PLEASE STOP.
NOT SCARY,
JUST STUPID.
PLEASE STOP NOW.
signed,
everyone over the age of 12.
ADREED!! Along with ghost faces and that loud sudden sound to scare people.
-Di
Seriously, how many jump scares did this have--15, 16? It might've set a new record...The first half only had a few, but then it just became a constant flurry every other minute or so.
shareI didn't even jump once. There was an eerie feeling the whole time but the jump scare never actually made me scared. The toys were the scary part in this movie .
"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves" Confucius
The toys were SO creepy!!! And they were real toys from that period in time; that's the worst part!
Goblin Cannonball: I hit something! Yes?!? No?!?
When they opened the coffin THAT was probably the best part. Reminds me of the old Hammer productions.
>>>Only he is lost who gives himself up for lost.
The toys were the scary part in this movieYeah. The only "jump scare" that actually made me jump was when that wind-up monkey toy started up by itself.
I don't think there were that many. Too many for my liking, but fortunately that's not all the film was.
shareSeriously, how many jump scares did this have--15, 16? It might've set a new record...The first half only had a few, but then it just became a constant flurry every other minute or so.
Ummm....this is *not* a "Hollywood" film.
Also you misspelled Hollywood.
Wow, gotta love trolls like you. How is his misspelling of Hollywood relevant to this topic? Was his point unclear because of it? Jesus. You probably jumped at every one of the 2342 jump scenes, and now feel the need to attack anyone who hasn't with pointless arguments. And as for your first sentence, if you're really that stupid, obviously he used 'Hollywood' to refer to western movie making in general, which overuses lame jump scenes again and again in its horror movies.
shareI think screamers are fun and I'm 30. As long as the movie has good acting and a good plot, then I don't really give a piss.
shareif it has a good plot then it wouldnt need to rely on cliches
it seems like every damn time a character in every damn scary/supernatural movie put out in the last 10+ years looks in a reflective surface, they just HAVE TO pull the same damn tired old trick again..
its about as scary as having someone suddenly fart really loud in a quiet room
yeah, sure it might startle you.. but does that make it worthy of a horror movie?
I have to agree on this, the jump scare is over it's time to find something new or go back to just plain old atmosphere to set up freights. This was a good movie because of the story and plot but it was not scary in the least they could have done so much more with the house and the ghosts to really drive home the creepy scary factor instead of relying on the jumps it really brought the move down.
shareCompletely agreed. I understand that a few jump scares, odd noises, some effects might actually contribute to the spooky atmosphere... and a lot of those in this movie made it to my 'acceptable' level, but seriously now, get over with the sudden screaming ghost faces already. They don't add to anything, except startling you and then forcing laughter because it's just plain ridiculous and OTT = hence, not the point of good horror. Do you really expect us to digest the fact that someone faced with THAT kind of an actual scare wouldn't take off for his life at 200 mph?
shareI completely agree as well. I thought this was an excellent movie that developed a great sense of terror and unease. The close-ups on the doll faces? Unbelievably creepy. The woman in black herself? Totally scary.
But the sudden appearances of screaming ghost faces only for shock value were terrible. They really took me out of the movie. It's not that the technique should never be used, just that when it's used so often it becomes silly.
Overall a pretty good movie, though.
http://ocdviewer.com
"if it has a good plot then it wouldnt need to rely on cliches"
I would argue that can include clichés and still have a good plot, after all where do you think clichés came from in the first place or why they became widely used?
As for originality, that's a different thing and a new film (note 'film' not 'story' in this case) has to strike a, sometimes difficult, balance.
Ok, so quit complaining and make something original yourself, god damn whiner, why dont you shut up and go do something worthwhile? You people do realize as time goes by ideas will eventually run out? Oh, I guess not, cause all you humans have small minds.... Yes, things will always have something similar, ideas will run out dickwad.
shareMany things wrong with your stupid post.
1 - Funny how people here have such double standards. The OP is clearly insulting the intelligence of people who liked this movie when he says "signed everyone over the age of 12", yet you are calling the guy who pointed out hiw misspelling a troll? And you cry about how he attacked the op? For fücks sake...
