Up and Coming Films

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by MacBlayne

No, I mean cheap. Small. Lacking in scope.

I was rolling at how cramped the mansion hallway looked.

I imagine "Wow! What a mansion!" will change to "Wow! What a ceiling!"

I can't think of any decent horror that's expansive. Horror should be tight and claustrophobic.

[Dave Boy]

I'm up for this one.

[Nosferatu@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Dave Boy

I'm up for this one.

Me too.

[MrBarlow]

Originally Posted by Nosferatu@Cult Labs

Me too.

Same here

[MacBlayne]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

I can't think of any decent horror that's expansive. Horror should be tight and claustrophobic.

Horror should be tight and claustrophobic, but that doesn't mean it should look cheap.

Halloween was filmed for $300,000, but it looks like it cost millions. Same with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Alien, The Beyond, The Terminator... these are films that defy their budget through moody lighting, art direction, and careful compositions. They did not throw a monster into a corridor with one intense red fill light. Resident Evil (GameCube version) looks expensive.

Anybody can have the monster chase the victim down a hallway. It's the gifted filmmakers that put can the monster in a room, and keep it hidden.

I hope to be proven wrong with this trailer. Cheesy action horror will suit me fine, and I always welcome Neal McDonough.

But I must admit to feeling disappointed. I like the Anderson films as they are their own thing. I was hoping this would be a slow-burn suspense that adapts the first game, and then go full action horror with the sequel.

[MuckyFunster]

Crikey! A one star review for the new ghostbusters!

https://www.theguardian.com/film/202...ul-rudd-review


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gag]

Originally Posted by MuckyFunster

Crikey! A one star review for the new ghostbusters!

https://www.theguardian.com/film/202...ul-rudd-review


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes I spotted that this morning when I was awake and couldn’t sleep, but I decided against posting it because sev times I’ve posted film reviews before they’ve come out and got told off

[iank]

To be fair, it's The Guardian, so ergo meaningless.

[gag]

Originally Posted by iank

To be fair, it's The Guardian, so ergo meaningless.

Tbh if a film I’m undecided on I read the reviews but it’s the real film fans on sites like this , IMDb , letterboxd etc etc I take more notice of not some critic from a paper or magazine, how many times have film critics gave a review for a film good or bad and general public have been the opposite .

[MuckyFunster]

Och to be fair, I don’t usually read reviews until after I’ve seen a film. I’d never allow one to sway me in wether or not I’d go see it at the pictures.

I read this one cause I was just so shocked at the 1 star review.

The reviewer is getting a big pile of hate on Twitter. Folk are accusing him of giving it a bad review only because he was annoyed that the film makers had neglected “Ghostbusters : Answer the Call”, or ‘Fembusters’, as I’ve seen a few folk referring to is as.

Me? I loved the 2016 entry. I’m disappointed too that they’ve just skipped right over it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk