Skip to main content

They 2002

They falls in the category of, I nearly turned it off. What an ill-conceived, poorly scripted, terribly acted piece of crap.

The gist: A group of friends had childhood night terrors in which some kind of creatures tried to kill them. In their adult life, they find out that they were "marked" by these creatures who are now coming back for them. There is something about "alternate universes" or at least "a creature world that is invisible to humans but can be inhabited by humans".

Things may get confusing from here on out if I don't stop to mention that these creatures are called (you guessed it) THEY.

Where this story falls down: Why these four people and NO ONE ELSE IN THE WORLD?! This isn't really explained (or was unsatisfactorily explained).

Why do THEY bring people into their alternate monster universe to be killed when they can maul people in the regular human world? This seems inefficient at best. And like bad writing at worst.

Why is the "crazy guy" stupid? He tries to explain to one of his friends all the "signs that THEY are coming" which includes babies crying. Now. I get that to his friends this guy is supposed to sound nuts, BUT this is simply nuts. Babies cry for all kind of reasons BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO VERBAL SKILLS. Why didn't we go with a story like, dogs barking or something that COULD be attributed to "sensing something that humans can't see"?

If any of this sounds familiar it's because you've seen a horror movie before. And because Wes Craven was the executive producer.

Huge surprise coming up here - this movie BOMBED at the box office. Then, somehow it made it out on blu-ray as part of a "collection" with one of Wes Craven's personal failures, Cursed.

Wrap up: The world may actually be a better place without this movie.

You can watch the trailer here if you literally have NOTHING ELSE to waste your life on.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rebuttal: 17 Disturbing Horror Movies You Will Never Watch Again

When I'm not watching movies, I'm reading about movies. I stumble across all kinds of articles, blog posts, book excerpts, etc. in my quest to absorb as much movie knowledge as possible. Now, I'm snotty and loud-mouthed and opinionated but I'd never begrudge another human their opinion. Seriously. You're absolutely welcome to have any opinion about any thing you want. However, I must warn you, if I think your opinion is stupid, I'm absolutely going to say so. I've recently stumbled on an article completely  brimming with so many idiotic opinions that I'm actually compelled to craft a response. Here's the gist of the original article: there are some horror movies out there that are so disturbing , you'll only ever want to watch them once. I've have taken her original list and refuted her claims without pulling her entire article over. You can read the original article here . Let's start at the beginning, with her opening statement
Post a Comment
Read more

Escape From Tomorrow

I love creative people who are willing to take risks with their art. I appreciate the refusal to do things by the rules. I'm also terribly impatient with mediocrity. Enter  Escape From Tomorrow . Created by a team of rogue filmmakers, the movie was shot in the video mode of high-end still cameras. Actors shared scripts and shooting locations across their smartphones. Shot on location at Disney World, the parks were completely unaware this was all going on right under their mouse ears. I wanted to love Escape From Tomorrow. More than that, I wanted to be completely taken with its ingenuity and creativity and - oh yes - its originality. And there is really a simple brilliance to their covert plan; all families are roaming around the parks, taking videos and chatting on their phones. Just blend the fuck in, act like you belong, and you won't get caught. Too bad the movie can be summed up as: ambitious but Rubbish. As you can imagine (or possibly know), there was a ton of con
1 comment
Read more

What Is Genre And Why Should I Care?

There are terms that always seem to come up when talking about films: director, actor, plot, theme, score, etc. These terms are all self-explanatory; no one ever asks, ‘what’s a director?’ However, there are other terms that are equally common but less clear: genre, sub-genre, auteur, oeuvre, etc. These terms are more abstract then ‘director’ or ‘actor.’ It is entirely likely that someone will ask, ‘what is genre, anyway?’ This question specifically is what I will be answering with this paper. The answer to the question ‘what is genre,’ is multi-layered: genre is a means of classification. Genre is a means of communication. Genre is a means of understanding films. Genre is a means of relating to films. To one person all movies rated “PG” are a genre – possibly one also known as “children’s movies” – while to another all movies with similar topics treated in similar ways are a genre: i.e. movies dealing with frontier life depicted in a nostalgic manner are a genre often kn
Post a Comment
Read more