This movie is one of those kinds where the reviews are almost entirely positive and the Likes are firmly in the "meh" range. So, I guess that solidifies the fact I am not "reviewing" movies, and by no means a critic (shaddup, you readers from the Red Dawn remake post) because I slide over to the meh camp. I can, no matter what the bulk of the reviewers say, see the stylish choices here. This movie seems to fluctuate between painfully dull and boringly atmospheric. We get it, its cold and they are isolated in an old host that has weird things going bump.
But is not that scary of a house. It is quite nice, in fact, but I never see the real reason they moved out here in the middle of nowhere. The couple is still dealing with the accidental death of their son, but I cannot see why isolation in the middle of February can be therapeutic. And once you add the weird weird welcoming committee and the injured electrician (burned by a ghost) I would have been packing up the idea as a bad one.
On top of the ghosts the movie keeps on referring to The House requiring sacrificial bodies. The townsfolk have to feed a family to the house, or a darkness from under the house will eat them. But they keep on creeping the family out. If they wanted the couple to stay, and get eaten by the house, then why all the fucking boogey man stories about the family who did some horrible murdering in the house? Especially since its a lie, and said family was in fact murdered themselves and is haunting the house. And that. If the burn-y ghost family is angry, shouldn't it be directed at the townsfolk? But no, they burn, attack and bump the couple and their friends & family. Shouldn't the ghost family want to interrupt the sacrifice that took their lives, allowing the Thing Under the House to eat the townsfolk?
This movie must be only attractive to the horror hard cores and the never-watch-em-ever crowd, who just find something different because I didn't find anything appealing.
Good poster though.
No comments:
Post a Comment