"No good deed ever goes unpunished. 285th Rule of Acquisition "


The Devil Inside (2012)

Directed by: William Brent Bell
Written by: William Brent Bell, Matthew Peterman
Cast: Fernanda Andrade, Simon Quarterman, Evan Helmuth, Ionut Grama, Suzan Crowley, Bonnie Morgan

For decades, The Lost Boys earned the top spot on my "movies that cheated the audiences at the end" list. By rewriting vampire lore in the last 8 minutes, the entire movie was ruined for me, no small feat given my proclivity to suspend disbelief (and yes, I revisited that film and the review is coming soon).

But the reigning champion was dethroned this weekend, as The Devil Inside delivered a brutal kick to the gut to moviegoers. It's unfortunate, as the film is pretty good, keeping the audience either deathly silent or screaming at all the right moments. But as the credits rolled, most of the audience at the screening I attended went from shrieking to jeering and booing at the screen.

The film opens in 1989, as police conduct a video walkthrough of a crime scene. Two priests and a nun were murdered during what appears to be an exorcism conducted on Maria Rossi (Suzan Crowley), who is captured and later found not guilty by reason of insanity. The Catholic Church, in a supposed sign of forgiveness, offers to become Maria's caretaker and she is taken from the U.S. to a mental hospital within Vatican City.

The film moves to 2009, as Isabella Rossi (Fernanda Andrade) travels to Rome to see her mother for the first time since the murders and complete her documentary on exorcisms. With cameraman Michael (Ionut Grama) tagging along, Isabella attends an exorcism class and meets two priests, Fathers Ben (Simon Quarterman) and David (Evan Helmuth), who are performing the rites on people The Church believes are mentally ill, not possessed.

Isabella then visits the mental ward holding her mother. Maria has spent the past two decades drawing pictures and carving inverted crosses into her skin. And while she doesn't seem to recognize Isabella, Marion does know about her daughter's recent abortion. After viewing the footage, the two priests aren't convinced that Maria is a candidate for an exorcism, as she doesn't exhibit all the signs of demonic possession. To illustrate their point, the two take Isabella to an actual exorcism, so she will know how to identify a true possession.

That scene works damn well. Taking place in a darkened basement, the priests try to expel a demon from a young woman (Bonnie Morgan, a British based contortionist). Slowly revealing her form from under a sheet, the woman is horribly contorted and then unravels herself, allowing the priests to secure her to the bed and begin the rites.

Morgan (whose stage name is Pixie Le Knot) is simply amazing, twisting her body into impossible positions. She stands in for another actress later in the film and it's only noticeable because no other human could possibly bend that much. Her performance is jaw dropping to watch, though I found myself wishing her work hadn't been featured so frequently in the film's trailers.

The exorcism gets out of control for a few minutes, and while the film doesn't veer into vomiting and makeup effects, as The Exorcist did, it's quite creepy and does include some shriek-inducing bodily discharges. Once the woman is brought under control (it's never clear if the demon has been exorcised or just weakened), the priests decide to examine Maria and see if she is possessed. But the session turns into an impromptu exorcism, resulting in some suspicious camera glitches and both priests being tossed about the room. The hospital staff breaks in to regain control of their patient and the scene goes to black.

Back in their apartment, Father Ben is convinced the footage is enough to get Maria's case reviewed by The Vatican, while Father David stresses that he will be excommunicated once The Church hears about the incident in the mental ward. But the group soon encounters a much bigger problem when one of them becomes homicidal and is determined to be the victim of demonic transference. As the film builds to a climax, events spiral out of control and it becomes obvious that things won't end well.

The sudden inclusion of demonic transference, while mentioned earlier in the film, is a bit of a problem with the script. The subject isn't unprecedented in films about possessions. For example, the demon in The Exorcist transfers to Father Karras after he invites it into him. In the Denzel Washington thriller Fallen, the evil spirit of a serial killer jumps from body to body through touch. But the screenplay drops the ball here, as no explanation is given for why or how the transference took place and why it hadn't occurred during previous exorcisms. It's just a convenient way to keep the action moving, but the script needed to develop the idea a bit more and explain why it happened.

Another problem is the film treats each exorcism as a simple set piece, to be forgotten as the story continues. We never know if the rites exorcised the demon from the woman in the cellar. Even Maria's case is left up in the air, as Father Ben suspects that more than one demon might have control of her, so she might still have demons within her. The lack of a concluding summation at the end of the film, detailing the condition of the previous victims of demonic possession, is a major oversight on the screenwriters' part. Leaving things open only adds to the callousness of the ending (which we'll get to in a moment).

Like most found footage movies, the film looks too well edited. The opening starts with a police video of the initial crime scene, something Isabella and Michael didn't shoot and we're unsure who added this archival footage. Likewise, the film features several shots of characters talking to the camera, like a reality show insert scene, which implies the footage was shot in sequence. Yet more than one camera was used, as the film reveals the cameras set up in Isabella's car. The opening needed to include a disclaimer explaining that someone edited the footage for whatever reason, which would have dispelled such questions.

Despite these quibbles, the film was a solid "3 out of 5" in my opinion. Not a classic by any means, but a nice little popcorn cruncher and a pretty good way to spend 90 minutes. But then came the ending, which ruined any goodwill built up in the audience. I'll try not to spoil too much, so feel free to keep reading.

Let's just say things come to an abrupt halt after an auto accident and the screen cuts to black as the cameras mounted in the vehicle fail. But we don't go back to the film. Instead, the credits start up, with a statement that the Rossi case was never resolved. While a few members of the audience expressed surprise that the movie was over, I think that, while a bit abrupt and disappointing, this ending might have worked.

But the filmmakers, or Paramont Studios, didn't stop there. The next credit line invites the audience to learn more about the Rossi case by logging onto www.therossifiles.com. That's when the booing and jeering started, as this line implies the film was little more than a website ad, a commercial that cost over $10 to watch.

That's probably not the case. I think the film ended according the script and the addition of the website was meant to keep interest in the film going after its initial run, as well as promote a possible sequel. But whoever decided to add that little tagline didn't stop to think about how the audience might react to such a crass advertising plug. I hope those responsible for this contemptuous act, which left their audience feeling cheated and booing at the screen, are feeling pretty ashamed right now.

As I mentioned, I thought this film was a solid "3" until the credits started to roll. The filmmakers started out slow, allowing the tension to build with some creepy moments before getting to the exorcism scenes, which were quite effective. Even if the film ended on such an abrupt note, it would have been a minor quibble in an otherwise entertaining film.

But I can't give The Devil Inside that rating now, as the finale shows such contempt for viewers. Not only that, but a passing review might embolden studios to continue this practice, which happens too often now (the post-credit scenes in recent Marvel superhero films promoting the next feature being one such example). But The Devil Inside crossed into new territory by delivering an abrupt ending before implying the full story could be found online.

So, don't go see this movie, don't buy or rent the DVD and, whatever you do, DO NOT visit the website. It's time to show studios that we won't stand for such cheap pranks and that we expect more of them in the future.

This is a Day Two Review.



Rating: (1 out of 5):

Share

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Amanda Rebholz's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/01/2010
Posts: 53

So you thought it was a good film and worthy of a solid 3 out of 5 and then one title card including a website that runs after the final shot caused you to drop it down to a 1?

0 votes
Superheidi's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/30/2008
Posts: 14316

This looks like poop. Also, there is no God, so this film isn't scary. Carry on.

__________________

I'm the owner and editor of PlanetFury. You can also find me at PlanetEtheria.com

0 votes
Cash Bailey's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2010
Posts: 1714

Paramount must have spent a lot marketing this because suddenly it was fucking everywhere.

I'd never heard about it and it just looked like another standard possession found footage film. Albeit one with slightly better production values than an your average Asylum knock-off.

0 votes
Chris McMillan's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2009
Posts: 1323

Amanda,

Yep.

Imagine dropping $10.50 to see a movie, only to be told at the end that you didn't see the entire story and, if you went online, more would be reveled. Basically, it means that an hour or so of work (after taxes and other deductions) bought me an incomplete product.

To put it another way, that was the same amount I paid earlier in the week for two complete movies on DVD (Splinter and Pan's Labyrinth, both used), with enough left over for a happy hour mug of beer (including tip). I felt that Paramont Studios, or the filmmakers, ripped me off and it left me fuming.

And, while I rate movies here at Planet Fury, I'm not a fan of such scales, especially in the case of The Devil Within. If I gave the movie the 3 out of 5 I felt it earned before the one line, someone who didn't read the review, but saw the rating, might consider seeing the film and experience the same sense of buyer's remorse I and other viewers felt. I don't want people to spend money on this film, for the reasons I spelled out in the review, and the best way to convey that on a scale is to deliver a low rating.

Thanks for reading the entire review. I hope that clears up my reasoning for you.

And by the way, the ending of The Lost Boys ruined that movie for me as well. Even after I revisited it. Guess I just hate when a movie pulls a cheap shot during the closing act.

__________________

Visit my blog: http://shadowoverportland.blogspot.com/

0 votes
Tristan Sinns's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2008
Posts: 3590

Chris McMillan wrote:

3 out of 5

Three out of five - to me - means something along the lines of 'has definite issues - but may be somewhat entertaining to some'.

Given the review, I think '1' is more appropriate. Wink

__________________

I made this website. I'm sorry.

0 votes
zwillis's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/13/2010
Posts: 37

Yeah...but I want to see this piece of crap, only because I like exorcism movies. I didn't know it was a found footage film, which bugs me a little bit. I think it's time to put that to sleep--though I do find myself watching them on Netflix whenever they're available (hypocrite, I may be, but I can also be annoyed with myself). I don't know why I dig them, maybe it's the whole catholic thing, which I have no allegiance to, but have an affinity for it as legend. Horror movies tend to be so God-awful, no matter what, I tend to judge them like I would excerpts from a book that isn't really clever, as in I judge them from scene-to-scene.

I'm sure I'll let out a sigh at the end and talk to myself on the walk from West Philly to a bar in Center city trying to think of reasons to all my horror enthusiast alcoholic friends why I spent my money on "The Devil Inside."

__________________

Zak Willis from West Philly

0 votes
zwillis's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/13/2010
Posts: 37

Oh, and I think the Denzel Washington movie you're thinking of, is 'Fallen' not 'Taken'.

__________________

Zak Willis from West Philly

0 votes
Chris McMillan's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2009
Posts: 1323

zwillis wrote:

Oh, and I think the Denzel Washington movie you're thinking of, is 'Fallen' not 'Taken'.

You're quite right. Don't know why I got that confused with the Liam Neeson action film.

__________________

Visit my blog: http://shadowoverportland.blogspot.com/

0 votes
Chris McMillan's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2009
Posts: 1323

zwillis wrote:

Oh, and I think the Denzel Washington movie you're thinking of, is 'Fallen' not 'Taken'.

You're quite right. Don't know why I got that confused with the Liam Neeson action film.

__________________

Visit my blog: http://shadowoverportland.blogspot.com/

0 votes
Theron's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2006
Posts: 2334

Tristan Sinns wrote:
Chris McMillan wrote:

3 out of 5

Three out of five - to me - means something along the lines of 'has definite issues - but may be somewhat entertaining to some'.

I've always had philosophical issues with the "number of stars" rating system (Tristan knows this). What meaning does a star hold? Then I decided that each star corresponds to a letter grade. Suddenly this system made sense to me. Now, when I review, 5 stars = A, 4 = B, 3 = C, 2 = D, 1 = F. We all know what letter grades mean, right? The only troubling nuance that remains concerns ".5" ratings. To be clear on whether 4.5 stars = A- or B+, one has to read the entire review...or, at least the first and last paragraphs...which, let's get real, is already a time-honored practice. Confused

__________________

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.

0 votes
Tristan Sinns's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2008
Posts: 3590

Theron wrote:

The only troubling nuance that remains concerns ".5" ratings.

This is funny because it seems everyone has their own opinion on how much a point should mean. Heidi and I don't even see eye to eye on it.

I see it as a percentage. To reduce it to the common '100%' pattern we're familiar with from schools/colleges, just double the amount of stars given and multiply by 10. So, a rating of 3.5 means 3.5 * 2 * 10 = 70% (which is also 3.5/5.0 in ratio). In 'school' rating, this means the film receives a passing grade, but has real problems.

