As a screenwriter and former crew member of a cruise line let me tell you why this is OVERRATED!
1: The first part with the backstory of the Model Couple (25 freaking minutes!!!) is completely unnecessary. The movie should start on the luxury yatch or embarking it. Big mistake on writing a boring introduction that leads nowhere.
2: Pirates are a real and actual threat at sea BUT, cruise lines and sea companies don't sail those risky waters, much less a dedicated embarkation for rich people. Duh!
3: In the event of a shipwreck, every vessel has a a device called EPIRB (Emergency Position Indication Radio Beacon) that immediately send a signal that locates a ship in distress globally by the freaking satellites. So, NOT A SINGLE SHIP AND ITS SURVIVORS will be undetected. In less than an hour, rescue teams will be on the area. NO ONE WILL BE STRANDED IN AN ISLAND in plain XXI century.
Fourth: the screenplay (unbelievably nominated for an Oscar) HAS NOT THREE ACTS (Beggining is boring but present, "Middle" or "Conflict" is the pirates incident BUT NO ENDING) The movie has not an "open ending", not is not... is just like "let's finish it with a nonsense: an elevator of a resort? Really?
Ok, it is a black comedy (but not even the title has anything to do with the story, it is just a term used in the fashion industry).
Ok, it won the Palme d'Or but is it me or the Swedish humor is only for Swedish people. By the way, the seasickness was farfetched. It doesn't happen that way, even if a small ship rocks more than a cruiseship.
Woody Harrelson should be Director's friend or should lost a bet or something because he is so wasted in the movie, any unknown actor (as the rest of the cast could have played that character), not him. He deserves better!
What is good? The Filipino Lady Stewardess situation. It is very good an the actress as well! The only good things of the screenplay and movie.
The poster fooled you when you see it (pretty scary and the typography is accurate) and the idea is not bad. Artists haunted by their worst fears could be re-arranged but making a coral movie with short stories wasn't rhe best idea. As directional outcome, Spider One is faaaaaaaaaaar away from his brother Rob Zombie. Average shots and camera angles. As acting aftermath, well... ALL actors are really bad. The worst being the writer. But all the cast are the failed assemble I've seen in a long time. I know budget limitations can't afford good and known actors, but... Pfff! The prosthetics and VFX saves the day. The Painted Monsters is well done, the sculpture of the rockstar, and the actress/demon are the highlights in that department. Spider One should have collected more money and make a way better directional debut.
First thing first: The IMDb genre is only horror, they do not listed this as documentary. So isn't, right ? It is either a fake documentary or staged. Why? Elementary, my dear Watson... One can start watching this and the supers and titles (explaining the "dog-man" events) are only an excuse to try to find a foundation for this "spooky camp fire tales". The so called experts are unbelievable, most of all the emo/blonde/teen... Ludacris 100% Then the witnesses: The guy with a beard is over explanatory so, he's scripted. Then the lady, you can see she's reading out of frame. The crying guy is a joke, when the "anonymous" witness appeared I stopped it and walked away. Scripted lies on camera for dumb people.
I started watching this and I stopped Netflix at 28:22 minutes of the film. What's this movie about? Does exist a screenplay, a real one? Or the actors and the overrated director were like just talk nonsense, whatever you want with a 60s background. No character development, no story development, no hook at the beginning, nothing. Why is called white noise?, because it has nothing to do with it. This movie looks like one of these film student projects but expensive, of course. This author cinema is selfish and doesn't deliver anything new or entertaining to the viewer, only director/writer's big ass-ego.
Director of photography messed it up, all scenes at night have no backlights or highlights. In every night scenes you can't see anything at all. It's so annoying trying to figure it out what the heck is happening. I watched the season in HBO MAX not a ripped copy or something. I thought it was and issue with my TV BUT NO. I tested Two TVs at home, a laptop and a smartphone, none worked. So that's the way it is. Dark scenes where you have to imagine what are doing the characters. Same in castle interiors. I wonder if episodes had quality control before broadcasting. It's really disappointing. Good series, appalling photography.
One can say Halloween saga is frayed because of this. How many talented writers out there without a chance and producers hired 4!!!! FOUR USELESS BRAINS wrote this cliche feature? Believe it or not! By the way, someone close to Danny McBride tell him he is a awful writer.
What a shame see Jamie Lee Curtis in this tasteless movie. John Carpenter's and Debra Hill's legacy went to the toilet. Halloween (2018) was roughly watchable, Halloween Kills (2021) was 100% meh! But this? Gimme a break. Rob Zombie's movies were way better. Blumhouse is doing "whatever", is actually someone reading the screenplays there? Blumhouse should do quality over quantity. That's why Horror genre is an outcast. Because of this. But since they recover the money budget and duplicated it, this would be considered as a Blockbuster, isn't Hollywood?
As a television product itself is well done. Filming in the jungle is not an easy task, episodes are way too long though. Directing and acting is not the best but is not awful. Photography and VFX are good but not prosthetics, all guts look fake. Direct sound is deficient, often you can't understand what the actors are saying (even if you are a native Spanish speaker) and as an original idea well, the title of this review says all: we see this before a lot: Sending a platoon on a mission to kill a drug dealer is same old story, to top that the creatures in the caves are pretty much the same as in "The Descent (2005)". . . So, meh! Production Company Rayhuela Films copy themselves, they already made a movie called "El Páramo (2011)", again with a troop of soldiers in the middle of nowhere that find some kind of witch. So double meh!
