Lissa's Review of Open Water

[Lazario]

A review written entirely in a state of fear... That gave me all the validation I needed to see this movie.

I saw it last week, bought the DVD, and it was fantastic! Made the Blair Witch Project look like the chump that it was. But really, Lissa - no better selling tool in reviewing a horror movie than to say it was intense and scary. It was, wasn't it?

It was more than that, though. I loved it because first of all, I love water. I love to swim. I love to go boating, especially speed-boating. And I love those smaller cruise ships that a tour of people could go on. It's much cooler being a tourist on the water, visiting sea-country than taking your chances upsetting some Amish guy or going to Hawaii with lame novelty items on that the actual people of Hawaii only wear for tourists. And there's just so much gorgeous ocean photography, without being the typical, cliched, underwater diving and "ooh- look at all the wonders of the deep." It was as though the film intentionally stayed away from doing that so that there would be a sense of us not knowing what was under there.

Anyway - it was a great movie.

[blinkfan]

I have to disagree. Open Water was really lame and disappointing.I did not like the characters because they were so one dimensional.I didn't think it was scary or even interesting. The only good part was the credits in my opinion because then you know it's over.
I also disagree with the fact that you think this film was better than the Blair witch project. That movie was horrifying. Lissa had a fantastic and funny review. So 300 kudos to Lissa.

[Lazario]

(Potential Spoilers)

Just because the Blair Witch Project came first, doesn't mean the fact that it had a bunch of whiny, annoying, obnoxious losers is null or void. Or it's played out photography. Or it's completely nondescript ending. It's the most overrated low budget film and the worst cult movie ever made.

Open Water was far superior because the characters were better, smarter, and what happened to them wasn't their fault. They were in the right spot and at the right time, they weren't filming themselves the whole time when they should have been looking for a way out. At least what happened to them was the boat crew's fault. What kind of movie can be any good if the stupid idiots we're watching in peril were too stupid to stop filming, and got themselves into the whole mess they were in in the first place? In Open Water, it just so happens that any of the pairs of divers could have found themselves in these 2 characters positions. While the morons in Blair Witch were purely imbecilic.

And they weren't one-dimensional. First of all, this is realistic filmmaking. Just like Blair Witch. If Open Water's characters had been one-dimensional, they would have been doing the same thing all the time. But they weren't. They did everything they could to help each other (unlike those retards from Blair Witch), but the intensity of their situation also made them angry with one another. And unlike the characters in Blair Witch - these divers actually knew about diving. So it was only the fact that they had been stranded by someone else's mistake that was responsible for their dilemma.

It just makes more sense to watch a movie about people who know what they're doing. Because if the characters don't, than the movie (Blair Witch) slips into just watching them act stupid and yell at each other for 28 minutes straight - which was the entire 2nd third of the movie. If you think that part of Blair Witch was suspenseful, than by that logic - I should be scared to death everytime somebody's card is rejected at the ATM. "Your card has been rejected! Your car payment will be late! Your card has been rejected! Your bills will bounce! Your card has been rejected! Your family will starve! Your... card... has... been... rejected!"

Then, Open Water was shorter and time was much better allotted to the sections of the movie. And their situations at every point of the movie actually had a purpose. And hey - at least we knew what was going on in Open Water. Stupid Blair Witch left everyone guessing what happened in the entire last 9, 10 minutes of the movie. That's pathetic. It's the same as shutting the movie off and an Usher coming out and saying to the audience, "the makers of this film have asked us to stop the film at this moment because you are now part of the movie. And your job is to... use your imagination to figure out what happens. You're now a part of film history - how does it feel?" Can we say - "ripped off"? In Open Water, less than 3 minutes were the least bit confusing (whether or not Susan killed herself).

[Lissa]

But really, Lissa - no better selling tool in reviewing a horror movie than to say it was intense and scary. It was, wasn't it?

Hey, people are welcome to go see it and enjoy it- it's not like some others where I think the movie is terrible. I freely admit that I despise horror and sharks terrify me, and this movie was not at all something I should have been watching. That's the beauty of MRFH- different reviews on movies. If someone else had reviewed it, you probably would have gotten a totally different review.

Never bothered to see the Blair Witch Project, because the camera techniques give me motion sickness even watching short snippets (Evil Dead 2 ranks low on my lists of movies to watch for the same reason.)

