundtrack - everything about that film is bad - except for one inspired scene that came completely from left field and mashed it's a wonderful life with Night of the living dead.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.181.142.56
Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 07:11 pm:   

There was a point to the storyline with the son - actually two points. One was to give some more human drama and watch the family interact, the other to keep us guessing which of the children would be possessed.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 99.126.164.88
Posted on Thursday, March 21, 2013 - 07:18 pm:   

Okay, I will accept that, about the son. And yes, Sinister was professionally made: direction, cinematography, acting, actual word-for-word dialogue, etc., were all fine.

Maybe it's best to return to the beginning: I was disappointed with the story, and wished it had been different. Oh well, my loss. 'Nuff said.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration