i just watched a couple horror flicks, the abc’s of death, both 1 & 2.
i liked both of them. each one consists of 26 segments made by different people from around the world. every group got a letter and picked a word to go from there, like a is for apocalypse, b is for bigfoot, and so on. naturally, each piece was totally different from the last. some sucked but most ranged for pretty good to really good. i found the first one had fewer crappy segments, but the quality of the good ones in the second film was higher. so each film has a decent strong point. i was disturbed, sickened and thoroughly entertained by both flicks.
but i just read some reviews of the films and can’t believe the stupid things some people have said about them. rotten tomatoes says the first film is ‘wildly uneven.’ give me a fucking break. it’s a compilation of 26 different short films made by different people from different parts of the world (it says so at the start of both films) so it’s fucking inherent that they’re going to be all over the map. what stupid twat fails to realize that after reading such a statement?
comments like that make me wonder if some reviewers have any idea what they’re talking about, if they actually watched whatever they were reviewing or if they were texting their spouse the whole time, thoroughly distracted. i wonder if some reviewers just like to flex their vocabulary so that they feel like they’re being as creative as the people making the shit their critiquing, like “see, i could do what you do, and better. i just don’t want to.”
i think a lot of reviewers are just cowards and blowhards. everyone’s got a fucking opinion so what makes theirs any more worthwhile than anyone elses? years of liberal arts schooling that they are trying desperately to justify? bullshit. i obv talk my face off about this shit too but i like to think i’m pretty clear that it’s worthless to everyone but me, that i’m just a ranting mad bastard. i wish other narcissists could admit the same thing.