"As Above, So Below"
I pondered this film for some time now. I've been trying to understand why it's done so poorly for the critics (not that that affects my opinion about a film). But I just didn't understand how we could have such stark differences in opinions about this film. I've heard it called, chiched, forced, just like all the other found footage films in this "saturated genre". And I thought none of those were true about this film. Save maybe "forced" in some moments.
Where to begin with this convoluted breakdown. The film clearly had some absurd qualities. First and foremost is the painfully contrived female protagonist. A mid-twenties girl who is fluent in 4 languages and 2 dead languages and 2 PhD's. Oh and a black belt in Krav Maga. She was beautiful, adventurous, intelligent, brave. Really? Too much. Waaay too much. HOWEVER. I know why they did it. For the sake of the story they needed a character who could do all of those things. The solution to this would've been simply to cast an older person. But that wouldn't cater to the targeted audience. They needed a full cast of young 20 somethings. There were other small things that were a little far fetched. Like "oh they conveniently had enough cameras for everyone and they never broke or got water damage." Of course. For the sake of a film in this type of genre to continue that had to be the case.
First I would like to debunk the myth that the "found footage" genre is saturated and overdone. Let me think of a couple memorable found footage films: "The Blair Witch Project".... "Paranormal Activities".... ummmm..... "Cloverfield"? I mean that's really all that stands out to me, but I'm not an avid horror fan. Maybe "Quarantine". The point is if you wanna complain about over done genres maybe you should look more in the direction of "If I stay", or "The Maze Runner" and movies alike. Or Exorcism movies. Oh. My. Gosh. Talk about overdone.
No other movie has beautifully meshed these two genres together. Historical-Mystery- Adventure and Horror. Maybe "The Mummy" but even that wasn't really going for HORROR. And maybe that's why I particularly enjoyed this film so much. I love the Historical adventures such as "Indiana Jones", "Laura Croft", "National Treasure". And they painted an idea that I don't think has been done a lot or very well. I've never seen a film that has painted Hell like they did. And I'm gonna be real, I was very creeped/stressed/scared. I think it's strongest point was it's middle act. It's build up to the finale was very well done. I continually had a sharp pain in my chest until the end. Also "George" was a pretty good actor. And the french people. Change the main girl and you've got a great movie.
In the end my reasons for why I liked it so much was that it was a fresh horror, unlike.. oh... I dunno... the thousands of possession and exorcism movies that come out every freaking year. And the concept was really intriguing.
As far as horror movies go? 9/10
I pondered this film for some time now. I've been trying to understand why it's done so poorly for the critics (not that that affects my opinion about a film). But I just didn't understand how we could have such stark differences in opinions about this film. I've heard it called, chiched, forced, just like all the other found footage films in this "saturated genre". And I thought none of those were true about this film. Save maybe "forced" in some moments.
Where to begin with this convoluted breakdown. The film clearly had some absurd qualities. First and foremost is the painfully contrived female protagonist. A mid-twenties girl who is fluent in 4 languages and 2 dead languages and 2 PhD's. Oh and a black belt in Krav Maga. She was beautiful, adventurous, intelligent, brave. Really? Too much. Waaay too much. HOWEVER. I know why they did it. For the sake of the story they needed a character who could do all of those things. The solution to this would've been simply to cast an older person. But that wouldn't cater to the targeted audience. They needed a full cast of young 20 somethings. There were other small things that were a little far fetched. Like "oh they conveniently had enough cameras for everyone and they never broke or got water damage." Of course. For the sake of a film in this type of genre to continue that had to be the case.
First I would like to debunk the myth that the "found footage" genre is saturated and overdone. Let me think of a couple memorable found footage films: "The Blair Witch Project".... "Paranormal Activities".... ummmm..... "Cloverfield"? I mean that's really all that stands out to me, but I'm not an avid horror fan. Maybe "Quarantine". The point is if you wanna complain about over done genres maybe you should look more in the direction of "If I stay", or "The Maze Runner" and movies alike. Or Exorcism movies. Oh. My. Gosh. Talk about overdone.
No other movie has beautifully meshed these two genres together. Historical-Mystery- Adventure and Horror. Maybe "The Mummy" but even that wasn't really going for HORROR. And maybe that's why I particularly enjoyed this film so much. I love the Historical adventures such as "Indiana Jones", "Laura Croft", "National Treasure". And they painted an idea that I don't think has been done a lot or very well. I've never seen a film that has painted Hell like they did. And I'm gonna be real, I was very creeped/stressed/scared. I think it's strongest point was it's middle act. It's build up to the finale was very well done. I continually had a sharp pain in my chest until the end. Also "George" was a pretty good actor. And the french people. Change the main girl and you've got a great movie.
In the end my reasons for why I liked it so much was that it was a fresh horror, unlike.. oh... I dunno... the thousands of possession and exorcism movies that come out every freaking year. And the concept was really intriguing.
As far as horror movies go? 9/10