[Lazario]

For me the biggest difference is - both Open Water and Blair Witch Project derive terror from realistic situations. So it's the same as saying - if you were in those situations... In Open Water, I would be scared. Really scared. In The Blair Witch Project, I wouldn't be. Because the key to survival in that movie is : put down the camera and get out of the woods. In Open Water - you're screwed. In Open Water, the people are 2 normal, intelligent individuals who actually have the first idea what they're doing, have been trained to dive, have instructions to do it right, and one of them has seen a lot of programs on the Discovery channel. So it's not their fault the boat left them behind. In Blair Witch, we have 3 completely ignorant, stupid, annoying people who complain the whole time and swear up a storm - and I can't be sympathetic toward people like that. Then, they're filming their whole experience. Which is stupid and 100% illogical. You can't compare the 2, Open Water is the only one that can be the least bit tolerated. And once you watch it, you see how much information drives the story, then how much technical ingenuity the filmmakers used (the use of DV-digital video, and that spectacular sequence during the storm!). In Blair Witch, the shaky camera and those absurd little sticks were all there was for creativity. Gee, who wins?

I guess it all comes down to what activity is more fun - camping with fools or swimming with smart people.

[Spiderdancer]

lazario said:

For me the biggest difference is - both Open Water and Blair Witch Project derive terror from realistic situations.

Dunno about realistic. I know there are some amateur filmmakers here on the site, but I doubt most of them go charging off into the woods with two cameras and two other people, and I sure as heck know that's not realistic for most of us. Ditto diving, which is not a regular person's sort of hobby.

I suppose it's still realistic compared to, say, talking to ghosts or being stalked by an Undead guy in a mask.

[/quote]In Blair Witch, we have 3 completely ignorant, stupid, annoying people who complain the whole time and swear up a storm - and I can't be sympathetic toward people like that. Then, they're filming their whole experience. Which is stupid and 100% illogical.[/quote]

Actually I'm in complete agreement here. But then, I think I'm one of five people, another one being Laz, who hated that movie.

[/quote][/quote]

But not this, which is sort of rude.

I haven't seen Open Water. But Lissa, you wrote a great review.

[blinkfan]

I just say that Blair Witch was scarier and more entertaining.Open water was not. To each their own.

[pfrsue]

blinkfan said:

To each their own.

Exactly. Hurray for diversity! The world would be a very boring place if we all liked the exact same things.

Thanks for keeping it civil, guys.

This message brought to you by the Society for the Prevention of Summary Thread Deletions and by the letters J, B and Q.

[Lazario]

I just had a conversation with myself (actually, that's not true ), and I decided that diversity can also be a bad thing.

Seriously though, when it comes to this movie - people wanted it to be good. It wasn't. It was pretentious and stupid and the people who overrated it fell for it - hook, line, sinker. But I swear to God, the passage of time will make everyone come to their senses. Open Water took the high road and was better for it. But since this is a world where people keep sticking metal objects into light sockets - it will probably never get the respect it deserves. I just wish people could appreciate intelligence a little more instead of feeling belittled by it. What ever happened to craving to be smart?

Blink, if you want to tell me what you liked / thought was good about Blair Witch - I will listen and look it over without criticising it.

[blinkfan]

Spoiler Warning. Please remember to put warnings on posts like this, Blinky. Okay? - Sue


I thought that BWP was better because I liked the characters alot more.I also felt the movie felt more real.True They could have lived if they had stopped listening to Heather but they still would have been lost. And it's not like they could have gotten out.They kept trying to get out but they were far to lost and tired to use their minds.I also thought that BWP was far more emotional.

I did enjoy Open Water for about 10 minutes. Maybe I should rewatch it. But really don't feel like renting that particular movie ever again. But the main reason I didn't like this movie is because the characters were annoying. (Not to say Heather from BWP wasn't either) But these characters were really annoying. I in no way felt bad for them when they were being chewed on or when they eventually SPOILER die. I cared for the characters in BWP,I wanted them to live,In open water I couldn't care less if they lived or died. But hey Lazzie I respect your opinion. I am just saying I felt BWP was better.

[Lazario]

I suppose I respect your opinion too. Problem is, I still don't understand what it is. I mean, how you got it.

When it comes to forming opinions - there are 2 categories. They are unnamable. So we'll just call them former and latter. The former example - things that are in your blood or you can't help them. Like, your taste in food. You like what you like and the reason for it is purely scientific. A matter of things we barely understand. There's no opinion when it comes to food. You like what foods you like and that's it. The latter example is - opinions on things that require thought. Art is often one of those things. Paintings are an example of Former. But movies are an example of Latter. Movies aren't just good because someone likes them. Because they are made in a way that requires thought to process what they are.

For instance - you say Open Water's characters are annoying but The Blair Witch Project characters aren't. That most likely has something to do with who the characters in Open Water are in relation to what sort of people you find annoying in your life. Because like I said, the characters from Open Water are more normal than those in Blair Witch. And that's true. Generally, these two people are more like the majority of Americans than those 3 from Blair Witch. Therefore, it doesn't seem to me that they are all that annoying after all. But the characters from Blair Witch... how many people do you know that, is it normal for them to, say the word "f***ing" 50 times in the space of 3 minutes, for instance: in a public place? That would be rude and annoying. The manner of these 3 characters from Blair Witch, regardless of where they are, makes them much more annoying. So now, let's take stock of the fact that their behavior didn't change in regard to their language when they got scared, the volume of their voices just increased. That alone does not signify terror or make their situation any more real.

In regard to your opinion, I still don't get it. So I can respect you until the cows come home. I certainly appreciate the fact that you've been completely civil to me the whole time I've been on this board. But your opinion seems unexplained to me. So I don't get it. And I guess I never did.

[pfrsue]

lazario said:

In regard to your opinion, I still don't get it. So I can respect you until the cows come home. I certainly appreciate the fact that you've been completely civil to me the whole time I've been on this board. But your opinion seems unexplained to me. So I don't get it. And I guess I never did.

He doesn't have to explain it and you don't have to get it. He likes Blair Witch Project better than Open Water. You like Open Water better than Blair Witch. I wouldn't touch either of those movies with a ten foot cattle prod.

Group hug!

[Lazario]

I never said he had to explain a thing. But it would help for future reference if I could understand where he was coming from - you know, help me appreciate other points of view than my own? I didn't say I liked Open Water and didn't like Blair Witch Project, that was obvious. I said one was good, the other was bad. There is a difference. If other people in fact hear / know what constitutes each of our definitions of bad and good, than it's like a higher understanding. And knowledge like that can never be bad.

It's just thinking - not too hard.

And just because I ask questions before I hug... Means I catch fewer germs before I suck up 2nd hand air.

[Al]

I saw them both and enjoyed both of them thoroughly. I think I was one of the lucky people who had never heard of TBWP when it came out, knew absolutely nothing about the film, and saw it at an advance employee screening at the movie theater I worked for on the recommendation of a coworker. The only people in attendance were folks who wanted to be there, and it came off as a really good, scary, experience. Though I saw Open Water with the general public, I was still lucky enough to be in a theater where no one yelled at the screen or made out with their girlfriend rather than involve themselves in the movie. In my estimation (not that I'm presenting a brand new theory or anything): context good, experience good; context bad, experience bad.

As far as the whole 'just put down the cameras' thing; it's a conceit of the movie. Either you buy it or you don't. If you can't suspend your disbelief, then it's going to have a giant impact on how everything else in the film is perceived. People who aren't willing to accept, even a little bit, that Superman can put on glasses and fool everybody into thinking he's Clark Kent, will not enjoy a Superman movie. Every time the big blue Boy Scout appears onscreen they will yell and stamp their feet, "It's Clark Kent, you idiots!" and never quite clear that hurdle.

Not that this alone will make or break a movie, there can be prenty of reasons why a movie can be uninteresting, but it's a strike against the film right out of the gate. Nor is this exclusive to any one person, everyone (myself included, of course) does this to a movie now and again. Roger Ebert's review of A.I. Artificial Intelligence revolves around the fact that he cannot accept the main character as someone he can invest in. He refuses to entertain the idea that David (the boy) is anything other than a bunch of gears and circuit boards responding to programming. I hesitate to bring that movie up because of the bad rap it gets in these hallowed halls, but I think it's a perfect example. If you are unwilling to believe that this character can transcend being a mere machine, the rest of the film will be lost on you, and that's a lot of celluloid to sit through.

...and that's the rest of the story.





...I had no way to end this post...

Al

[Lazario]

gunslingeral said:

As far as the whole 'just put down the cameras' thing; it's a conceit of the movie. Either you buy it or you don't. If you can't suspend your disbelief, then it's going to have a giant impact on how everything else in the film is perceived.

Yes, that's entirely true. But in regards to the Blair Witch Project, it's a matter of suspending disbelief so much that the person watching isn't even there. It's asking too much of the viewer on account of it's own ultra-highly flawed structure. In fact, most of why the viewers that accepted this film bought that they 'couldn't put down the cameras' (which we know they could have), is because the movie manipulates them - the viewer knows that the camera equipment isn't theirs', and if it was - it's so expensive, that they can't abandon it. It only 'worked' because of our technology-savvy culture. Like a character who would refuse to get out of a car when a wild tiger was in it... if it's a brand new Lamburgini - "don't get out, that car's expensive! Someone could steal it while you're gone!" Same sort of situation. It's really a shamefully easy way to get the audience to 'buy' it. But in the movie, everyone was so focused on the stupid documentary and camera and lugging around all that equipment that it slowed them down a lot and helped made them tired and lost. And it's completely illogical that if they were really that scared and honestly afraid for their lives, that they would be taping it. They can't use the "suspension of disbelief" excuse if the movie is supposed to be realistic.

Suspension of disbelief in this situation can only work if the threat to the characters is supernatural - not the reason for why they feel compelled to record every second of fear they experience.