Everyone who i know who has watched this film says it's proper crap, and they say it was disappointing paying money to watch it/ buy it, i don't understand why thou because i think it's a pretty good thriller film and it can get sad as well haha, any suggestions why you think it's hated by people?
shareThe acting is atrocious to put it mildly and you don't get to see anything which is genuinely scary or interesting, as all the interesting scenes are distorted to create a cheap sense of autheticity..
Imo.
I agree..and on top of all the confusing shots, there was a stoic Jovavich who didn't even act like she had lost a husband to a murder or a suicide. Plus the whole thing was fake even though Milla lies at the beginning to attempt to make the audience believe it's true.
I can't endure Jovavich..and I'd like to .see her leave films.
Was this supposed to be scary? Thats news to me. Every single element that went into this film was done horribly. Acting, lighting, cinematography, editing, you name it and most likely it was poorly done. How this has a 5.8 rating i have no idea.
sharein 100% complete agreement
God is real. Atheists don't exist
I'm not a massive fan of the movie, or Jovavich, but I just chalked the acting down to it being a "dramatic reenactment". Think back to any documentary you've seen, or one of those "48 Hours: Hard Evidence" type shows. When has the acting ever been good in those reenactment sequences?
shareI don't see how the acting is atrocious. If you think that's bad acting then you
must only watch movies with Daniel Day-Lewis. Sorry he doesn't do enough aliens scifi movies.
For me it wasn't a bad film, I just think the writer was a little... confused. The most notorious bit was when they had the clip in Sumerian. That said I think he either got confused about his mythologies or it was intentional to mislead people into thinking they were coming to watch a movie about aliens and it was actually a demonic possession.
Anyhow, i'd tell those who are knocking this to build up their experiences in film watching. This isn't great, but it's not bad. I know bad, in my 28 years of life I've watched upwards of 2000 films, believe me there are ALOT worse films than this. Off the top of my head Hostel, Amber Alert, Five across the eyes, damn near every remake, and let's not forget the masterpiece of *beep* A Serbian Film.
To those confused as to why this film is film is referencing Sumeria it is not because of demonic possession (though they hammed that spin up pretty good). They are mostly referencing the work of Zacheria Stitchen and his Earth Chronicles series of books describing how mistranslation of ancient texts, (especially the word shem), has apparently misled humanity into thinking biblical writings of the old testament and similar works are actually referencing angels etc... When in fact they seem to be referencing a race of ancient alien beings known as the Annunaki who apparently genetically coded ancient apes with their own dna creating human beings. You can actually catch the word shem and its translation as spaceship in the quick flash of the inside of the book where she found the contact number for the professor of linguistics she contacted. As well, the exhibits he mentions that are displayed within the movie are pretty much all featured as photographs in the very first book of the series.
Worth checking out the series if this line of thought intrigues you. His research is actually pretty convincing though worth remaining skeptical over.
That being said, this pathetic piece of trash movie is taking advantage of human beings in a rather insensitive way. A genuine tragedy is happening in those parts and the film maker and the folks involved in this trashy movie, (not surprised that jovovich is in it) have tread all over the pain of people suffering from true loss. On top of that it misrepresents in a horribly childish way actual research into the possible origins of human beings.
Woops lol
As to what this has to do with Sumeria most of Stitchens work focuses on ancient Sumeria and its related mythologies, especially the epic of gilgamesh.
Oh yeah, I remember that theorem, I just hadn't thought about it in a long time because I had disregarded it a long time ago as total malarkey with no basis in scientific fact. Anyhow, I do agree on the taking advantage part, they definitely tried to play the empathy card in the form of weak emotional manipulation. There were better ways that the theorem could have been presented. I should clarify, as a horror movie I didn't think it was that bad, there was definitely a creepiness to it and did a good job of obscuring what was going on while letting in enough hints to leave it up to the viewers imagination to come to a conclusion as to what the big bad was. However, as an attempt to present a faux documentary on an evolutionary/origin theorem it was really badly played.
