I thought this was a good film. Nice little bottle story of people going insane in an isolated situation. It had a really strong script and performances, but I did think it occasionally almost undermined them with choices that verged on parody and would have fucked it up if everything else weren't so strong.
I like the way the demon isolates Thomasin and seems to have a goal and even a sort of character when you look at the movie as a whole. That's missing in a lot of films about spooks.
Few too many northern accents, but the ending got me rock hard. Fucking Finchey as well. What did you faggots think?
>>67454174
FUCK YOU FAGGOTS JUST KEEP SPERGING ABOUT YOUR CAPESHIT
>>67454174
Just saw this. Had the strongest acting I've ever seen in a horror film. And I didn't know how it was going to end. And it had great tone. So breddy gud
>>67457827
Again, the judiciously period-accurate dialog was one of those things that verged on parody and almost fucked it up, but I was really shocked at how human all the characters seemed, because Puritans are really easy to just make cartoons.
The caption at the end that almost said 'based on a true story' nearly made me hate it though.
>>67457929
>verged on parody and almost fucked it up
Are you kidding me? It was fucking perfect. The strongest point of the time is how it accurately captures the period in general, in my opinion.
>>67457972
It was a little bit much. They could have made it a little less Elizabethan, just a little. You have to translate things from a different time to make that time relatable, sometimes. People don't talk that way anymore, it comes very close to being comedy occasionally. Like when Finchey actually says 'didst thou cut a deal with that goat'.
>>67458095
Sometimes, yes. But this wasn't one of those times. They were striving for complete accuracy to really push the theme they were going for. It worked amazingly well, and honestly I would have liked the film way less if they had done away with accuracy for the sake of making things relatable.
This isn't supposed to make you relate to the characters, it's supposed to show the viewer how creepy and paranoia-indulcing these folk tales really were in minds of those people.
>>67458095
Why would anyone relate to someone from more than 2 centuries ago, jesus you're retarded
>>67458419
Because you're watching them in a movie and you need to identify with the characters unless you're a fucking Josef Fritzl and you're just there for that hot witch pussy and infant murder.
>>67458594
>you need to identify with the characters
Not every film is about relating to the main characters, ffs anon.
>>67458719
You need to at empathize with at least one of them on a very basic level, yes. I honestly felt that way about all of the characters, but the dialogue almost undermined that. Didn't do it, but it came close.
