You are correct, those first three words do pretty much sum it up for me.Thats why I put them there. The rest of the words just explain why I posted the first three. If you would be so kind as to help me understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neverending
What made the film was the self-reflective technique of making the video image itself part of the plot.
|
Correct me if I am wrong but is that not exactly what was done in the Blair Witch. as far as using a "home" video image as part of the plot, its been done in several movies like cloverfield, quarantine, zombie diaries, [rec] 1 & 2, the st. francisville experiment, zero day, the fourth kind, september tapes, death of a ghost hunter, diary of the dead, district 9..........so what i dont understand is how that aspect of the film could be considered original.
As far as my opinion of the movie,to each his own. I understand the movie itself and the plot or how slow it was is not what made it bad to me. What I didnt like about it was the believability factor and the Hype they tried to give it in the previews.Ultimately it led to disapointment. I am a ghost story nut so paranormal type movies are what really get me going.This movie was supposed to be an actual account of what happened through their own video camera and for that to work it has to be believable.
If the sequel is anything like the first one they should have used one of the original endings and left it at that. The director they have for the second one might make it worthwhile, guess we'll just have to wait till October to see.