Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Were You Scared of the Dark?, June 7, 2003
How well do you remember your night fears, your fears of what went bump in the night, or what you imagined went bump in the night, from when you were a child? The closer you are to those fears, the better this movie will be for you. If you were one of those unimaginitive children who were not frightened of the dark, or if you have forgotten those fears, you will hate this movie--it won't scare you and you will think it is bad.The acting is pretty much stock-in-trade for a horror film, meaning that it has the usual share of ups and downs. The story gives no concrete details of what "they" are. This is one of the key points in "how well do you remember your night fears?" If you remember (if you were imaginitive enough), part of what made the dark so scary is that the fears were amorphous--all you "knew" as a kid was that there were things in the dark that were out to get you. You could imagine so many possible forms they could take, so many possible details about them, none of which were certain. Therefore, you did not know what they were, why they were after you, or how they would get you, and you had only the vaguest idea of what they looked like. You knew they kept to the shadows so that they could not be seen clearly, and you knew that when lights were shined at them, they simply were no longer there, only to reappear in another shadow or when the light was moved away. This movie plays on those exact fears, and actually gives more details than you had as a child, details which make the creatures all the more strange and frightening. If lights make them go away, as imagined in childhood, what happens if they can make the lights go out? I say again, if you are close to your night fears from childhood, if you remember them well and if they were highly imaginitive, this movie is for you. If not, avoid it like the plague, because you will hate it.
|
|
|
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Not a 1 Star Movie, January 31, 2006
A lot of people don't like this film because it doesn't answer every question. It never answers why some people were chosen, and it never gives an answer how they can truly beat the creatures from the night. This is a dark movie in atmosphere and overall story. It is about not being able to beat your demons real or otherwise. Sometimes there isn't an easy answer to beat the monster(s) like in Jason or Freddy films. I would say to give it a chance.
|
|
|
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Are "They" Real And Are "They" Coming?, August 10, 2005
So much better than its reputation that it's scary, "They" is a cryptic, cerebral horror movie that's like the Rorscach Test of film: what one person sees in it may be vastly different than the way another views it, and that could be the main reason behind the wildly mixed reaction it's received.
The nameless, shapeless things that scare you in your room during childhood, glimpsed in shadow or heard in silence, or suddenly perceived while half-asleep, are real. Or are they? At least one young man thinks they are, thinks they're still watching, and thinks he's discovered ways to track their patterns. After getting in contact with childhood friend (and "They"'s main protagonist) Julia Lund, Julia finds herself drawn into the 'delusions' of her friend, who shows all the signs of deep mental illness and severe paranoia. But could he still be right? A number of others experiencing the same apparant phenomenon enter the picture, and it becomes uncomfortably clear to Julia that "They" may be more than paranoid imaginations.
With great performances all around, including Laura Regan (Julia), Jon Abrahams, and perhaps most of all Dagmara Dominczyk, and alternately gloomy/eerie and gorgeous/eerie cinematography (see the nighttime road scene shrouded in fog and surrounded by dense trees) this is a seriously underrated horror movie. Some have said its weakness is it only seems to be showing the tip of the iceberg of what its capable of. I disagree with the 'weakness' part, I agree that for the vast majority of the movie it's only showing the tip of the iceberg. There's something big under the surface here, something on par, perhaps, with the likes of what H.P. Lovecraft would imagine. I'm not saying I would expect Chthulu or Yog-Sottoth to show up in a potential sequel, but that something on a really mysterious and grand scale Similar to what Lovecraft would write is (or could be) at play here. The ending is shocking. (And a hundred times preferable to the Alternate Ending, which not coincidentally was the last Alternate Ending on a movie I really loved that I ever watched. I'm kind of thinking now, 'if it's great the first time around I might be better off skipping the alternate, lest it dilute the movie in my mind'. This alternate ending kind of weakened "They" in my mind but only for a few weeks, after which it returned to its lofty status in my heart. Some people apparantly liked the alternate ending Better though, so you'll have to make up your own mind on whether you personally want to check it out) The ending also leaves room for a sequel, but they would probably need to go Really big budget if they want to really explore the entirety of that iceberg. Maybe a novelized sequel by a skilled author instead if they can't afford to do the follow-up right? Sequel or none, this movie is a great one, a good 8.5 or 9 out of ten. Also recommended (in more or less the same vein): "In The Mouth Of Madness", "Boogeyman" (2005; haven't yet seen the unrelated 80s movie of the same name), this year's stunning "Dark Water" remake (haven't seen the original yet), the "Ring" series (originals and remakes), "The Shining" (I prefer the '97 version, others prefer the '80 version), "The Sixth Sense" and science fiction's "The Arrival".
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
DVD ~ Josh Hartnett
DVD ~ William Sadler
DVD ~ Geoffrey Rush
DVD ~ Mike Vogel
DVD ~ Kristen Bell
