
12-20-2014, 06:48 AM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: In the 80's(For Real)
Posts: 1,996
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sculpt
That is true. Loved the skinny black creature fingers. Competent technique in it's few & very far between creepy/scary moments. Which made it all the more "if I only had bigger budget, or bigger balls" film. How bad did Mike Flanagan want to break into the walls of the underpass tunnel? He keep going there, but never delivered.
---SPOILERS---
'Not seeing it' didn't deliver. And how about this... the scene where the abducted husband plunges his hand into his wife's pregnant belly, which was a dream, that's never explained. Did he want to harm the child? When he's found alive, it should have been revealed. But it wasn't. No time or budget for that?
And after the husband is home, and sees she's pregnant, he gives a confused look, and that's it. That all we get? Budget constraints on this character-driven horror film? There's subtle, & then there's just too brief & not enough. And with budget constraints, there's creative ways to reveal what the creature is, it's motives, etc. Some reviews suggest this is an independent gem because of great subtlety... of what? characterization? This didn't deliver Terms of Endearment characters.
But since it didn't have your suggestions, it was pretty bad?
LOL! "couch dancing"! The horror of a wasted Friday evening. They should just put a big yellow burst icon with the words "Soft Porn" on the box.
|
To be fair, I probably should have watched the whole thing to see if the plethora of sex, booze and drugs was integral to the plot but I just found it too juvenile.
How do I quote just part of a post instead of reposting the whole thing?
|