5.0 Stars: 100% - absolutely perfect, no possible improvement could make it 'better'. Unique. Outstanding.
4.5 Stars: 90% - excellent film which breaks ground or provides something 'new' or rarely seen. Extremely minor flaws.
4.0 Stars: 80% - A solid film. Very watchable and enjoyable. Perhaps shares much in common with other enjoyable films.
3.5 Stars: 70% - An entertaining film with some fairly serious hindrances and problems.
3.0 Stars: 60% - Has the general structure of a good film, but contains serious problems. Provides little new to the genre in which it resides. Watchable, but stale.
2.5 Stars: 50% - the beginning of the 'fail' category. Contains serious flaws. Might have been a better film "if only...".
2.0 Stars: 40% - A more solid 'fail'.
1.5 Stars: 30% - Not only is it a failure, but it is an insulting failure. The film may treat audiences as if they are stupid, and begin to offer little redeeming value at all.
1.0 Stars: 20% - Insultingly stupid and offering of no entertainment at all.
0.5 Stars: 10% - Offensively stupid.
0.0 Stars: 0% - 'The Green Hornet'

__________________

I made this website. I'm sorry.

0 votes
Theron's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2006
Posts: 2334

Tristan Sinns wrote:
Theron wrote:

The only troubling nuance that remains concerns ".5" ratings.

I see it as a percentage. To reduce it to the common '100%' pattern we're familiar with from schools/colleges, just double the amount of stars given and multiply by 10. So, a rating of 3.5 means 3.5 * 2 * 10 = 70% (which is also 3.5/5.0 in ratio). In 'school' rating, this means the film receives a passing grade, but has real problems.

5.0 Stars: 100% - absolutely perfect, no possible improvement could make it 'better'. Unique. Outstanding.
4.5 Stars: 90% - excellent film which breaks ground or provides something 'new' or rarely seen. Extremely minor flaws.
4.0 Stars: 80% - A solid film. Very watchable and enjoyable. Perhaps shares much in common with other enjoyable films.
3.5 Stars: 70% - An entertaining film with some fairly serious hindrances and problems.
3.0 Stars: 60% - Has the general structure of a good film, but contains serious problems. Provides little new to the genre in which it resides. Watchable, but stale.
2.5 Stars: 50% - the beginning of the 'fail' category. Contains serious flaws. Might have been a better film "if only...".
2.0 Stars: 40% - A more solid 'fail'.
1.5 Stars: 30% - Not only is it a failure, but it is an insulting failure. The film may treat audiences as if they are stupid, and begin to offer little redeeming value at all.
1.0 Stars: 20% - Insultingly stupid and offering of no entertainment at all.
0.5 Stars: 10% - Offensively stupid.
0.0 Stars: 0% - 'The Green Hornet'

Awww, dad! Jeez, I don't wanna do homework. I just wanna watch movies! |(

__________________

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.

0 votes
Amanda Rebholz's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/01/2010
Posts: 53

I did see the film, and even though it's apparently an unpopular opinion, I thoroughly enjoyed it. The ending didn't 'piss me off', and my theater didn't dissolve into an unruly mob waving flaming torches. A few people actually clapped. I didn't feel cheated or whatever--- to me it's like watching "American Horror Story", how every commercial break they encourage you to go on the website and access additional content, backstory about other characters, etc that isn't revealed on the show. I think it was a marketing attempt to widen the content beyond what was contained in the film--- it's not really any different than when The Blair Witch Project launched their website with faux dossiers, police reports, witness videos, etc which were all fake. It's supposed to expand on the mythology, etc.

Every site is shitting on this movie and I really don't get it. I thought it was a solid attempt for a found-footage exorcism film; what else were they supposed to do with that concept? Of course it's going to be formulaic. But the scenes, like Rosa's exorcism in the basement, were really well done to me, much better than some "direct to DVD Asylum crap". I wasn't scared, but then again, 'The Exorcist' doesn't exactly raise my hackles either. I appreciate it for what it is but I don't find it frightening.

