I just wanted to say I value the subtle and astute POSITIVE summary that M. A. Rogers and others wrote for this film. He obviously saw in this film many things that people who gave it a superficial viewing, missed.
I havent seen this film, but I intend to, and the many positive reviews confirmed that decision for me. In fact nearly all the positive reviews were written with depth and perspicacity; the reviewers were able to say coherently and specifically why they liked the film. They took their reviewing seriously, not offhand in tone. They give a litany of concrete supporting details that demonstrate why the film is of substance.
Just banging out a paragraph telling us that you didnt like the film because "it was boring" or "not scary enough" or "no spooky effects, dude" conveys nothing. Or rather, it conveys more about your viewing habits than the movie you so carelessly describe. Its condescending, half-assed, and unworthy.
Treat a film on its own merits. Take into consideration the time period it was produced in; and state why something in the film worked or failed, rather than dismissing the whole production out of hand. Rating a movie on its lack of glossy value, or 'shock' value; or some other subjective aesthetic youre used to seeing in the other films you watch--is just lame. These arent worthwhile parameters to judge by.
Failing to focus on the story (or how well the director chooses to tell that story) indicates that perhaps you dont study a movie very carefully, or that you watch them in bulk without discrimination--like eating potato chips.
I havent seen this film, but I intend to, and the many positive reviews confirmed that decision for me. In fact nearly all the positive reviews were written with depth and perspicacity; the reviewers were able to say coherently and specifically why they liked the film. They took their reviewing seriously, not offhand in tone. They give a litany of concrete supporting details that demonstrate why the film is of substance.
Just banging out a paragraph telling us that you didnt like the film because "it was boring" or "not scary enough" or "no spooky effects, dude" conveys nothing. Or rather, it conveys more about your viewing habits than the movie you so carelessly describe. Its condescending, half-assed, and unworthy.
Treat a film on its own merits. Take into consideration the time period it was produced in; and state why something in the film worked or failed, rather than dismissing the whole production out of hand. Rating a movie on its lack of glossy value, or 'shock' value; or some other subjective aesthetic youre used to seeing in the other films you watch--is just lame. These arent worthwhile parameters to judge by.
Failing to focus on the story (or how well the director chooses to tell that story) indicates that perhaps you dont study a movie very carefully, or that you watch them in bulk without discrimination--like eating potato chips.