|
Dead Birds; */*****
SCARE FACTOR: 2/5
It had the atmosphere down, but nothing else really. Any quick cuts and jump scenes they had tried to use failed ultimately, as I did not jump once - nor did either of my parents. The makeup took away from the "frightening imagery" and made it look plain silly. The monster was well crafted, however, so I gave it a 2.
COMEDY FACTOR: 0/5
It was serious throughout, with no splashes of humour anywhere to be found, unless you laugh easily at some snide comments they make. Or at the laughable script and dailogue.
BLOOD & GORE: 3/5
In the bank robbery scene, there was some good shots of gore, but it was rather cheesy. The wounds and further shots looked half decent, and the victim tied to the floor - when her gut busted open - I was very pleased with that. Looked well crafted.
NUDITY & TA: 1/5
A shirtless guy who needs to tan better. Dark face and pasty body doesn't go to well for sex appeal. Oh, and there is some pathetic moaning going on.
---
So, hm... what we all said in unison after watching it pretty much summed things up - "dumb". It had a fairly boring opening, but did get more interesting as the plot proceeded. The main faults were in the script. Very bad dailogue, their trip was drug out far too long with fade-ins and outs, and the character's reactions to things weren't all that swell either. "Oh, must be a wild boar." Mhm. The whole story felt cheesy. I'm not into unrealistic horror, unless of course it has a decent explanation and things connect well. Uh, this didn't. It seemed like the backstory was thrown in for the hell of it, and the writer just wanted to get on with the "scares".
The scares sucked, too. There were some "Jesus!" moments, but it was more said for the sake of it, and not the-shock-it-out-of-you kind. Such as "JESUS!" and you throw yourself backward into the couch. Yeah, ok, that was a lame explanation, but whatever.
The acting was... egh... alright? Nothing good, not exactly terrible, just... meh. It's a period story, and the actors fell out of chracter a few times. I remember in the beginning while riding to the house, a certain character had a sort of way to his speech, and then suddenly it was gone for a whole sentance only to return again shortly. And again for continuity, there are some rather bad errors. They are walking up to the house, it's pure light, and they get in - pitch black. I could buy it if the sun was starting to set, but... no. It doesn't take you 3-4 hours to walk through the cornfields.
There was one thing I liked, sort of the message. If it WAS intended to be the message or I'm just trying to make it up for a reason to give this movie one star. The title Dead Birds has no revelence to the actual plot, and people may wonder why it's called that. If you recall when the guy steps on the dead bird just before entering the house, the girl doesn't really respond except for "let's get that blood out of you before it gets infected." Along with the ending, where the creature (the man) is shot, and the chasees just continue like nothings wrong. Perhaps it's a message as if "We're all just dead birds. People step on us and no one cares. You can be stepped on too, easily". That's what I got out of it, and for that it deserves a star.
---
If someone could explain why it seems people like this a lot, I would gladly listen and perhaps reconsider the movie. Maybe I missed something...
|