Out of thousands of movies I've seen in the theatre, I've walked out of the theatre in disgust prior to the climax only three times. (Actually, one movie I actually walked out on TWICE, because after I initially walked out on the movie, Cadillac Man, my friends dragged me back to that movie at a later date. 20-minutes in, they agreed with me, and we all walked out.) The People Under the Stairs was one of the other two I walked out on and get this, it was literally 10-minutes before the end of the movie!
I remember this movie vividly. Picture it: Phoenix, Arizona, 1991. I've always loved horror and since I loved Freddy so much, Wes Craven was high on my list. For a new and "original" film, this was a must see. Unfortunately, half way through, I thoroughly disliked this movie and by the time the movie got to almost the ending, I couldn't care any less on how it ended and I bolted. This has never happened to me before or since and of those three movies I exited early, I never made it this far and left early.
Nowadays, I write a ton of film reviews, but I would never on a movie I didn't complete. It's unfair to the movie by not allowing it to fully explain itself. Rarely will a movie redeem itself in the last ten minutes, but it has happened, I recall.
Fast forward, 22 years, and during October/Horroween time, I decided to *finally* give this movie another shot. I mean, why not? It's not like it's another 3-vested-hours of goofiness I have to endure; it's only 102 minutes and 10 of which I hadn't seen before.
To be honest, I didn't hate on the movie that much this time. Sure, it's still bad, and though Craven was trying hard to be original, though failing some, it was so convoluted with way too much going on to enjoy. The basics of this movie was a creepy house and a trapped-inside boy trying to escape and eventually does, but *has* to go back for a captive girl living there.
Literally, that's the core of this movie. There's roughly 23 other plots going on – and yeah, I know, I'm exaggerating, but not too far off, but breaking it down, the movie's somewhat focus is on the boy, a dog and the escape plan.
One of the things I had a problem back in 1991 was Plot #17, the sadomasochism (S&M) "father" in leather. In my defense, I was in High School, living in a pre-internet age and was brought up in a very sheltered, Christian household, so I had no clue what S&M was or why this man decided it would be a good idea to disguise himself in full leather in his own home to continue to chase the boy.
Today, knowing exactly what it is, and why it still makes zero sense for him to do this. Previously, it's stated that "every generation more insane than the one before it" in this household. But, being crazy does not equate the desire to participate – in this case, unexplainably – in S&M.
Now, here's the million dollar question, but mostly for myself: Should I have stayed for the final 10-minutes in 1991? And the answer is: No. I would've hated it all the more. The finale, and sorry – spoiler for the 22-year-old movie, involves blowing up a room full of cash and despite the grand explosion, the cash survives and intact and is distributed to the poor.
The movie gets a little too out of whack, too many times. Reminded me a lot of The Evil Dead original, but for no solid reasons for it to mimic that movie. Also, the "message" felt like a Lethal Weapon unneeded addition to the already overloaded script. Totally: Not recommended to meet the people under the stairs.
* * * Final thoughts: I was right. Back up, I was right to walk out on the movie, but I would've been more right not to see it in the first place.
I remember this movie vividly. Picture it: Phoenix, Arizona, 1991. I've always loved horror and since I loved Freddy so much, Wes Craven was high on my list. For a new and "original" film, this was a must see. Unfortunately, half way through, I thoroughly disliked this movie and by the time the movie got to almost the ending, I couldn't care any less on how it ended and I bolted. This has never happened to me before or since and of those three movies I exited early, I never made it this far and left early.
Nowadays, I write a ton of film reviews, but I would never on a movie I didn't complete. It's unfair to the movie by not allowing it to fully explain itself. Rarely will a movie redeem itself in the last ten minutes, but it has happened, I recall.
Fast forward, 22 years, and during October/Horroween time, I decided to *finally* give this movie another shot. I mean, why not? It's not like it's another 3-vested-hours of goofiness I have to endure; it's only 102 minutes and 10 of which I hadn't seen before.
To be honest, I didn't hate on the movie that much this time. Sure, it's still bad, and though Craven was trying hard to be original, though failing some, it was so convoluted with way too much going on to enjoy. The basics of this movie was a creepy house and a trapped-inside boy trying to escape and eventually does, but *has* to go back for a captive girl living there.
Literally, that's the core of this movie. There's roughly 23 other plots going on – and yeah, I know, I'm exaggerating, but not too far off, but breaking it down, the movie's somewhat focus is on the boy, a dog and the escape plan.
One of the things I had a problem back in 1991 was Plot #17, the sadomasochism (S&M) "father" in leather. In my defense, I was in High School, living in a pre-internet age and was brought up in a very sheltered, Christian household, so I had no clue what S&M was or why this man decided it would be a good idea to disguise himself in full leather in his own home to continue to chase the boy.
Today, knowing exactly what it is, and why it still makes zero sense for him to do this. Previously, it's stated that "every generation more insane than the one before it" in this household. But, being crazy does not equate the desire to participate – in this case, unexplainably – in S&M.
Now, here's the million dollar question, but mostly for myself: Should I have stayed for the final 10-minutes in 1991? And the answer is: No. I would've hated it all the more. The finale, and sorry – spoiler for the 22-year-old movie, involves blowing up a room full of cash and despite the grand explosion, the cash survives and intact and is distributed to the poor.
The movie gets a little too out of whack, too many times. Reminded me a lot of The Evil Dead original, but for no solid reasons for it to mimic that movie. Also, the "message" felt like a Lethal Weapon unneeded addition to the already overloaded script. Totally: Not recommended to meet the people under the stairs.
* * * Final thoughts: I was right. Back up, I was right to walk out on the movie, but I would've been more right not to see it in the first place.