• Before you can add your own film to the site you will need to be a contributing member of our filmmaking community.

    Join the site to remove ads and read more about How to Submit Film.

it's called CONSTRUCTIVE critisism

S

shmoodles17

Member
My movie was posted today, and I got this review:
"This movie was totally not scary at all. It was so long and so boring to watch. The acting was OK though for the teenage part but for the "Rebecca" part, it was horrible.

- Ryan Gordon"

I did not get anything from this review. All he was doing was saying how bad my movie was. Maybe he didn't like it, fine with me. I would just like to know what I can do better. Am I wrong in not wanting such a rude response to a movie I put a lot of work into? I deserve at least some constructive critisism...not just critisism.
 
My movie was posted today, and I got this review:
"This movie was totally not scary at all. It was so long and so boring to watch. The acting was OK though for the teenage part but for the "Rebecca" part, it was horrible.

- Ryan Gordon"

I did not get anything from this review. All he was doing was saying how bad my movie was. Maybe he didn't like it, fine with me. I would just like to know what I can do better. Am I wrong in not wanting such a rude response to a movie I put a lot of work into? I deserve at least some constructive critisism...not just critisism.
 
Haha, you make a good point shmoodles17. Hi, I'm Ryan Gordon and I posted that. There are a lot of people that give reviews like that. I gave you plenty of constructive critisism. For example:

"This movie was totally not scary at all".

-Make it more scarier. There are plenty of ways to make it more scarier, There was one part that was scary though, the hand poping right into the camera really fast, that made me jump, do more of that you know. Also, way way way more blood, makes things much better.

"The acting was OK though for the teenage part but for the "Rebecca" part, it was horrible."

-It didn't look like your actors were trying hard enough, Your the director, if it doesn't seem right to you, then tell them. Just don't be mean or anything.

Sorry about that man. I didn't mean to like bash on your movie there. If I did it was an accident. I'm sorry. But it was only one review, there will be plenty more where that came from.
icon_smile.gif


-Like your website by the way.
 
Hey Ryan, just a quick question with no flaming whatso ever attached to it.

Out of all curiosity, why does more blood make things much better, in a horror movie anyway?

Once again, simple a question, I'm not challenging your idea, just inquiring.
 
Well, I guess its kind of just my opinion I guess. But doesn't everyone like seeing people get shot and all this blood flies out and it gets all over the wall. I mean c'mon, who doesn't like blood? Haha. In a horror movie it makes it much scarier if there is a lot of blood, right?
 
That review was not half as bad as a lot of others. You stated what you didnt like nstead of just saying "This film sucked". Good to see you backed up your opinion anyway!
 
i'm gonna have to disagree with you on the blood mr. ryan
icon_smile.gif
the same old stuff in a horror movie gets old, sure its disgusting and horrifying to see blood fly all over the place, and limbs get ripped off, and sharp metal implements driven through people. but it can be much more terrifying if it something new, and especially if you don't understand it. Take The Eye for example, or Signs or The Village. They're not traditional horror movies at all, and yet they can be totally terrifying at some points.
 
"Take The Eye for example, or Signs or The Village. They're not traditional horror movies at all, and yet they can be totally terrifying at some points. "

Yeah, but Signs and The Village both suck! Seriously, blood is not required for a good horror flick, but I haven't seen any directors on here that are good enough to build suspense and achieve the desired results without it.
 
Whoa Whoa backup. I'm going to have to disagree with you on this Evan. Signs was great. I didn't like The Villiage that much but signs was excellent. It was the first alien movie M. Night made, and I think he did a good job.
 
The only thing wrong with signs was the ending. The alien looked horrible and it felt so anti climactic.

bllod is not needed to make a movie scarier. Sometimes, just hearing the resulting squish is enough.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by braininabox:
Neither The Ring nor Memento used a drop of blood, and they were both suspenseful. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Memento actually had a lot of blood in the opening scene, where he kills teddy. and when he beat up Dodd. And a bunch of other parts.

And the ring had that ocean of blood in the video, from the horses, you know?
 
"Whoa Whoa backup. I'm going to have to disagree with you on this Evan. Signs was great. I didn't like The Villiage that much but signs was excellent. It was the first alien movie M. Night made, and I think he did a good job."

I thought it was pretty poor. M. Night Shyamalan is a second-rate filmmaker, IMO, masquerading as someone on the A-list. His movies are all centered on cheap, unfulfilling gimmicks, and as such hold up terribly to repeat viewing. Once you knew the "secret" of The Sixth Sense, did you immediately watch it over and over again?

Memento had plenty of blood. The Ring wasn't scary or disturbing at all, IMO. Although after you've seen Cannibal Holocaust no American 'horror' movies can create the desired effect...
 

Best Reviewed Films

View more items
Back
Top