|
|
Post by chucky115awesome on Sept 16, 2014 17:25:42 GMT -6
Ever since it was released I have heard all the criticism and more about people saying it's boring,it's slow.The acting is horrible,chucky looks retarted.I personally like this one and it's now my favorite out of the series.There's just no way it's worser than seed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spanky on Sept 16, 2014 17:29:52 GMT -6
"It's slow" and "It's boring"... gonna chalk that up to generational differences because I don't think it was slow, but I also have an attention span, lol. It went back to straight horror, meaning it needs to build up to some extent, not just be a traditional slasher. A movie doesn't have to be a Michael Bay-fest of explosions every 30 seconds to be entertaining.
Bad acting, there was only a handful of actors and actresses, and I think they did a solid job. I liked how they kept it low profile with the cast. The more famous the cast members are - the bigger the egos involved will be.
I liked it, my main criticism is the decision to go with stitches, but that's obviously to include all fans. The other thing is all the unanswered questions, which hopefully will be resolved.
|
|
|
|
Post by smngry on Sept 16, 2014 17:31:35 GMT -6
No, no, no, no, no, no.
People that say this film is worse than Seed do not appreciate the slow burn, the build up, the anticipation.
In that case they must hate the original.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 17:56:07 GMT -6
People who say that are bent out of shape Seed fans that were expecting a Disney Chucky film featuring Lampoon Tiffany.
Yeah... I can see where Seed had the bigger budget that Curse didn't have but it's thanks to Seed why the budget went out the window.
I'll admit... the Chili scene was a little bit drawn out but otherwise I think this film was a slamdunk for being a straight to video sequel in a horror series. Usually they stop trying after a while... this film tried it's damnedest. It was previous film that stopped trying.
|
|
|
|
Post by Metal Matt on Sept 16, 2014 18:00:48 GMT -6
I would have loved to have seen a lampoon Tiffany thank you very much!  But in all seriousness, I don't think it's worse than Seed. Yeah, the low budget kind of stops it from being really great, but I'm fine with that. It tried its hardest, and it's probably the best DTV movie I've ever seen. |
|
|
|
Post by Zephyr on Sept 16, 2014 18:06:00 GMT -6
"It's slow" and "It's boring"... gonna chalk that up to generational differences because I don't think it was slow, but I also have an attention span, lol. It went back to straight horror, meaning it needs to build up to some extent, not just be a traditional slasher. A movie doesn't have to be a Michael Bay-fest of explosions every 30 seconds to be entertaining. Bad acting, there was only a handful of actors and actresses, and I think they did a solid job. I liked how they kept it low profile with the cast. The more famous the cast members are - the bigger the egos involved will be. I liked it, my main criticism is the decision to go with stitches, but that's obviously to include all fans. The other thing is all the unanswered questions, which hopefully will be resolved. I toataly agree. The straight horror will build up in the next movie I hope. |
|
|
|
Post by Zephyr on Sept 16, 2014 18:06:36 GMT -6
Or in the next couple. Lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Gee on Sept 17, 2014 15:58:27 GMT -6
I along with thousands of fans think this was better than Seed. I kind of like the whole low-budget look to a horror film, to me it makes the story more genuine, because there is no need for millions of dollars to cover it up a cheesy story.
I like Spanky, like that the actors are not very well known...there is a lot less expectation of them. Very few actors in my opinion have the ability to perform well in low budget movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by UndeadPunk on Sept 17, 2014 17:56:01 GMT -6
I agree. Imo if all the cheesy comedy didn't kill seed, then the famous hollywood stars definitely did. I prefer a low budget setting with a real story, rather than a high budget, over produced setting with a crappy,cheesy, story.
A great example is NXT and RAW. NXT isn't over produced, the stage isn't huge, the arena doesn't fit much people, yet it's an overall better product than Raw or Smackdown at the moment( which have glitz and glamour in their stages. They're all polished up while NXT feels... Errr..... Raw. Pun intended)
|
|
|
|
Post by smngry on Sept 18, 2014 0:02:31 GMT -6
I like Spanky, like that the actors are not very well known...there is a lot less expectation of them. Very few actors in my opinion have the ability to perform well in low budget movies. This, this lesser known actors thing, is the reason a movie can surprise you. I'm pleased that the main cast of the next Star Wars movie seem to be relatively new, unknown faces (not including Ford, Hammill and Fisher obviously) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2014 12:09:23 GMT -6
Also... why would anyone think the acting was horrible?
Yeah the characters were some "A typical" characters but they played the parts well. I also felt that Ian's character had a decent amount of complexity because they were leading us to believe he was a typical sleeze having the hots for the babysitter and they 180'd him as being just the opposite.
By all laws of horror films, he should have been a survivor but he got axed which was also a surprise.
If anything I think each part was played well.
|
|
|
|
Post by UndeadPunk on Sept 18, 2014 17:02:46 GMT -6
Also... why would anyone think the acting was horrible? Yeah the characters were some "A typical" characters but they played the parts well. I also felt that Ian's character had a decent amount of complexity because they were leading us to believe he was a typical sleeze having the hots for the babysitter and they 180'd him as being just the opposite. By all laws of horror films, he should have been a survivor but he got axed which was also a surprise. If anything I think each part was played well. This. |
|
