Feast 2 &3
General Discussion
Pages: 1
Feast 2 &3
0
posted09/26/2011 01:12 AM (UTC)byMember Since
05/21/2004 08:11 PM (UTC)
Let me start off by saying. I enjoyed the first Feast movie.
I thought it was clever, interesting and overall entertaining.
Now I'm not here to review either of these 3 movies, but, I am here to tell you how awful sequels get, let alone, just a movie in general.
What feast 2 and 3 does right is about nothing and does everything wrong.
I am not sure if it was meant to be a comedy, horror or just a stupid movie.
Yes, it makes fun of how serious people take horror movies. But it does go too far. There is a scene where a guy runs to save a baby from the monsters, and at this point i am thinking, hey maybe they are building a character here. But no, the guy runs to save the baby, and after he got him/her from the car, he starts running from the creatures and for no reason whatsoever, he throws the baby up in the air and continues running. It wouldn't have been bad, but the director or producer took it one step further, and actually shows the baby hitting the ground, blood dripping out of its mouth and then the creatures came and rips the baby apart( yes it shows this to).
I just want to know one thing. How the hell can anyone in hollywood or anyone anywhere, think that watching that would be entertianing? Its not and I am insulted that a company would be ok with that.
If you thought Bloodraynes director was terrible. Well this guy shows he can do a lot worst imo. The 2 sequels are absolute garbage. I personally can't see how anyone thinks watching a guy get both his arms ripped off( the other blown off) and a monster c***ing all over people, entertaining? I don't mind stuff in a video game, cause its a game, but when you start using actually humans in movies, there has to be a line drawn, and have some self respect for yourself when you make a movie.
I guess my question to you guys is this.
Where in a movie, do you draw a line from it being entertaining, to just being down right garbage/trash? Sometimes movies are art, but other times, they too go too far.
Oh btw, if you are thinking, hey no one made you watch this, thats true. But, after seeing the first movie, I was excited to hear about the 2 sequels after that, and wanted to see where they were taking this. But what I got, was just garbage, and for the first time ever, I wanted to burn what I just bought.
0
Btw, theres more disturbing scenes in the movies , but without ruining it for anyone, I didn't want to keep giving more away. So if you are interested, ask here and I will reply.
About Me
I am a Lurker for Rapture. My lord Cthulhu will see you all conquered. JOIN THE CULT OF CTHULHU TODAY!!!
0
Hate to ask but what exactly is more disturbing that what you just described. Don't be afraid to spoil since I'll never watch those films.
I was curious to know what you were talking about, so I had to look it up.
It doesn't disturb me.
It does, however, confuse me. I'm not sure what the director was going for here.
Comedy? I don't think so. They made the baby getting eaten scene too vivid for that. Like, with his arm laying there afterwards... That took it too far for it to be comedy.
Horror? Maybe... But the shot of the baby in the air was too silly, as were the majority of the actors.
I don't know. I can't see this appealing to a large crowd, that's all. Aren't movies supposed to appeal to someone? I just don't get it.
It doesn't disturb me.
It does, however, confuse me. I'm not sure what the director was going for here.
Comedy? I don't think so. They made the baby getting eaten scene too vivid for that. Like, with his arm laying there afterwards... That took it too far for it to be comedy.
Horror? Maybe... But the shot of the baby in the air was too silly, as were the majority of the actors.
I don't know. I can't see this appealing to a large crowd, that's all. Aren't movies supposed to appeal to someone? I just don't get it.


About Me
0
torchia Wrote:
Comedy? I don't think so. They made the baby getting eaten scene too vivid for that. Like, with his arm laying there afterwards... That took it too far for it to be comedy.
Horror? Maybe... But the shot of the baby in the air was too silly, as were the majority of the actors.
Comedy? I don't think so. They made the baby getting eaten scene too vivid for that. Like, with his arm laying there afterwards... That took it too far for it to be comedy.
Horror? Maybe... But the shot of the baby in the air was too silly, as were the majority of the actors.
The first film was intended to be both... I think. To me, it felt like one of those throwback movies paying tribute to B-movie creature horror (which is strange, because B-movie creature horror never went away; wouldn't it make more sense to just use the considerably-high budget to make an actually decent horror movie? Do B-movies really deserve any tribute at all?).
Haven't seen the sequels, but I didn't like the first film. It's just not what I look for in a horror movie. I'll never understand the philosophy behind over-the-top horror movies: horror movies have to feel realistic, or they're simply not going to scary. Horror films more than any other genre need to feel realistic to work.
That said, "Feast" was at least sophisticated in presentation. These sequels sound both dumb and pretentious, and that's a horrible combination.
Pages: 1
© 1998-2025 Shadow Knight Media, LLC. All rights reserved. Mortal Kombat, the dragon logo and all character names are trademarks and copyright of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.