Why the lower rating? Because it's a movie for smart people. Its plot is deep (not horror per se) and elaborated, not for popcorn folks get used to watch Marvel's, Disney's, Pixar's etc. Even if this is not scary 100% it deals with deep terrifying traumas and guilt.
That's its only failure. The VFX! But keep in mind this movie was made in 1978 and released in 1979. Besides that is Cronenberg special reserve not only in directing but also the screenplay is so damn twisted as you can expect, acting is good: Highlights are Samantha Eggar and Oliver Reed excel but Art Hindle portraits a good character too.
What will be after this? A rich kid that is a night vigilante and sucks jugulars because his parents were murdered? An island kid that can breathe underwater and becomes a carnivore and eats surfers? A nerd kid who got struck by a thunderbolt and electrocute all the bullies at school? A girl that doesn't get old and hangs liars with a lasso? Pfffff! This is one of the most nonsense and silly screenplays ever. The two stars are for the gory effects on deaths, they are well made.
I watched this because Hereditary (2018) was creepy! But this? People aren't honest rating movies here. In the very first hour NOTHING HAPPENS! No set-up, no backstory, nothing. Then all events occurs as slow as a turtle race. This is not horror, a mediocre thriller at best.
This could be the king of nonsense screenplays ever!
Why Vic (Ben Affleck) allows Melinda (Ana de Armas) have sex with other men? Is not a deviation or blackmail either. So there's no point to do that. Why he's jealous if he allows it? Why she hides the truth about these guys if is mutual knowledge. This movie fails as a thriller because if you choke somebody with your bare hands the corpse will tale the marks of your hands, but the drowned guy is not evidence at all. Why you disappear the other guy that "accidentally" falls by the cliff and hits his head with a rock and (this is absurd) to tie a rock with your belt and your dog's collar and hide his wallet in plain sight? And don't talk about the cliche of the last guy driving and crashing into the river trying to reach his phone. Ridiculous Deus ex machine, by the way.
Adrian Lyne did it again: a excuse movie to showing a pretty actress naked (which I don't mind but is stupid) with no storyline.
I just watched it (22 years after its release!) and as horror author I can say this is quite good. It starts slow, but give it a try. Unlike modern horror movies' awful/silly endings this one is flabbergasted, kind of The Sixth Sense (1999)
A deranged male nurse -instead of a female, as in "Misery" (1990)- got obsessed with an ex -as in "Fatal Attraction (1987)" the guy has an affair and she is the one obsessed- wants her baby from another man -in Misery it's a book written exclusively for the nurse, but is the object of desire anyway- and in the end he pays his due -quadriplegic instead of hit his temple with a typewriter, but is the same punishment-. SO. . . WHAT AN ORIGINAL MOVIE (it's sarcasms, by the way)
Cult, masks made of bones, hoods, tunicas, dark wood, old book, equinoctial ritual, bonfire, burning symbols, stupid victims trapped in a house far away from anywhere. . . That doesn't scare anymore. That's horror 101, horror for dummies. The music is so lame too, as a bonus.
Directors/writers aren't aware of The Sixth Sense of Shyamalan? They basically copied the movie. Instead of a child and a shrink they have a child service social worker who sees ghosts with a traumatic past (son's death) as the kid's mother (grandma's death). 3 characters in 1! Also the Vang Brothers "creativity" put some violent ghosts, suicidal ghosts, adviser ghosts. . . Meh! It's not Michelle Krusiec's fault, she did what she could. The trouble is the wannabe screenplay. Period.
The directors (you need 2 guys to do a copy of a movie?) pretending to do and homage just put onion paper and did the same thing Wes Craven created 25 years ago. That's bold and they don't fit his shoes. I mean their calling card is V/H/S movies and they are lame horror. This Scream reboot ("re-quel" stupid name isn't?) starts good because is a copy, the killings and slashes works well but the third act? Gimme a break! The return of Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox is for oblivion. If you remove the characters the movie is still the same. David Arquette did it better (even with the cliche idea to become him a drunk ex cop) and Skeet Ulrich too, but leaning the main part to this guy Jack Quaid and Mikey Madison??? Pfff! Worst actors ever.
They think nobody would notice this is a GREAT MOVIE SWINDLE? Come on, it would be more respectful to do a remake of "Rear Window (1954)" or to put a credit such as "based on the short story IT HAD TO BE MURDER by Cornell Woolrich" at least. The worst part is this is based on a book!!! Was the publisher scammed or what? People here giving 7, 8, 9 stars are dumb, they need to open their eyes and review cinema history. Unbelievable!
This is not a documentary about Berkowitz is about a journalist obsessed with the case (Maury Terry) but the first person narration made by Paul Giamatti (as Terry) is annoying and unnecessary. Director, writer, and producer made a poor choice with that. It would be better a neutral tone, third person, impartial.
Since first movie was very good, this one (with all changes of actors and actresses and the anachronism) was very confusing for regular audience who is not a hardcore fan of the graphic novel, besides it was made after a big time gap. . . That's the main reasons it failed at box office.
Best selling novel? Really? Is a collection of cliches: haunted house, ghost presence with titling lights and radio interference, spiritism session, house's old survivor residents of a tragedy coming back secretly, cheating marriage, husband dark secret. . . MEH!
Yeah! Besides Frances McDormand and David Strathairn have you seen the other actors of this "movie"? No! Exactly! Director sold us this like a movie but her trick is she only put 1 famous actress and 1 supporting actor interacting with regular nomads and recorded it and in the editing room trying to make a story. That's it! Overrated as hell.