I for one didn't feel cheated out of any money, and neither did the other die-hard horror fan who went with me to see it. But several of my friends hated the ending--- not so much the title card, but the auto accident in general.

0 votes
Chris McMillan's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2009
Posts: 1323

Amanda Rebholz wrote:

I did see the film, and even though it's apparently an unpopular opinion, I thoroughly enjoyed it. The ending didn't 'piss me off', and my theater didn't dissolve into an unruly mob waving flaming torches. A few people actually clapped. I didn't feel cheated or whatever--- to me it's like watching "American Horror Story", how every commercial break they encourage you to go on the website and access additional content, backstory about other characters, etc that isn't revealed on the show. I think it was a marketing attempt to widen the content beyond what was contained in the film--- it's not really any different than when The Blair Witch Project launched their website with faux dossiers, police reports, witness videos, etc which were all fake. It's supposed to expand on the mythology, etc.

Every site is shitting on this movie and I really don't get it. I thought it was a solid attempt for a found-footage exorcism film; what else were they supposed to do with that concept? Of course it's going to be formulaic. But the scenes, like Rosa's exorcism in the basement, were really well done to me, much better than some "direct to DVD Asylum crap". I wasn't scared, but then again, 'The Exorcist' doesn't exactly raise my hackles either. I appreciate it for what it is but I don't find it frightening.

I for one didn't feel cheated out of any money, and neither did the other die-hard horror fan who went with me to see it. But several of my friends hated the ending--- not so much the title card, but the auto accident in general.

Well, maybe I'm just an old fart (oh, who am I kidding, I probably am), but I don't appreciate a film ending on the note that I need to visit a website to get more on the story.

You're right, as I mentioned in my review, the basement exorcism was quite effective and very creepy. As was Maria's impromptu exorcism and the scene in the hospital. And I love the internet as a tool to research stuff about films (why do you think I found Pixie Le Knot's website and real name?). But I don't get how a studio can expect you to pay for a film/TV episode (and pay is the operative word), than be grateful to log onto a website for more stuff.

Maybe it was just the old fart in me screaming, "Get off my lawn, ya Hollywood whipper snappers!" But seriously, I expect to be treated better by someone whom I've paid to tell me a story.

__________________

Visit my blog: http://shadowoverportland.blogspot.com/

0 votes
Chris McMillan's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2009
Posts: 1323

Tristan Sinns wrote:
Theron wrote:

The only troubling nuance that remains concerns ".5" ratings.

This is funny because it seems everyone has their own opinion on how much a point should mean. Heidi and I don't even see eye to eye on it.

I see it as a percentage. To reduce it to the common '100%' pattern we're familiar with from schools/colleges, just double the amount of stars given and multiply by 10. So, a rating of 3.5 means 3.5 * 2 * 10 = 70% (which is also 3.5/5.0 in ratio). In 'school' rating, this means the film receives a passing grade, but has real problems.

5.0 Stars: 100% - absolutely perfect, no possible improvement could make it 'better'. Unique. Outstanding.
4.5 Stars: 90% - excellent film which breaks ground or provides something 'new' or rarely seen. Extremely minor flaws.
4.0 Stars: 80% - A solid film. Very watchable and enjoyable. Perhaps shares much in common with other enjoyable films.
3.5 Stars: 70% - An entertaining film with some fairly serious hindrances and problems.
3.0 Stars: 60% - Has the general structure of a good film, but contains serious problems. Provides little new to the genre in which it resides. Watchable, but stale.
2.5 Stars: 50% - the beginning of the 'fail' category. Contains serious flaws. Might have been a better film "if only...".
2.0 Stars: 40% - A more solid 'fail'.
1.5 Stars: 30% - Not only is it a failure, but it is an insulting failure. The film may treat audiences as if they are stupid, and begin to offer little redeeming value at all.
1.0 Stars: 20% - Insultingly stupid and offering of no entertainment at all.
0.5 Stars: 10% - Offensively stupid.
0.0 Stars: 0% - 'The Green Hornet'

My problem with the star rating scale is that it fails to take into account an individual's tastes.

