![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
You Might Be the Killer Review
Oct. 6th, 2018 09:01 pmRemember that horror flick that was written by two bored writers on twitter? Which cast Alyson Hannigan and Fran Kanz in the two lead roles? Entitled You Might Be the Killer?
Well...I just watched it and..it's not very good. Predictable. I did not care about anyone. And I was mostly bored.
Horror flicks aren't unlike mysteries, romances, or any other genre in that one thing must be accomplished at the very beginning of the story -- you have to get the audience to care about your characters. They need to either like or hate them. Not struggle to remember who is who, and what the characters names are...And it is very important that the audience care whether any of the characters die.
* Jurrasic Park was successful because I cared about all the characters even the supporting. I got to know them, I could tell them apart.
* Halloween...I cared about Laurie Strobe and her charges.
* Aliens...I cared about everyone in the film, I was emotionally invested, and I wasn't sure what would happen.
* Terminator -- I care about everyone in that movie.
Even The Shining -- you care about Danny, you care about his family. The viewer is invested.
Kevin Williamson's "Scream" works because you care about everyone and are shocked by who the killers are.
Here? I didn't care. Outside of Chuck and Sam, I had troubles remembering who was who and what each character's name was. The writers were more interested in the metanarrative than the characters. The only half-way decent dialogue was between Chuck and Sam. And we are told very little about either. Outside of the fact that Chuck works at an all night comic/video/gamer store in the middle of strip-mall hell, and that Sam is tasked with running his family's summer camp, there isn't much information. We are also told the cliche rules of "Slasher" horror flicks which were more or less created by far better film makers and writers such as John Carpenter, Wes Craven, and whomever did the Friday the 13th flicks.
Cabin in the Woods which is heavily meta-narrative, is more of a twist on the classic trope, and far less predictable, also I cared about the people in the film and it was fun. This movie feels very one joke. And the joke can go only go so far. It worked on the Twitter feed, it does not work as a fully blown two hour movie on Syfy, interrupted by a godzillion commercials.
As for the twist? Saw it coming from a mile away. In fact I was sort of hoping they did something else. If I were to do one of these things? I would have flipped the casting, had Franz play Chuck and Hannigan play Sam. And made a few other tweaks here and there. My problem with the slasher flick is it has been done to death. We all know what happens. And there doesn't appear to be anything new to say about it. Actually Whedon and Williamson pretty much covered all the various ways it could be analyzed and subverted.
That's the non-spoilery review, below is the spoilers...
( eh spoilers )
Well...I just watched it and..it's not very good. Predictable. I did not care about anyone. And I was mostly bored.
Horror flicks aren't unlike mysteries, romances, or any other genre in that one thing must be accomplished at the very beginning of the story -- you have to get the audience to care about your characters. They need to either like or hate them. Not struggle to remember who is who, and what the characters names are...And it is very important that the audience care whether any of the characters die.
* Jurrasic Park was successful because I cared about all the characters even the supporting. I got to know them, I could tell them apart.
* Halloween...I cared about Laurie Strobe and her charges.
* Aliens...I cared about everyone in the film, I was emotionally invested, and I wasn't sure what would happen.
* Terminator -- I care about everyone in that movie.
Even The Shining -- you care about Danny, you care about his family. The viewer is invested.
Kevin Williamson's "Scream" works because you care about everyone and are shocked by who the killers are.
Here? I didn't care. Outside of Chuck and Sam, I had troubles remembering who was who and what each character's name was. The writers were more interested in the metanarrative than the characters. The only half-way decent dialogue was between Chuck and Sam. And we are told very little about either. Outside of the fact that Chuck works at an all night comic/video/gamer store in the middle of strip-mall hell, and that Sam is tasked with running his family's summer camp, there isn't much information. We are also told the cliche rules of "Slasher" horror flicks which were more or less created by far better film makers and writers such as John Carpenter, Wes Craven, and whomever did the Friday the 13th flicks.
Cabin in the Woods which is heavily meta-narrative, is more of a twist on the classic trope, and far less predictable, also I cared about the people in the film and it was fun. This movie feels very one joke. And the joke can go only go so far. It worked on the Twitter feed, it does not work as a fully blown two hour movie on Syfy, interrupted by a godzillion commercials.
As for the twist? Saw it coming from a mile away. In fact I was sort of hoping they did something else. If I were to do one of these things? I would have flipped the casting, had Franz play Chuck and Hannigan play Sam. And made a few other tweaks here and there. My problem with the slasher flick is it has been done to death. We all know what happens. And there doesn't appear to be anything new to say about it. Actually Whedon and Williamson pretty much covered all the various ways it could be analyzed and subverted.
That's the non-spoilery review, below is the spoilers...
( eh spoilers )