2 - "obviously he used 'Hollywood' to refer to western movie making in general". One of the most stupid statements I've ever read in imdb, and that's saying something. So now we call "Hollywood" to every single film that was produced by a western country? The countries which produced this movie, UK | Canada | Sweden, are now somehow part of Hollywood???? wow... just WOW!
I can't believe people like you even know how to turn a computer on.
2 - "obviously he used 'Hollywood' to refer to western movie making in general". One of the most stupid statements I've ever read in imdb, and that's saying something. So now we call "Hollywood" to every single film that was produced by a western country? The countries which produced this movie, UK | Canada | Sweden, are now somehow part of Hollywood???? wow... just WOW!
DEAR HOLYWOOD, RE: 'sudden screaming ghost faces'First of all, the point about spelling was just a helpful afterthought.Ummm....this is *not* a "Hollywood" film. Also you misspelled Hollywood.Wow, gotta love trolls like you. How is his misspelling of Hollywood relevant to this topic? Was his point unclear because of it? Jesus. You probably jumped at every one of the 2342 jump scenes, and now feel the need to attack anyone who hasn't with pointless arguments. And as for your first sentence, if you're really that stupid, obviously he used 'Hollywood' to refer to western movie making in general, which overuses lame jump scenes again and again in its horror movies.
Your point about the term being used for all western filmmaking doesn’t make sense because it is British (America had nothing to do with the making of it and Canada was only a distributor)
As someone who lives and works in Hollywood, I must protest.
Cultural differences between England and the United States are vast. Differences in storytelling - plot, structure, tone, pacing, characterization, dialogue, cinematography, editing, and theme - goes beyond what I can sum up here.
As for the term "Western World", I can't think of a more ambiguous and outdated way to categorize the world. To take western European cultures such as Britain, France, and Spain - thousands of years old - and lump them together with the United State - barely two hundred years old - is at best ignorant, and at worst insulting.
If you're going to speak for a culture that's East of Istanbul, West of Australia, a far more accurate term to differentiate/categorize would be "Western Hemisphere" and "Eastern Hemisphere", as Western Europe has far more in common with Russia than it does with the United States.
Of course how one would further categorize the Eastern Hemisphere, where the richest mix of cultures exist, I will leave up to you (who I'm assuming lives there). As for the "Western Hemisphere" (where I live), I would further categorize as "North" and "South" of the equator. (Canada, U.S., Mexico vs Brazil, Argentina, Peru.)
To sum up: Cultures of the "New World" or "Western Hemisphere" (Canada, Argentina, U.S.) have more in common with each other than they do with the "Old World" or "Eastern Hemisphere" nations (Britain, Spain, Russia). In the context of filmmaking, the antiquated term of "Western" is far too inaccurate to remain relevant.
Dude. For starter's I'm not from the East, where'd you get that idea from. Second, Europe and America *are* referred to as the Western world, like it or not.
shareYou're missing my point. To blame the American film industry for a *beep* British film, makes about as much sense as blaming the Italian dairy industry for a *beep* New York pizza. One has nothing to do with the other. And lumping it all together as "Western" is an insult to both cultures.
shareYou're missing my point. To blame the American film industry for a bad British film, makes about as much sense as blaming the Italian dairy industry for a bad New York pizza. One has nothing to do with the other. And lumping it all together as "Western" is an insult to both cultures.
shareI think pointing out that this film isn't a Hollywood film is completely valid. Arguing that all Western films are Hollywood films is ridiculous. I bet you wouldn't consider Italian or German films Western??
share@Darthnixa: Directly, his misspelling of "Hollywood" had no specific relevance to the topic (with the exception of the fact that it was /in/ the actual topic). However, less specifically it does have a direct impact on how people may be willing to receive his opinions and ideas.
