If I had to describe this film in one word, I'd use the word formulaic. Defined, that means: "A method of doing or treating something that relies on an established, uncontroversial model or approach". This film ain't no Kubrick's The Shining (which, interesting fact, Stephen King hated Kubrick's representation of his book, maybe because it was so unconventional (I personally think it is fantastic!)).
Why, then, do you think I chose a "formulaic" piece to start off our journey down the path of horror in cinema? Remember our packet on genres by our friends Ken Dancyger and Jeff Rush, film scholar extraordinaires, as they, in a sense, said making a genre piece comes with it a contract with its audience. You better deliver the goods just as the audience expects - if you don't, it better as heck be something much better. Do you feel like this movie delivered the goods?
Being formulaic doesn't necessarily mean something is bad. But, it also doesn't mean something will be good. Maybe the formula made it uninteresting to you. That's valid. Maybe the formula made it fun for you as you geeked out over the filmic elements common to the genre. That's valid, too.
I appreciate the formula. To me, it is an indicator that the filmmakers understand the genre, and they delivered. Have I experienced more satisfying horror films? Heck yes. Would this movie be one of my favorites? Not even close. But, I respect this little film for what it is, and what it does. Plus, I always smile when a low budget film with no-name actors gets made, especially if I feel like it was made with care.
What are your thoughts and feelings? Why do you think I chose this film to show first? Did you feel it was formulaic as well? Did that bother you? Why or why not? And, most importantly, I want to know: did you like the movie? Did you enjoy watching it? Why or why not? Be extremely thoughtful in your answers. Remember, it is OK to disagree with people, but do so respectfully. We are all given the ability to form our own opinions, and how boring a world it would be without that. I'm excited to read your thoughts.
Now.... go!
Formulaic is a very good way to describe this film. It was a sorry amount of formulaic.
ReplyDeleteIt was, in my humble opinion, a sorry film.
There were some very obvious and sad excuses for product placement, some really unconvincing acting, and some dough-eyed bad casting choices.
There were some cool things, I like the color symbolism.
Yellow obviously representing safety and hope, as represented by the carnival lights, the canaries, and in the end, all the accents in the hospital room.
In the beginning, right after the first life is lost, a red balloon drifts up into the sky. Also, the establishing shots were sweeet. It was actually pretty tasteful, even if most of the stylistic choices were extremely over the top and and cheesy. Though, props for sticking with them throughout the whole film.
There was really poor foreshadowing, there was not a single moment in the movie where I was left guessing. Which is actually pretty impressive, because I experienced the same thing when I watched it for the first time when it came out. When I was 10.
In conclusion, I hate this movie, I'm extremely uninterested by it; though it was not that poorly made. There was some really nice cinematography, and the production value was high. It was a nice looking movie with some nice looking people in it, and it was just really generic. Overall, I wouldn't watch it again unless I had to. Which is the only reason I saw it this time.
Syndie,
DeleteFirst and foremost, let's talk about your profile icon. David Bowie. So good...
I appreciate your honesty! Very much. Not only that, but your answer was thoughtful, detailed, and very articulate. The kind of post that makes a film teacher proud.
I totally hear you on the film not leaving you guessing, not even the first time you saw it. I had the exact same experience. Exact same. And, I think that is a fair enough reason to not like the movie. Totally legit.
I also want to thank for not just tearing this film to shreds, but for pulling out the things you thought were well done. That shows that you watched the film with thoughtful eyes. I appreciate the specific examples you used, for both what you thought they did well, and what you didn't like.
You used the word "generic" to describe the film. Interestingly enough, the word "generic" and "genre" come from the same root word. Just something to think about.
Could you give some examples of the product placement that bothered you so much? Both you and Tony remarked on that, but I have to admit, aside from the phone brand and cars (which is pretty common in lots of movies) I can't remember any other product placement. I'd be interested to see what you mean.
