Too many 1's


Saw this movie for the second time yesterday, and it holds up better than I expected. I remembered some scenes vividly and others had gone from my memory. It has flaws, for sure. But I think it was pretty early to the internet-horror game and I give it credit for that.

A quarter of the IMDb ratings are 1/10, and that's a joke. This movie is better than half of the studio horror films that have come out in the last five years. I also enjoy House on Haunted Hill, and this is by the same director. The main flaws in both of those films is the CGI, but that's just a product of the time.

"Do you like to watch?" and "Do you want to play?" are solidly ingrained into my brain. Even if they are a little funny, sometimes I do like a cheesy horror film. Personally I give it a 6.5/10 but I get why a lower score would be given.

reply

No...this deserves a 1. It was absolutely horrendous. I've rated over 1,500 titles on imdb, and guess how many I've awarded a 1. Two titles. That's it. And this was one of them because there is literally nothing redeemable about this utter piece of trash.

Screws fall out all of the time. The world's an imperfect place.

reply

[deleted]

I wholeheartedly disagree. 50% is an outrageous number, unless you're purposefully being hyperbolic.

All this is neither here nor there, though, since I rate movies based on their own merits (or lack thereof) and not how they theoretically compare to films I've never seen.

reply

I give it a 4/10 which I think is pretty fair. The visuals were great, but the script was pretty bad. Stephen Dorff is a B list actor who has his moments.

2002 in general was a weak year in film. Seriously, you had Master of Disguise, XXX, Jason X, Scorpion King, Attack of the Clones (yuck), Goldmember, Spy Kids 2.

Even the Best Film went to Chicago which is mostly forgotten today.

What a bad year in film history.

Conquer your fear, and I promise you, you will conquer death.

reply