Furthermore, it is attitudes like yours, that sees a significant number of Americans (and indeed, Australians - where I am from - and probably a good portion of the rest of the world also) illiterate. Or even just semi-illiterate; unable to differentiate between "their", "there" and "they're" and, "your" and "you're", "it's" and "its", "alot" and "a lot", "loose" and "lose" and "affect" and "effect" to name just a few - but goodness me, does the list go on.....
And defending someone because another someone pointed out, reasonably nicely, off-hand and quite un-troll-like too, I might add, for being either lazy (which is worse than being illiterate) or being just plain uneducated is pathetic. They do not need defending, they need to be told they can't spell, so they can then do something about it; unless they are lazy, in which case there is probably little to no hope of them bettering themselves and increasing the literacy rate for the country while they are at it. Your post was considerably more troll-like than the one you were accusing of being trollish. All the poster said was "and you misspelled Hollywood"; there was no cussing or name-calling, no the poster was just pointing out a typo..
Your high horse, get off it.
(PS. My apologies for the extensive timeline between your post and mine - I only read yours this evening, and felt compelled to reply).
TDT
-
My soul to peace or Hell for company..
You said you saw my post and felt compelled to reply. That's how I felt when I read the post in which the OP's point (with which I agree wholeheartedly) is completely ignored because of his spelling/wording. So the film is British, so what. Screaming ghost faces are boring and cliche. That's the point. In this thread we discuss ghost faces.
I get annoyed when people correct each other's grammar on the internet, without adding anything to the topic at hand, mostly because I, myself, don't write very well. I don't want my arguments to be disregarded because of mistakes I made while writing in what's not my native language. So I stood up for the guy. I wasn't being a troll. I see that you think we *should* correct people's grammar and that's okay, but you'll surely agree that we should also give their (however badly worded) opinions some merit.
Cheers.
I really liked the part when he can hear the banging in the locked room. I liked the way that played out
shareMOMENTUM PICTURES ISN'T HOLLYWOOD! It's a UK production company.
So, theShat, PLEASE STOP, JUST STUPID!
If it's a big budget film and folks don't like it, it's Hollywood. At least that seems to be the way they think about it.
http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies
I totally agree with you, OP. This has become so trite and is more absurd than scary in my opinion.
It is really a shame, too. The movie managed to do a nice "slow burn" on suspense and build the creepiness factor yet it fell apart due to these gimmicks and such at the end. I honestly thought it could have been so much more. Ah well.
I agree with tiger. I'd rather have the subtle. I just watched this movie a 2nd time to be sure I just wasn't in the right frame of mind the first time, and decided yep, it was overdone in someways, underdone in others. Decent, but I didn't find it scary and wouldn't recommend it as a must watch, either.
shareThe only things I didn't like about this film were the corny jump scares. I'm not even against all jump scares... just the cheap ones like when the faucet turned on, or when the bird jumped out (twice), or when the silly looking face appeared screaming in the window. This movie would have been nearly perfect if they had just dialed back that silliness a bit. Jump scares only work if they're showcasing
something genuinely scary. Not when they highlight faulty plumbing.
They mostly meet me at the waterfront after the social... mostly.
I disagree. I had watched this movie on a recommendation of a neighbor (someone who doesn't know me well) and I was skeptical because she described it as a old-fashioned style scary house movie. So I had an idea of what I was going in to. I watched this on a surround sound system with the speakers loud enough to hear all the creaking and wind blowing. I'm a grown man and when the plumbing dropped, the sound spiked and my subwoofer kicked me in the chest I was like "holy crap" just for the sound alone. Then when it built up to something actually creepy (i.e. the face in the window) it was more like "F%#K!"
The entire movie was made purely for the surprise scare factor. The story was of little or no importance and the ending was a bit 'whomp whomp' for my liking. But the little tense jumps I got from this I haven't gotten from a movie since I was a kid.
That being said, if I had watched this on a TV without the surround sound experience and the volume necessary to make one jump, I'd probably have said the movie wasn't scary and was silly.
I kept thinking that if they'd used a regular mean looking woman I stead this thing with blacked out eyes, it would've been scarier to me. I mean she looked purple at one time. One of the little girls had blacked out eyes too. Smh
share