I'd love to hear some specific moments you were referring to with foreshadowing being poorly done as well. I noticed a lot of set-up and pay-off moments, for example the fireplace, the indoor garden's spray watering system, the automatic lights, etc., which I felt were well executed. Things are set up so we know how or why they'll work later. Making this subtle can be hard to do, but leaving it out can be worse. I've seen some films neglect to set things up, hoping the pay-off will make sense or carry weight, which I think is careless filmmaking. Learning a good set-up, pay-off balance can be tricky to do.
Thanks a billion for your honest, awesome opinion. Much obliged!
What you mentioned about genre and generic being from the same root makes a whole lot of sense, and it pretty interesting; I suppose that's what genre is, it takes a great deal of something, breaks it down into it's bare commonalities, and then names it. I suppose in that way, this film succeeds. It is one great example of the most naked and embellish-lacking horror film.
DeleteThe product placement was exactly as you said; it was just very poorly hidden. It was like Audi and the Avengers, except I forgave that one because the Avengers is awesome.
I think it wasn't really poor foreshadowing as much as it was just the total obviousness of the whole thing. It wasn't like, "Oh dear, that was a bad plot device, I know what is going to happen now", it's more like, "Oh dear, I'm so bored because I know what's going to happen and I don't care". I think what you said is correct, and the distinction is definitely important.
It was very formulaic. It followed everything that horror was without adding anything else or adding anymore edge. Which is what made it a little boring. But i can still appreciate it cause like will said, I enjoy when low budget films come together nicely (: All in all despite some poopy product placement and some unexciting moments, i enjoyed starting off the unit with this film.
ReplyDeleteThanks Tony! Can you give me some specific examples of the product placement that bothered you? I honestly can't remember anything more than the phone and perhaps the cars. But, items like that tend to always have a brand hooked to them, in a lot of movies. Were there other instances?
DeleteMuchas gracias, amigo!
The product placement may have just been used as a way to earn extra money since this film was low budget. Kind of how Josh willing to do product placement for Paradise High.
Delete(:
This movie is very formulaic although I felt that made the movie a good addition to the horror genre. Like Will said, it isn't the best horror film out there, but I believe it's respectable.
ReplyDeleteWill, with how formulaic this is, I believe you chose this film first as an example of a typical horror film. That's my guess anyways.
I enjoy the symbolism the color pallet expressed. Like Sydnie mentioned with the yellows and such. Overall I do like this film.
Thanks Naomi.
DeleteI like this film, too. I know it isn't a masterpiece, but I admire it. I feel like they understood the genre, and made a movie that fits perfectly into it. You're right, the reason I chose to show this film first is exactly what you said. I wanted a film with a clear, easy to see formula at work so that we could study a typical horror film, executed very precisely. It may not shake my world, but it helps me see what the elements of the genre are, and that, I feel, is a useful exercise.
Thanks a ton!
I honestly didn't like this film. It was very boring and I knew what was going to happen. I think that the villain in this film is the worst serial killer of all time. If the filmmakers had done their research they would have known that every good serial killer has a motive, and a good one at that. This one just killed people to kill people.
ReplyDeleteCarlos,
DeleteMany thanks for your thoughts! I want you to know that you are not alone in this. Tyson mentioned a similar concern.
I could actually name to you several films where which the killer has no motive. It is a frequently used element in many horror films because some people feel like the motiveless killer is scarier than one with a motive. Not everybody agrees, of course, but I guess different people fear different things. Some feel that a killer that just kills with out reason is frightening because they cannot be reasoned with, and no one is safe. I could list to you some titles, but part of the experience is wondering if you'll ever know why they kill, and I don't want to spoil that for you. Just know this film is not unique in this area (just like it isn't unique in a lot of things, ha ha).
I am fairly certain it wasn't a lack of research on the filmmakers part, but rather a choice they made, to keep the killer motiveless. I think the filmmakers did their homework beyond most films, and that is partially why it is so formulaic. They studied the crap out of the genre, and used every trick they learned.
Some serial killers have no motive and simply kill people because they enjoy killing people.
DeleteWhat I meant by this is that they usually have, deep down, some sort of motive. Everyone remembers the ones with some sort of reasons more than those without, Freddy Krueger had a motive, Norman Bates had a motive-ish, even some real serial killers had motives.
DeleteThis movie has discouraged me from ever babysitting in a remote area ever again. Something they could of done to add more suspense was learn how the killer knew about her like followed her from school? Or at a gas station. Of course they showed his face so maybe made a quick cameo earlier in the film and none of us noticed (or maybe I just didn't).
ReplyDeleteHa ha! Mission accomplished! My true goal is to discourage people from babysitting ever again!!! Bwa ha ha! ;)
DeleteNo, you didn't miss an earlier cameo. It was a very distinct choice not to show his face until the very end. I totally understand your desire to see it earlier, you are not alone in that one - Carlos voiced a similar concern, wishing it had been made more evident what his motive was, but the filmmakers choice here - whether you like it or not - was to keep him faceless, motiveless, vague. A man with no reason to hurt this girl, but he's out to hurt her anyway. Making him, I feel, in the filmmakers' mind, more menacing. For some audience members it totally works, I actually love that you don't see his face until the very end, and when you do see it you have no idea who he is. For me, that is darn creepy. But, for others, it doesn't work so well. I think it all depends on your tastes when it comes to horror.
Thank you for your response, man.
I never would have taken you for the type to babysit anyways, Tyson.
DeleteI can understand why you would want to see her face. I feel that it would add more to the creepy factor if he was just some stranger stalking her.
Thiiiis movie, what to say. It's not horrible, though it feels very loose. It feels like they tried really hard to throw in a lot of horror aspects and such but it didn't work out completely. I liked that they had all the human statues around the house, it threw me off sometimes and I thought someone was standing outside the window staring at her like Slenderman buuuut yeah
ReplyDeleteIt was odd, I can't say much more than that, and I'm still not completely sure on how I feel about it.
I actually like this movie even though it is a remake. I don't usually like remakes but I'm a fan of the original movie from 1979 and I think this remake did it justice. It keeps the intent of being creepy and not gory which is nice considering how modern horror movies function. The plot feels familiar and predictable because it existed 34 years ago. It's as simple as that. This movie certainly has flaws but they're easy for me to overlook and they didn't take away from the fact I had an enjoyable experience watching it. Overall, I think this movie accomplished what it set out to do. Also, I thought the thing with the automatic lights was really cool...
ReplyDeleteI hear you, Arachne.
DeleteI'm not a fan, at all, of remakes. I'm pretty strongly against them. Yet, still, somehow, a remake or two will slip past my dislike radar, and I'll really appreciate it. "Willard", the film about the man and his pet rats, is an example of that. I love the low budget '70s original, and I love the Crispin Glover remake - like a lot.
The auto-lights were such a cool set-up, pay-off situation in this film! The rules of how they worked were established, and, wow, it was used will creepy results multiple times during the film after that. Cool.
I really want to see Willard but I'm having a lot of trouble finding a copy of the original... There are a few VHS copies of it on eBay right now and I just might have to buy one... I'm glad to hear that you enjoyed the remake though! That actually makes me less skeptical about watching it.
Deletei was not here to see this
ReplyDeleteHayden, my man, you can get your hands on this one and watch it at home, or watch a different horror film at home and comment about it here, just let us know the title. That'll make up for missing this one. Plus, watching horror movies is awesome, so that's cool homework.
Deletei did not enjoy this film i don't really enjoy. the formulaic approach to a horror film is very disinteresting to me and plus i just didn't enjoy the story i found it to be kind of dull and the scares just aren't my kind of thing. i can see why you chose this to be the first movie to watch it is a good representation of what the horror genre is in a conventional sense. over all this was not my cup of tea.
ReplyDeleteI didn't really like this movie, i felt the plot line was predictable and for the most part cliche. The music for the movie was probably the only thing i liked about the movie, and the time frame it was set in felt really unrealistic for me.
ReplyDelete