For example, I know Mega Piranha should be at the very least a 0.5 star movie. Yet, I had a blast watching it. And I bought the DVD, watched it a couple more times and still love it. It's an awful movie, yet it worked for me. So, I think the job of a reviewer is not to say whether a movie is good or bad, but why it worked for them. And, if they're honest, they'll admit when a movie is not very good, but provide the reasons why they had a great time watching it.

(And, for gods sakes, reviewers, stop saying, "Just turn off your brain and enjoy it." It's fine to admit you stopped thinking critically during a film, but explain why that happened. Was it the pace of the film increased or was it just because you like watching giant robots/montster/vampires and werewolves beat the crap out of each other? We're all genre fans here, we'll understand.)

And star ratings are easy way for readers to skip past a review and see how a reviewer ranks the film, without delving into the reasons behind it. Amanda (again, thanks for reading!) could have scrolled to the bottom of my review, saw my star rating and wondered what sort of idiot I was to give the film she enjoyed such a low rating. Instead, she read through the review and asked reasonable questions about why I rated it so low.

Besides, if you read a reviewer's opinion often enough, you'll get a sense of their likes and dislikes and be able to form an opinion based on prior knowledge. That can make a star rating moot. For example, I'll read Roger Ebert's reviews on violent horror films, knowing the amount of venom he spews out will determine how much I'll like the film. But if he's singing it's praise (as he's done on a few occasions), I know it's one I have to see.

So, now everyone knows I have a weak spot for movies by The Asylum, and I hate movies that cheat you at the end (and that I'm an old fart). So, I hope everyone keeps reading and takes what I have to say with the knowledge of what I like and dislike, and forms their own opinions about whether to drop their hard earned cash on a movie or not. After all, Hollywood won't listen to you if you don't make it to the box office.

(And, as a side note, if you sat through 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams, I suspect you'd rank The Green Hornet a bit higher. Just my opinion, of course. >) )

__________________

Visit my blog: http://shadowoverportland.blogspot.com/

0 votes
Thomas Duke's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/02/2011
Posts: 514

Chris McMillan wrote:
Tristan Sinns wrote:
Theron wrote:

The only troubling nuance that remains concerns ".5" ratings.

This is funny because it seems everyone has their own opinion on how much a point should mean. Heidi and I don't even see eye to eye on it.

I see it as a percentage. To reduce it to the common '100%' pattern we're familiar with from schools/colleges, just double the amount of stars given and multiply by 10. So, a rating of 3.5 means 3.5 * 2 * 10 = 70% (which is also 3.5/5.0 in ratio). In 'school' rating, this means the film receives a passing grade, but has real problems.

5.0 Stars: 100% - absolutely perfect, no possible improvement could make it 'better'. Unique. Outstanding.
4.5 Stars: 90% - excellent film which breaks ground or provides something 'new' or rarely seen. Extremely minor flaws.
4.0 Stars: 80% - A solid film. Very watchable and enjoyable. Perhaps shares much in common with other enjoyable films.
3.5 Stars: 70% - An entertaining film with some fairly serious hindrances and problems.
3.0 Stars: 60% - Has the general structure of a good film, but contains serious problems. Provides little new to the genre in which it resides. Watchable, but stale.
2.5 Stars: 50% - the beginning of the 'fail' category. Contains serious flaws. Might have been a better film "if only...".
2.0 Stars: 40% - A more solid 'fail'.
1.5 Stars: 30% - Not only is it a failure, but it is an insulting failure. The film may treat audiences as if they are stupid, and begin to offer little redeeming value at all.
1.0 Stars: 20% - Insultingly stupid and offering of no entertainment at all.
0.5 Stars: 10% - Offensively stupid.
0.0 Stars: 0% - 'The Green Hornet'

My problem with the star rating scale is that it fails to take into account an individual's tastes.

For example, I know Mega Piranha should be at the very least a 0.5 star movie. Yet, I had a blast watching it. And I bought the DVD, watched it a couple more times and still love it. It's an awful movie, yet it worked for me. So, I think the job of a reviewer is not to say whether a movie is good or bad, but why it worked for them. And, if they're honest, they'll admit when a movie is not very good, but provide the reasons why they had a great time watching it.

