I am not a big fan of this style of filming. The fly on the wall 'Blair Witch Project' and 'Paranormal Activity' type filming has never worked for me. It may for some. I still wanted it to work and, yes there was some good moments.
The filming was not lower end of bad but somewhere between.
After watching 'The Devil Inside' upon its UK release, I left leaving the cinema a little disappointed. Is it the worst film of the year? It may well be for some. I like to stay middle of the road with this one.
The movie makes a trip to the Vatican, and I recall a statement which pointed out that they do not endorse the movie. Upon seeing this I thought I would be seeing something which I really should not.
Although, after reading the negative reviews from stateside, I was not expecting a great deal.
I went into the viewing open-minded however, as bad film press has not always stood up for me in the past.
Isabelle heads to the Vatican complete with camera to drop in on her mother. The mother having killed people in a possessed and murderous state. Of course, priests are involved, and Isabelle and the priests intend to carry out an exorcism on her mother.
The dialog is stale and the swearing from those possessed seemed somewhat obvious. Although, I suppose the subject matter lends itself to this. Some of the dialog I enjoyed however. It would be wrong to say it was all bad.
I was not impressed by the filming techniques either. Trying too hard to show drama through fast movements of the camera. Even 'Paranormal Activity' did not work for me, so this inferior style of shooting to that film was never going to hit the spot. When the filming slowed it was all much more pleasing on the eye, so there were some positive aspects technically.
Something more revealing? I was hoping for such. There I was hoping to learn something more from this film.
I learnt some points surrounding the Catholic church. I liked the way, the main characters rallied against convention to do the work against the demonic forces.
It did not reveal any great insight for me. I just felt I had seen most of the content before. However, anyone who has not seen this kind of film before will find it most revealing.
However, tackling this subject matter, was brave as it is a more than dangerous area. So this must be remembered when looking at the good merits of the film.
The film's takings at the box office will dwarf the production costs, so my after thoughts centered on the need to have more funds spent on dialog and the actual scene to scene filming. I also found the characters dull and a better plot would have sharpened them up I think, and I may have left the cinema more content. But this lack of budget allows for this kind of filming, so we need to keep up the positives. We get what it says on the tin.
So, when taking off the rose tinted spectacles, it was not too bad at all.
There were only a few scary and spine chilling moments in the entire plot, but the hair raising moments were good, I must admit.
I am still wrestling with the ending? Answers on a postcard please! Well they all end up dying! How's that for content? The ending was very interesting viewing I must admit as I was not expecting it.
Was it the bigger budget, bigger ideas, bigger acting or just did it need to be a bigger film?
I think a realistic, positive view on the film has to be adopted.
Looking at the weight of funds and my over-expectations, I went on to think more positive about the showing.
There was little on those scary intimate moments. Maybe it was the lack of these. Still wondering?
Having problems with a ghost?
http://ghostclearanceuk.weebly.com
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق