1. It’s a bad sign if your metafictional send-up of slasher flicks makes it look like the director hasn’t actually watched any slasher flicks in the past 20 years.
2. I got the vexing impression this was the kind of movie where any complaint you voiced about it could be indecisively handwaved as being “intentional.” It didn’t scare me and I didn’t give a shit? That was intentional! Vaguely uncomfortable and exploitative and creepy? Intentional! Nonsensical and internally inconsistent? Intentional!! Stereotypical? Intentional!!!! Predictable? That was all intentional, you Philistine!!! Boring? Incoherent? Shallow? All intentional!!!! Somehow!!!!! Don’t you realize all it takes to make a watchable meta flick is to recognize the existence of meta?
Sigh. It’s a bad sign when The Hunger Games treated your central theme in a more complex way. That is, if you can commit to a central theme long enough to be criticized for it.
Also, I feel like this is the plot 50% of the people on the Horror messageboard for National Novel Writing Month come up with before they realize everyone else had it.
That first point is fair. Though Sadako was in it! But I don’t know, I think if it’s a parody of horror then sure, the jokes should be more topical, but it’s not really that at all, it’s commentary on why we watch horror films, and to do that I think it’s fair to use the films that the screenwriters/director/producer imprinted on. (And made.) The fact that it’s throwbacky wasn’t a fault of the movie to me, anymore than Fright Night bothered me because the tropes they were riffing on were… uh… dated to the Buffy era.
The second half bothered me much more, and more and more based on the reviews which are all under the impression that the directors were Intentionally doing totally different things.