[ImmortalSlasher]

Originally Posted by Sculpt

You can use the site's Search function, you can even have it search the movie title in just this thread. But I was referring to reviews on wiki and/or RT.

I think it's cool for a 2h15m film to change moods, settings, lighting and all... hard to stay dark for 2hrs+. But you probably have a point there. I think he went to Italy and then Paris, and there's daylight scenes. Overall things seemed to brighten and the threat level kept decreasing, things seemed more tongue-in-cheek spurred by the blonde young lady and Depp. I'm not sure if that was the tone Polanski was going for, but I don't think it ever switched away from that comical tone after that. Cary Grant and the femme fatale can comically banter in some Hitchcock films, but usually it's just a humorous respite, not a tone setter for the rest of the film.

Ok. I was just curious about the source of the other reviews. I've searched here before.

I think it's difficult to do day scenes well in horror movies. A movie like the original Nightmare on Elm Street is good with the day scenes because the night / dream world is still present and you know the characters fear the coming of the night and dreams. It's like that town that dreaded sundown line in Scream. And of course the actual movie. Also of course the saying the freaks come out at night. I think there is a line in X-Files about how humans have always feared the night. Or how you don't realize how dark the night is without lights.

Originally Posted by Sculpt

Planet Terror as part 1 of 3hr+ Grindhouse

It was kind of weird. I appreciated the subtle and totally unsubtle homage to 'grindhouse' films, and films approaching that, especially from the 70s and early 80s. I especially liked the intro and the fake trailers of other films (though the ones at the end of the film were line crossers), and the scratching audio sounds, and the dust and scratches on the film, goofy gross-outs, over-the-top characters, stupid logic, misogyny, exploitive shot framing, bad edits, missing film sections, and the tongue-in-cheek poking fun at these films and ourselves for wanting to see these films... when it's homage sometimes tips into parody these things come to mind. I thought it was funny. The film itself is intended to be a bit 'rough' as a parody, so I don't want to miss the point, but no, I didn't think it was great, but it was funny and introspective.

What are the line crossers?