Quote:
Originally Posted by ChronoGrl
Tell me more. I'm honestly curious with people's reactions to both movies... I'll probably never see them because I know they'd eek me out too much but, like you said, curiosity... What made it so awful?
|
Well, for a start, there are so many plot holes it's really hard to ignore them. The tag line of "100% medically inaccurate" is absolutely spot on. The victims would have been dead long before any of the actual procedure started. Plus, you never get to know any of the victims well enough to really care about them, so the film is totally devoid of emotion.
The acting is awful. It's probably very low budget (I can't seem to find budget details for it online) but even so, the Average Joe in the street could put in a better performance than the "cast" collected in HCII. Maybe, like first one, the one decent performance came thanks to the antagonist; Dr Heiter in the first and Martin in the second. Martin doesn't speak, which make him an interesting character I suppose.
There is also some nice references to the first film, which I won't say too much about in case of spoiling it for anyone, but used in any half-decent way the technique could be effective. However, Tom Six fails here.
But I watched it and will watch the third one, because it's something a lot of people will love to hate!
Just have the sick bag ready if you do watch!