As for Jovovich, she wasn't always a bad actress, she was good in the Fifth Element and other movies pre-Paul Anderson. It wasn't till she started doing the W.S. Anderson films that she became a trash actress. As for this film, she really wasn't an actual part of it enough to say whether or not this was one of her bad performances. She was basically there as an expo dump till the end of the film and even then her half got over-ridden by the "actual" footage since that's where most people's attention got drawn.
Indeed, i could not agree more with you about pretty much everything you said. I pretty much only enjoy her in Dazed and Confused and The Fifth Element. I have not seen the messenger, not sure if i want to.
I must say this movie did make me jump pretty good and i was sufficiently creeped out that when my son woke up in the middle of the night and toddled to my room. i just about plumped my drawers rit then and there when i seen nothg but his silhoutte in the doorway!
I appreciate the scare the movie gave me, but man. I do not feel that justifies the way the scare was delivered.
See it. It's her best work.
shareI think people are reacting to the film as if it is REALLY based on a true story when in fact it is not. I think they are failing to understand that almost every movie we watch is a work of fiction - even those "based on true events". This movie was conceived and created to be a work that APPEARED to be based on true events when in fact there was no basis of truth regarding the events in the movie and maybe they are calling it crap because they could not find the events to be "believable" as portrayed in the film. I personally enjoyed the movie to some extent but I watched it knowing it should just be viewed as a science fiction STORY and not try to believe it really could have happened in real life.
shareSince when is it ok to say a film was based on true events (The Fourth Kind, Blair Witch Project, Emily Rose) when it's not? Isn't that being dishonest? The film for me was good for like the first half of it. Then it went downhill. I too thought the encounters looked more like demonic possession than alien encounters. But that may have been intentional. As there are many people who believe alien encounters/abductions are actually demonic possessions. So maybe he was trying to put a different spin on it.
shareThe Fourth Kind may not have been on precise events that mimicked any one particular event, verbatim. However, the story (alien abductions/demonic possessions) are what's being examined and looked at via the director, writers, and audiences. And so, even though the movie itself didn't happen the way they portrayed it, in real life, these things do happen to people, and so one may call it "mentally ill", one may call it "psychological mishap", one may call it "rage", another may call it "demonic possession/alien abduction"...
Overall, I thought the film did a great job examining those particular aspects of belief and doubt, in X, Y, Z aspects of life. It leaves you asking yourself, "what do you believe". It's not trying to say it is in fact real, per say. However, what is real is that people are experiencing these phenomena and who is to say they're not actually happening? At the very least the people they're happening to can give witness and testimony.
PS. Emily Rose was another great example of what I already previously said.
The Blair Witch Project was a bit different in my opinion. As far as it being more about witch craft, not necessarily demons.
Def agree with you about Emily Rose. Another movie that never answers the question and still stirs debate and controversy is Knowing with Nicholas Cage.
sharePeople would not be bitching about it, if a The X-Files sticker was slapped on it, having Mulder & Scully investigating and the movie had been cutted down to a 45 minuttes episode of that show.
Its right up the alley of an The X-Files tv-episode, just extended. One of the reasons why i actually like this movie. I Choose to look at it from an X-Files point of view and i could easely see Mulder being extremely interested in investigating this case if it came across his desk.
I hate this film cause it tells people that its footage is actual archived stuff, but in reality it's just made-up Hollywood stuff. >:(
share"The Fourth Kind may not have been on precise events that mimicked any one particular event, verbatim."
Then they shouldn't have made the claim that it was, verbatim. They made this claim.
"However, the story (alien abductions/demonic possessions) are what's being examined and looked at via the director, writers, and audiences."
Then they should have advertised it as a fictional examination of these things rather than out and out telling viewers that every bit of it was true; which they did.
"And so, even though the movie itself didn't happen the way they portrayed it, in real life, these things do happen to people"
I have no doubt that they do. However, this point means absolutely nothing as they told us it did happen the way they portrayed it.
