Why do people either hate or love those shakey first-person perspective horror movies?

Why do people either hate or love those shakey first-person perspective horror movies?

ProfessorSimon's picture

This the low to no budget forum and Cloverfield and Quarantine don't count I guess, but they are still examples of the type of movie that for some reason put people on the defensive. What is it about these movies or about those people that results in their being insulted by the film?

Share this discussion

zigzag528's picture

Personally, I liked Quarantine. But Cloverfield, you can have that one....For several reasons actually. Only one being the hand held camera shooting throughout the flick...What the F' was the monster? Where did it come from? Why is it here? And you only saw the damn thing for maybe 45 seconds throughout the entire movie....Not one question was answered in this flick. Dude with the camera dies, movie ends....No answers....

Quarantine was at least a much higher quality film. It didn't have the "shot on cell phone" look to it. It wasn't the greatest movie, but still watchable. The hand held genre doesn't really bother me so much as the quality of the film itself. If it's a good flick, it's a good flick, regaurdless of what it's shot on, or who it's shot by.....

Stay scary my friends....zigzag

babuh's picture

personally i don't care for that type of filming. it makes me sea sick or something, i get blurry eyed triying to watch.

i hated cloverfield for the same reasons ZigZag mentioned. that was a stupid unclear movie that was supposed to have monsters, well the monster must have stayed in the writers brain cause he forgot to put it in the movie, or i blnked and missed it.

i liked quarantine for the same reasons too. better film, better writting and at least you got to see the crazies do some damage.

and somebody somewhere with nothing to do except find something to bitch about is always gonna be insulted by content cause they are so bored they need some attention so they cause a fuss.  i say FUCK EM', no one makes them watch these movies and its not thier position to tell everyone els what is acceptable or not.

anyway thats my opinion.........Tongue out take it easy..

joestoutenger's picture

I saw both Cloverfield and Quarantine,they both were watchable as far as the cam-corder part it seems to be a new gimmic..being they can't beat the classics..they're trying to do sumthin new..to make people not want to watch..really how can they make me watch and enjoy what's only being done over and over again..this love or hate for sure is a to each their own kinda thing..well anyways..Peace..Joe

iommi's picture

im not real crazy about them types of movies ...but i actually liked CLOVERFIELD i wont try to defend it i liked lol  i do agree that QUARANTINE was a better movie for a the same reasons you guys pointed out ... talk later

ProfessorSimon's picture

I liked Cloverfield too. I don't think that they are REwatchable however. Cloverfield was an experience. It started with the previews that never told you what the hell was going on. All you saw was screaming, death, statue of liberty's head sliding down a new york street. So, you go curious and excited. The fact that the beast is never shown OR explained added to the appeal in my opinion. Knowing things makes them surmountable. Not knowing things is terrifying.

GOTTA love Quarantine. Though I like it because it feels like the first zombie related film to step into the shakey 1st person ring, Romero actually did one called Diary of the Dead that claims that title (as far as I know).

Nobody mentioned Paranormal Activity. I'm not ashamed to admit that I actually covered my ears and peeked through one half closed eye the very last 30 seconds of that movie.

TheGirl's picture

I happen to love those films, all of them!

Paranormal activity was a little bit silly and slow but it was darn good upon reflection. Cloverfeild was mysterious, I still don't really know what happened, but if you were in that situation would you? And Quarantine was great as well. And of course, the mother of the genre The Blair Witch Project. Of course that movie is very easy to make fun of, and very cliched but it still is good, maybe not now but when it came out it was.  I love these because they are creative, they take a new(ish) approach to fear. It is a different method of pychology at work to scare you. You become involved and the people become real to you. but that is exactly where the difference lies, if someone is looking to go see a movie and have it be a "real movie" then thay are going to hate anything that differs. Like the person who said they didn't like Cloverfeild because they didn't know what was going on... In a regular movie you see what is happening to someone, not from their perspective so you know or can guess the outcome before them, but you only know as much as the characters know, or less depending on if they get a shot of it. Its risky but I think its worth it to continue developing the genre.

Sorry to say that like I know everything, I could be wrong.

What do you think?  

beautifulmind13's picture

Loved the Blair witch project,quarantine and liked cloverfield.

I actually own quarantine and cloverfield. 

The one i really like is [REC], the movie quarantine was supposed to be based on. It had a different explanation for the state the people were in. I really liked that even if it was in spanish.

And there is another movie along the lines of Romero's Diary of the Dead....its called zombie diaries....i belive thats the name of it. Feel free to correct me if im wrong. But i dont think it was before Romero's DOTD.

HEKTIK15's picture

I love the camcorder perspective of it , it gives you a different take on things. Like the post above REC was awesome ,  compared to the Quarantine remake and Diary of the Dead got alot of shit but I dug the hell out of it. I think some people don't have an open mind and want everything with a huge budget and can't appreciate the little things.

HELLFIGHTER's picture

Im sorry but PARANORMAL CRAPTIVITY was like a high school project. The scene with the powder on the floor was done in numerous ancient COMEDIES from the 50s including ABBOTT AND COSTELLO. If people found that scary, I hate to think what they would do when faced with real terror, like a nut trying to kill you. The 5 seconds of the "possessed face" was nice. Doesnt mean the movie was any good. That being said. I have friends who actually get kinda seasick from the motion of the camera, the bigger the screen, the worse it gets. I dont mind the wobble too much unless they are really tossing it around but then you arent seeing anything. What does matter is too give some quality to the shot so it doesnt quite look so much like crap video. I dont want to pay money or waste time for something anyone can do. Its supposed to be an experience, not something you can flim on a slow day. Just my opinion.

ProfessorSimon's picture

I haven't seen [REC] but I will now on your recommendation. I agree whole-heartedly about the limitations impressed on people watching the film. If it's like an academic project of ANY kind I'd say it was 3rd year psyche experiment. The omniscient perspective that was mentioned is taken away and the viewer is forced inside behind the eyes of the camera holder, a participant in the experience. Normally, movies about ghosts and demons are particularly frightening for me because there really isn't any opportunity for the protagonist to just buck up and take a knife to the villain (he's already dead). This movie FURTHER removed my sense of control by forcing me into a corner, taping my eyes open, and making me watch a malicious demon torment a young woman and her jerk boyfriend. I respect everyone's opinion on here, especially yours Hellfighter. It's important to hear the full range of opinions from one extreme to the other.

Pages

Add new comment

Please login or register to post in the message boards.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.
<none>