(And, for gods sakes, reviewers, stop saying, "Just turn off your brain and enjoy it." It's fine to admit you stopped thinking critically during a film, but explain why that happened. Was it the pace of the film increased or was it just because you like watching giant robots/montster/vampires and werewolves beat the crap out of each other? We're all genre fans here, we'll understand.)

And star ratings are easy way for readers to skip past a review and see how a reviewer ranks the film, without delving into the reasons behind it. Amanda (again, thanks for reading!) could have scrolled to the bottom of my review, saw my star rating and wondered what sort of idiot I was to give the film she enjoyed such a low rating. Instead, she read through the review and asked reasonable questions about why I rated it so low.

Besides, if you read a reviewer's opinion often enough, you'll get a sense of their likes and dislikes and be able to form an opinion based on prior knowledge. That can make a star rating moot. For example, I'll read Roger Ebert's reviews on violent horror films, knowing the amount of venom he spews out will determine how much I'll like the film. But if he's singing it's praise (as he's done on a few occasions), I know it's one I have to see.

So, now everyone knows I have a weak spot for movies by The Asylum, and I hate movies that cheat you at the end (and that I'm an old fart). So, I hope everyone keeps reading and takes what I have to say with the knowledge of what I like and dislike, and forms their own opinions about whether to drop their hard earned cash on a movie or not. After all, Hollywood won't listen to you if you don't make it to the box office.

(And, as a side note, if you sat through 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams, I suspect you'd rank The Green Hornet a bit higher. Just my opinion, of course. >) )

I don't really have anything to add to THE DEVIL INSIDE discussion, except that I don't find devil possession a particularly horrific manifestation of evil, and that is my main problem with these movies in general.

As far as rating systems, I don't like using them because it reduces the entire review to that rating (for some readers anyway), and I have a hard time settling on a number. To me, a rating is simply how much I liked it. So, I would probably give Robot Monster a 4-4.5 out of 5 and Forrest Gump a 0.0-0.5, regardless of any perceived flaws or "competence". I think if someone rates MEGA PIRANHA or whatever 1/5 when they really enjoyed it implies that they think there is a "right way" to make a movie, and MEGA PIRANHA doesn't fit into this. It's not like rating a car based on how well it works. A movie has no extrinsic function. The other thing that happens with the MEGA PIRANHA example is that the reviewer will base their score on how much they think the average viewer will enjoy the movie, rather than strictly reflecting their own opinion (these two ideas can often be tied together).

So, I'm of the opinion that a score should just reflect the reviewer's opinion, and attempting to reflect some nebulous standard of taste or competence is a waste of time. I'd probably score HOUSE OF THE DEAD a 4.5/5, and anybody who disagrees with me is wrong. Why? Because it's my opinion. I correctly identified that I saw HOUSE OF THE DEAD and thought it was awesome. So, you see my point.

__________________

Blog: Cinema Gonzo
Twitter: http://twitter.com/cinemagonzo

0 votes
Chris McMillan's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2009
Posts: 1323

I see your point, but I see a fault in it. While I see Mega Piranha as a 5 out of 5 movie, I also see Citizen Kane at the same level. It's a matter of expectations and intent.

Did Orson Wells plan to make an enjoyable B-film romp? Did The Asylum expect to make something to rival the cinematography, set design and style of one of cinema's classic films?

The answer to both is no, yet each film succeeds in it's own way. One is a cheap, schlocky exploitive feature that aims to be little more then entertaining during a late Saturday night horror film fest, and the other strives to be a work of art. And if both achieve their goals, who's to say if one is a 5 and the other isn't.

__________________

Visit my blog: http://shadowoverportland.blogspot.com/

0 votes
Tristan Sinns's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2008
Posts: 3590

Chris McMillan wrote:

My problem with the star rating scale is that it fails to take into account an individual's tastes.

Nothing is written in stone. The 'definitions' I listed are only guidelines - and they're only guidelines for how I see them. For example, I gave Piranha 3D a 4 out of 5. It's not *really* a 4 out of 5 film - it's definitely a ridiculous and heavily flawed movie. But it *is* 4 out of 5 in fun.

__________________

I made this website. I'm sorry.

