Do a Google image search for "Larry Fessenden" and I guarantee you'll shout out loud: "Holy crap! That dude's forehead is pregnant with an Oompah-Loompah! Somebody call Willy Wonka!" Only John Pankow has a forehead that would rival Fessenden's head.
I almost didn't watch this movie because Larry Fessenden has been associated with three horror movies I absolutely hated: Beneath, Hypothermia, and Wendigo. I hated Beneath beyond belief (hey, that rhymes!); Hypothermia had a monster that looked so stupid even Ed Wood, Jr. would laugh at it if he was alive to watch the movie; and Wendigo is notoriously hated, and for good reason. Occasionally, on the IMDb message boards I'll read stuff like "That movie was one of the worse movies I've ever seen. And I've seen Wendigo." or "It was a terrible, piece of crap movie and I have no intention of watching it again, not even the trailer. But there are far worse horror movies out there, like Wendigo, for instance."
So I was pleasantly surprised when he actually associated himself with a good movie for once:
1. Acting: The actors did a great job of making their characters both believable and likable.
2. Characters: finally, a horror movie that doesn't feature dumb young people running around screaming for 90 minutes while doing incredibly stupid things (like knock out the killer but not make sure he's dead) just to further the plot. Sure, one character acted dumb but I can understand he did it because he was shocked at what he was seeing. Plus, I can understand why the main character did the things he's did: he's angry at himself, at God, and at life. I feel that's good how they brought that type of characterization to round him out.
3. Suspense: I felt the filmmakers did a good job of making the movie suspenseful up to the violent parts. Some horror movies have kills that are too abrupt for my taste.
4. Camera work: the filmmakers scored points for keeping this movie free of annoying "BOOM" jump scares, no shaky-cam, and no swaying-cam. I'm tired of this filmmakers using these amateur techniques because they feel it enhances the movie or makes it seem more realistic. It does neither. It just makes these idiots look like amateurs who should learn the basics of filmmaking before making a movie.
5. Mystery: I'm glad this movie had a mystery angle around the characters, their situations, and why they are doing what they are doing. It all made sense in the end.
6. Kills: mostly off-screen. I guess because many of the victims were seniors or dogs that the filmmakers didn't want to go into details about the kills. **I have spoilers in the last paragraph. It involves animals getting killed for those of you who don't like animals getting killed in movies.**
7. Pacing: some people found it slow. I can understand. But I wasn't bored a second. I felt it was paced nicely.
8. The monsters: I feel this is the main reason why some people didn't like this movie. They felt the monster was bad. That's why my title says "For fans of 70s/80s horror movies". Horror movies from those two decades were notorious for making monster movies with hokey or downright laughable monsters. That was just the way they made the movies back then. But many of them were actually good movies, if you can overlook the silliness of the monster costumes (but the 50s and 60s had way dumber looking monsters). I think this movie was a throwback to those 70s/80s monster horror flicks but it had a modern feel. If you're a fan of horror flicks from that era then you'll mostly be able to reconcile with the monsters. At least they went for the old school costumes instead of computer-graphic monsters. Besides, decades from now people will see the horror movies from now and think, "Pale Japanese girls with hair over their faces? Ghost children? CGI monsters? And a bunch of home movies made on camcorders that are called 'Found Footage' horror films? Is this the kind of stuff people from the 2000s and 2010s found scary?"
All in all, in order to like this flick you must be looking for the following: characters different from the usual dumb young people being killed one by one; slower pacing; a movie that's sort of a throwback to old horror from the 70s and 80s; and a movie with a pretty downbeat feel that's reminiscent of those downbeat horror movies from the 70s.
SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, there are dogs killed in this movie. One scene has a mercy killing of a dog. You don't see the dog shot but you know it's killed. I was skeptical about putting in this spoiler but I've seen countless people say they can't stand the sight of animals getting killed in movies.
I almost didn't watch this movie because Larry Fessenden has been associated with three horror movies I absolutely hated: Beneath, Hypothermia, and Wendigo. I hated Beneath beyond belief (hey, that rhymes!); Hypothermia had a monster that looked so stupid even Ed Wood, Jr. would laugh at it if he was alive to watch the movie; and Wendigo is notoriously hated, and for good reason. Occasionally, on the IMDb message boards I'll read stuff like "That movie was one of the worse movies I've ever seen. And I've seen Wendigo." or "It was a terrible, piece of crap movie and I have no intention of watching it again, not even the trailer. But there are far worse horror movies out there, like Wendigo, for instance."
So I was pleasantly surprised when he actually associated himself with a good movie for once:
1. Acting: The actors did a great job of making their characters both believable and likable.
2. Characters: finally, a horror movie that doesn't feature dumb young people running around screaming for 90 minutes while doing incredibly stupid things (like knock out the killer but not make sure he's dead) just to further the plot. Sure, one character acted dumb but I can understand he did it because he was shocked at what he was seeing. Plus, I can understand why the main character did the things he's did: he's angry at himself, at God, and at life. I feel that's good how they brought that type of characterization to round him out.
3. Suspense: I felt the filmmakers did a good job of making the movie suspenseful up to the violent parts. Some horror movies have kills that are too abrupt for my taste.
4. Camera work: the filmmakers scored points for keeping this movie free of annoying "BOOM" jump scares, no shaky-cam, and no swaying-cam. I'm tired of this filmmakers using these amateur techniques because they feel it enhances the movie or makes it seem more realistic. It does neither. It just makes these idiots look like amateurs who should learn the basics of filmmaking before making a movie.
5. Mystery: I'm glad this movie had a mystery angle around the characters, their situations, and why they are doing what they are doing. It all made sense in the end.
6. Kills: mostly off-screen. I guess because many of the victims were seniors or dogs that the filmmakers didn't want to go into details about the kills. **I have spoilers in the last paragraph. It involves animals getting killed for those of you who don't like animals getting killed in movies.**
7. Pacing: some people found it slow. I can understand. But I wasn't bored a second. I felt it was paced nicely.
8. The monsters: I feel this is the main reason why some people didn't like this movie. They felt the monster was bad. That's why my title says "For fans of 70s/80s horror movies". Horror movies from those two decades were notorious for making monster movies with hokey or downright laughable monsters. That was just the way they made the movies back then. But many of them were actually good movies, if you can overlook the silliness of the monster costumes (but the 50s and 60s had way dumber looking monsters). I think this movie was a throwback to those 70s/80s monster horror flicks but it had a modern feel. If you're a fan of horror flicks from that era then you'll mostly be able to reconcile with the monsters. At least they went for the old school costumes instead of computer-graphic monsters. Besides, decades from now people will see the horror movies from now and think, "Pale Japanese girls with hair over their faces? Ghost children? CGI monsters? And a bunch of home movies made on camcorders that are called 'Found Footage' horror films? Is this the kind of stuff people from the 2000s and 2010s found scary?"
All in all, in order to like this flick you must be looking for the following: characters different from the usual dumb young people being killed one by one; slower pacing; a movie that's sort of a throwback to old horror from the 70s and 80s; and a movie with a pretty downbeat feel that's reminiscent of those downbeat horror movies from the 70s.
SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, there are dogs killed in this movie. One scene has a mercy killing of a dog. You don't see the dog shot but you know it's killed. I was skeptical about putting in this spoiler but I've seen countless people say they can't stand the sight of animals getting killed in movies.