I remember when the Alanis Morrisette song "Ironic" came out. She took a huge backlash from people for not understanding what irony was. There are interviews with her showing that she was surprised when people mentioned that nothing happened in the song was ironic. However people started mentioning that the song had actual irony in it because she wrote a song about irony which contained no irony. Later, she started making claims that was her intent all along. However there are magazine interviews showing that actually believed the events in her song were ironic.
Why do I mention this? Morrisette was trying to save face by retroactively putting the best spin on her song as possible. This is the same thing people keep doing for this idiotic movie. When it was released, all of the advertisements claimed it was all based off archived footage. Since they suffered such severe backlash, people are trying to retroactively claim that this movie was only trying to show us what a film based off archived evidence would be like. The fact is that they lied pure and simple.
"I think people are reacting to the film as if it is REALLY based on a true story when in fact it is not. I think they are failing to understand that almost every movie we watch is a work of fiction - even those "based on true events""
The reason that this is a problem is this movie was advertised as being a movie where every scene was recreated from documented evidence. Not once did they say this movie was "based" on a true story. In fact, here is the exact wording of the trailer:
"I am actress Milla Jovovich and I will be portraying Dr. Abigail Tyler. This film is a dramatization of events that occured October 2000. Every scene in this movie is supported by archived footage. Some of what you are about to see is extremely disturbing."
"This movie was conceived and created to be a work that APPEARED to be based on true events"
Nothing could be further from the truth. In all the advertisements for this movie, no such thing was ever said. Your comment is a lousy copout that I would suspect the producers would claim was made after the severe backlash they received from pissed off viewers who were tricked into spending their money on something that was not what was offered.
They never say it is based on a true story. They say EVERY scene is supported by archived footage. This claim tells the viewer that not only is this a true story, but there is actual documented evidence supporting everything. Beyond the producers lead you to believe that the split scenes contain actual footage for the case. This is so far away from a simple claim that the movie is based on a true story. It is an out and out lie to the audience to get them to come and see your movie. It is a honest to goodness hoax.
"I watched it knowing it should just be viewed as a science fiction STORY and not try to believe it really could have happened in real life."
Perhaps you have no problem with producers lying to you to get you to come see a movie. I do. And I am sure most of the people who hate this movie mind it to. They should have put a disclaimer in the advertisements or something that said it was fiction. They didn't. Since "The Blair Witch Project" was so successful when people were made to believe it was real, they may have thought they could get away with it.
And to make matters worse, it was neither scary, intense or "disturbing" as people were promised. The film makers did everything wrong with this movie and they deserve every bit of scorn they will receive for it.
To each his own, I thought the suicide scene was pretty disturbing, that scene and the scene where Abby is possessed and screams out "I am god." That was pretty freaky. I thought this film was okay, shame people give it crap. It's not that bad at all.
"I am the ultimate badass, you do not wanna `*beep*` wit me!"- Hudson in Aliens.
I was really hoping to love this movie as a lover of horror and science fiction (usually I believe they are best separated - sadly this movie proved my point again).
I watched this when I was college age, home alone, so late at night the dawn was nearly breaking - I just couldn't get scared by it. When the first half hour failed to grab my interest and the first hour failed to scare me, I gave up and turned it off. Sorry.
I don't watch horror to not be scared at all, so after a while it just was game over for me.
I didn't think the theme or the occurrences described were scary. Do the exact same thing with ghosts and I will be *beep* myself. With aliens, it just didn't grab me. There was no threat that I truly believed. Perhaps it is because in the back of my mind I already know there is a scientifically large chance there is alien intelligent life - whereas I still haven't made up my mind about ghosts, making that far more uncertain territory for my subconscious. Maybe it's me.
But I really hated this. I don't even feel tempted to try again.
Now you got more crap from the sophisticated artsy fartsy movie-knowers right? lol man yes it's a very good film.
shareEveryone who i know who has watched this film says it's proper crap, and they say it was disappointing paying money to watch it/ buy it, i don't understand why thou because i think it's a pretty good thriller film and it can get sad as well haha, any suggestions why you think it's hated by people?
The movie's clumsy but, I think it succeeds in being a genuinely frightening/creepy sci fi horror movie considering that there's no blood and the actors are limited.
share