0 votes
Superheidi's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/30/2008
Posts: 14316

Tristan, I've been using the rating system a bit differently than the way you intended, I think. This is what I;ve been doing:

5 stars: REALLY stupid but has talking animals
4.5 stars: Really good flawless, perfect film, but stars Maggie Gyllenhaal.
4.0 stars: It was good and well-written, but the CGI wolves looked like cartoons.
3.5: really good, moving, and awesome, but about the Holocaust without ever showing any Nazis.
3.0: Has Nazis in it.
2.5: Everyone loved it except for me; I hated it but grudgingly acknowledge that I am a curmudgeon
2.0: It's indie and I'm not friends with the filmmaker.
1.5: It had a happy ending and didn't involve talking animals
1.0: It has talking animals, but they RAP
0: Seth Rogan is in it. Even if it is just him doing the voice of a talking animal.

__________________

I'm the owner and editor of PlanetFury. You can also find me at PlanetEtheria.com

0 votes
Chris McMillan's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2009
Posts: 1323

Tristan Sinns wrote:
Chris McMillan wrote:

My problem with the star rating scale is that it fails to take into account an individual's tastes.

Nothing is written in stone. The 'definitions' I listed are only guidelines - and they're only guidelines for how I see them. For example, I gave Piranha 3D a 4 out of 5. It's not *really* a 4 out of 5 film - it's definitely a ridiculous and heavily flawed movie. But it *is* 4 out of 5 in fun.

I get that. I just find it hard to justify a 5 rating for Mega Piranha, which I thought was a lot of fun, when I compare it to something like Citizen Kane, which is an amazing work of art.

__________________

Visit my blog: http://shadowoverportland.blogspot.com/

0 votes
Theron's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2006
Posts: 2334

Chris McMillan wrote:
Tristan Sinns wrote:
Chris McMillan wrote:

My problem with the star rating scale is that it fails to take into account an individual's tastes.

Nothing is written in stone. The 'definitions' I listed are only guidelines - and they're only guidelines for how I see them. For example, I gave Piranha 3D a 4 out of 5. It's not *really* a 4 out of 5 film - it's definitely a ridiculous and heavily flawed movie. But it *is* 4 out of 5 in fun.

I get that. I just find it hard to justify a 5 rating for Mega Piranha, which I thought was a lot of fun, when I compare it to something like Citizen Kane, which is an amazing work of art.

I grade on a sliding scale. Look at it like this: Mega Piranha is the Citizen Kane of cheesy fun horror flicks. That's the way I do it. If a movie does what it sets out to do really well and is a great example of the type of movie it is, I grade I high.

__________________

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.

0 votes
MeganHussey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/12/2010
Posts: 706

It might seem like an odd comparison, but I remember seeing an erotic romance film that (ahem!) screwed the viewer in the ending. It was about a woman trapped in a bad marriage who dreams of a man that will take her away from it all; then her dreams come true, the man really does enter her life, and she leaves the scumbag for the good (and hot) guy.

....then we see the last shot of the film, where she wakes up to find herself still married to the bozo. It turns out the dream guy really was a dream, he never came to life, and she's still trapped in the rotten marriage.

OMG my opinion of the movie just dive bombed when I saw that ending; I wanted to throw something substantial at the screen-sheesh! What a rip off!

Suffice it to say I had an issue with the ending....Happy

0 votes
rabbit_with_fangs's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2011
Posts: 21

Saw this in Australia on Friday, no web address at the end. Felt very abrupt and a little unsatisfying, not quite sure where the movie wanted to go. (And I confess to loving The Lost Boys, in no small part because of the ending!)

0 votes
Chris McMillan's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2009
Posts: 1323

Wonder why they took it off...

Oh, wait. Maybe the studio got the word that audiences were pissed off by it. :bigsmile:

__________________

Visit my blog: http://shadowoverportland.blogspot.com/

0 votes

User login

Cosplay Costumes

Enter your email address:

Get Planet Fury news in your inbox!

  • Planet Fury Privacy Policy


Graphics created by ArtSkull
Pretty-Scary.net, FanGirlTastic, and Planet Fury © Copyright 2004-2012 Heidi Honeycutt
Site layout, design, and code awesomeness by Tristan Sinns