Why did the guy burn the cross in the fireplace? Seems like a really stupid thing to do if he wants to rid his house of evil spirits. As soon as he did that, I knew, “You’re dead,” and the ending wasn’t a complete surprise.
…your link isn’t live. - noob.
Well, it’s officially spoiled now. (Thanks.)
But where is the link? :shrug:
The phrase “(spoiler/ mouse-over)” means you move your mouse over where the text is - i.e., right below the warning. Press down the mouse button like you’re going to select something, move the mouse over the text so that the text gets highlighted, and then un-select the text when you’re done reading it.
What does it mean?
“Spoiler” means somebody is about to reveal an important part of the plot.
It’s like yelling “Head’s Up” when a ball is about to hit somebody who doesn’t expect it.
Some people who plan to read a book, watch a movie, see a play are willing to discuss it with those who’ve already experienced it to get an overall review, but they don’t want to know specifics in case it ruins the experience for them.
In these type of threads we consider it courteous for people who discuss upcoming films and such to not reveal significant plots/scenes. If they are going to do so we ask them to post a warning so a reader can skip over the post or avoid the thread all together until after they’ve had a chance to see the film.
Ah, and I ruined everything? :(:shrug:
Oops, sorry I’m still working on thread jargon!
Yeah, I was perplexed by their actions all the way through.
********* Don’t read further if you want to see the movie ************
Like Mica kept saying that he was going to take care of it but he never seemed to have even the slightest plan.
One funny thing is that I have some non-Catholic friends who were all totally confused as to why the characters never called a priest. I thought it was interesting that even though they’re not Catholic they knew where you go when that kind of thing is happening. Just thought that was kind of interesting.
Let’s just say a lot of people who would otherwise want to go see what’s now the #1 movie in the country (I’m guessing #1 two weeks in a row, this being Halloween weekend) will pass on it because someone - not me - spoiled it for them.
An entirely new thread will be needed to discuss this movie, because I can only wonder who else has never heard of the phrase “spoiler.”
*“Katherine did it…!” *(“Basic Instinct”)
“They drive off a cliff at the end…!” (“Thelma & Louise”)
Any others I’ve forgotten about?
…was HORRIBLE. Not really offensive, just no where near as scary as people said it was!
It was SUCH A LET DOWN!
Has anyone else seen it? Anyone want to complain about it?
I just went to see it. I agree…It was kind of bad. Too much hype. I don’t get what people saw out of it.
I love “Poltergeist,” and this is probably the first suburban-setting ‘horror’ movie since “Poltergeist” that I really liked. I think the Blair Witch comparisons are what’s fueling the backlash.
I didn’t think it was terrible at all. I don’t think Micah was the brightest tool in the shed and I think he sealed his fate with the real stupid thing he did. Terrible movies typically don’t provoke such visceral and immediate reaction to their characters. But, no, I don’t think it’s a horrible movie: it’s already the most profitable movie ever made, surpassing “Titanic” and “Gone With The Wind” in profitability, even if you adjust if for inflation.
Edited to add: Was there any blood? Any gore? Was any of it ‘torture porn’ like that “Saw” garbage? No. It was all ‘old-fashioned,’ atmospheric chills. Good thing it’s rated R (appropriately) because if it were rated PG-13, most of it would go over kids’ heads. Of course, given the MPAA’s morally-bankrupt ratings, I would hope anybody who’s seen it is over the age of 17. Nobody under 17 has any business seeing it: wait til you’re older.
My MA is in English, not film, and goodness knows I’m no film buff. The last movie I saw in the theatres before this one was Prince Caspian.
I prefer the old school atmospheric chills, as you say. Paranormal Activity didn’t provide it. I knew what was going to happen before the charecters did-not a good sign.
Micha was not the brightest and Kathleen (is that her name? I forget) was not the most sypmathetic. When charecters in a movie sort of just submit to their fate and don’t fight it-that’s not a good sign either.
I know it didn’t have blood and guts (and thank goodness for it, your talking to a guy who doesn’t watch CSI or other splatter fests for that reason) but the lack of R rated material doesn’t make a good movie.
SPOILER ALERT (that means, ** don’t ** mouse-over, i.e., move your mouse over the message - and don’t quote this message for everyone to see – if you think you might be seeing it, or/and want to be considerate because I am divulging a major plot detail ** thanks)
She was possessed (remember when found her ‘sleep-walking’?)
He was also possessed, though to a lesser extent.
It was spiritual warfare of the ambush variety: neither had full faculty, so to speak
I didn’t know it would be a movie about possession, which it was.
I don’t know anybody (except for Steven Spielberg, who got that stupid ending added) who could have predicted how it turned out.
It was a total letdown! I found it more amusing than scary and I was laughing at the stupidity of the characters
Ya just got home from seeing it. It was ok but nothing special, I personally hate that camera in hand type of filming but in this movie it made for a nice effect. I have to admit I spent the majority of the movie laughing my head off. I was a little bit offended by what was burning in the fire place but I guess it could have been worse. All in all not a bad flick but not at all scary! I would have classified it as a new form of comedy.
POSSIBLE SPOILERS–IF IN DOUBT, DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING
Horror is a lot like comedy–its ability to make an individual tremble/laugh has surprisingly little to do with its quality as a production, or with the individual consumer’s artistic taste. I shrugged at The Turn of the Screw, but PA scared the sap out of me–who can predict these things?
Afterwards, I reflected that the movie does have a religious subtext–or a subtext with a religious angle. The young couple not only aren’t particularly religious, they aren’t particularly anything much at all. They’re aren’t really convinced on an intellectual level even by the psychic they engage or the demonologist they try to bring in–they’re just trying to cover their bases.
The couple are engaging enough, but through no obvious fault of their own they seem to have been reared as post-religious: the sort of people that were supposed to abolish what Carl Sagan termed “the demon-haunted world.” But the movie subtly hints that all this evolution of consciousness has done is made us entirely weaponless against a darkness at the margins that doesn’t care what you’ve declared passe or irrelevant, and doesn’t care how modern the McMansion you’ve barricaded yourself in might be. The movie implies that in becoming less primitive, we haven’t really managed to banish the predator, the lurker, or the night–we’ve only burned our clubs. That modernity is another word for utter naked helplessness before the unmodern.
George Steiner once said that even a prosperous modern who rejects the idea of tragedy as old-fashioned may, all unwitting, drive his sedan one day to a paved crossroads and find the equivalent of “blind Laius raging in his cart.” Moira doesn’t care. In its best moments, PA suggests that having a DVD-equipped Scion doesn’t mean that an escaped maniac isn’t scrabbling his hook against its door handle.
I do believe that the quality of movies are decreasing. I still can’t believe that there are people who said that this movie is the scariest movie they ever watched. It’s nowhere near The Exorcist.