Started By
Message

I don't get the love for "The Witch" and I'm a HUGE horror fan. Movie sucked

Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:26 pm
Posted by mizzoukills
Member since Aug 2011
40686 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:26 pm
There were a few scenes that had potential from a cinematography point-of-view, but overall it was painfully slow, the oddly muffled dialogue was distracting, Black Phillip's reveal was incredibly underwhelming, and the bonfire ceremony at the end was even more underwhelming.

I understand that some movies are better when they allow your mind to fill in the blanks, but this movie is not one of them.

The Witch was a movie with TONS of potential that didn't capitalize on the opportunity. This was a movie that needed to visually show a LOT more than it did.

I'll go so far as to say I think this movie more than any movie I can think of off the top of my head is a perfect candidate for a remake at the hands of a much more experienced and accomplished director. This movie could've been GOAT but ended up being a GOAT disappointment.

Let's just step off the bandwagon for a moment and admit that this movie was neither scary or creepy. It was just a slow movie with a few odd scenes sprinkled in.
This post was edited on 6/13/16 at 1:33 pm
Posted by GoCrazyAuburn
Member since Feb 2010
41135 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:27 pm to
quote:

Let's just step off the bandwagon for a moment and admit that this movie was neither scary or creepy.


No, because it was.
Posted by Salmon
I helped draft the email
Member since Feb 2008
86244 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:28 pm to
It was not scary, that I agree.

But it was assuredly creepy IMO

and I thought Black Phillips reveal was done perfectly and with the appropriate amount of retstraint
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
477254 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:30 pm to
Posted by Bama and Beer
Baldwin Co, AL
Member since Oct 2010
85554 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:31 pm to
I wasn't a fan at all
Posted by mizzoukills
Member since Aug 2011
40686 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:32 pm to
GoCrazyAuburn

quote:

No, because it was.



Seriously? It was a boring pretentious wasted opportunity and nothing more. It wasn't even remotely scary.

Please tell me why this movie scared you?

LOL
Posted by BigB0882
Baton Rouge
Member since Nov 2014
5422 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:32 pm to
I didn't care for it either but I knew that going in, movies about witches or possession or the devil just do not scare me in any way because I can't suspend my disbelief enough to get involved and truly scared. I had a really hard time with the dialogue as well, had to put on the captions to understand, especially the boy in the beginning.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
477254 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:33 pm to
it was not scary at all

but it wasn't very pretentious (which was my real fear)
Posted by GoCrazyAuburn
Member since Feb 2010
41135 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:34 pm to
Things don't have to be "jumpy" to be scary. This movie was a brilliant slow burn.

ETA: It was scary in the same way something like The Shining was scary. Just a general sense of WTF with a great soundtrack to set the mood.
This post was edited on 6/13/16 at 1:36 pm
Posted by Salmon
I helped draft the email
Member since Feb 2008
86244 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:36 pm to
quote:

Seriously? It was a boring pretentious wasted opportunity and nothing more.


what more did you want?
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
477254 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:38 pm to
Posted by mizzoukills
Member since Aug 2011
40686 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:39 pm to
I understood the dialogue. It just seemed very muffled at times, almost like a few characters were mumbling or someone did a poor job at sound production.
Posted by McCaigBro69
TigerDroppings Premium Member
Member since Oct 2014
45335 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:41 pm to
I didn't necessarily find it scary, but I walked out of the theater feeling like I had just watched something that shouldn't be shown and that itself made it worthwhile for me.
Posted by mizzoukills
Member since Aug 2011
40686 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:41 pm to
GoCrazyAuburn

quote:

Things don't have to be "jumpy" to be scary.


I never said or implied it should've been jumpy. It just needed to show more than it did.

quote:

This movie was a brilliant slow burn.


It was certainly a slow burn. LOL. But it wasn't remotely brilliant. It could've been brilliant but it wasn't.

quote:

It was scary in the same way something like The Shining was scary



LOLOLOLOLOLOL. I'm sorry but comparing The Witch to The Shining is laugh worthy.
Posted by mizzoukills
Member since Aug 2011
40686 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:42 pm to
quote:

what more did you want?



I pretty much explained my stance in detail within this thread...
Posted by mizzoukills
Member since Aug 2011
40686 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:43 pm to
quote:

I walked out of the theater feeling like I had just watched something that shouldn't be shown



That literally came from an official movie review on The Witch. Smh.
Posted by GoCrazyAuburn
Member since Feb 2010
41135 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:44 pm to
quote:

But it wasn't remotely brilliant. It could've been brilliant but it wasn't.


In your opinion, what would have made it better.


quote:

LOLOLOLOLOLOL. I'm sorry but comparing The Witch to The Shining is laugh worthy.


I'm only comparing them in that they are they same style of horror, i'm not comparing them in quality. Nice try though.
Posted by mizzoukills
Member since Aug 2011
40686 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:50 pm to
quote:

In your opinion, what would have made it better.



It should've shown more (and I'm not talking about cheap jump scares).

quote:

I'm only comparing them in that they are they same style of horror, i'm not comparing them in quality



The Shining and The Witch are not similar in any way. The Shining wasn't painfully slow. Kubrick knew how to film a balanced movie which is neither slow or overwhelming. He knew how to film suspense and dread.

This movie wasn't balanced. It was mostly painfully slow.



This post was edited on 6/13/16 at 1:51 pm
Posted by GoCrazyAuburn
Member since Feb 2010
41135 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 1:52 pm to
quote:

It should've shown more (and I'm not talking about cheap jump scares).


Define "more". That is a completely ambiguous complaint.
Posted by mizzoukills
Member since Aug 2011
40686 posts
Posted on 6/13/16 at 2:03 pm to
More of almost everything it didn't show. More of the first scene of the witch in the woods smearing crushed baby guts and blood on her hag body. Perhaps show a little hand or foot on the grinding stone or show her actually killing the baby. More regarding what happened between the witch in the woods and the brother. More Black Philip. And certainly MUCH MORE of the bonfire ceremony at the end.

This is a movie that needed to be more graphic.

The time from Black Philip to the bonfire ceremony should've been twice as long. Were the children in the fire? Just adding an indication of two small charred bodies in the bonfire would've vastly increased the creepiness factor 10 fold.

What if the teenage girl noticed the charred bodies in the fire? How would she react? It would've been SUPER creepy if she noticed their burning bodies but wasn't affected by it at all.

Just more of everything we didn't see.











This post was edited on 6/13/16 at 2:06 pm
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram