Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
ChuckMaster
Jul 13, 2006

Evil baby bunnies cannot be fed solid food until after the first week.

Considering that Whedon's name was attached to this, my expectations were high. Halfway through the movie I was thinking "Will I really want to see this again?" And the answer was NO.

I have to agree with redlettermedia that this film seems like a weed-filled concept that they decided to film even after they sobered up.

The movie hits all the bases of a standard horror, with an added meta-plot that doesn't make any drat sense when you start to think about things. It's trying to comment on a genre that has moved on from these cliches more than a decade ago. And is there anything more geeky than a film commenting on film? Aren't we being too self-indulgent and self-important here?

When you remove all the "They just referenced movie X! Isn't that cool?" you're left with a nihlist journey of jaded drudgery. The "twist" is rather unimaginative, and leaves only a choice between a crappy ending and a crappier ending.

There are some cool scenes, and some rather creepy parts, but the I really don't think a concept like this that ISN'T a comedy can really work. At least not when Whedon's writing is in "DollHouse" mode.

And I thought Cloverfield sucked massive balls, so maybe it's really Goddad's fault.

2/5

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • Post
  • Reply