Quote:
Originally Posted by dub2001
Correct me if I am wrong but is that not exactly what was done in the Blair Witch. as far as using a "home" video image as part of the plot, its been done in several movies like cloverfield, quarantine, diary of the dead, district 9..........so what i dont understand is how that aspect of the film could be considered original.
As far as my opinion of the movie,to each his own. I understand the movie itself and the plot or how slow it was is not what made it bad to me. What I didnt like about it was the believability factor and the Hype they tried to give it in the previews.Ultimately it led to disapointment. I am a ghost story nut so paranormal type movies are what really get me going.This movie was supposed to be an actual account of what happened through their own video camera and for that to work it has to be believable.
If the sequel is anything like the first one they should have used one of the original endings and left it at that. The director they have for the second one might make it worthwhile, guess we'll just have to wait till October to see.
|
1st off, they use the camera in a different manner than Blair Witch in how they build suspense and how they correlate with the story. With using the fast forward technique they were able to play with the audience's head by telling them "when they slows down, something is suppose to happen." With small things happening each night people were constantly on edge waiting for something big to happen. If they had a big thing for every night, then the entertaining factor of a build up would lose all of its intensity.
2nd off, the footage in the film was not suppose to be the "true story" they based it off of. One of the people who helped work on the film was connected to a paranormal investigative team where they have stocks of videos with clips similar to some of the stuff in the movie.
How the movie was built was very original and takes after Hitchcockian styled suspense and horror.