I always knew you did shit instead of a normal movie.
I don’t know what could have been worse in this movie. The first two parts of the slasher ' I know what you did last summer' it was difficult to call a good movie, but they more or less fulfilled their function, not letting go from the screen to the final credits. In some places there was a more or less clear story, in some places - acting, sometimes - good humor and, of course, noble screams.
Probably, the producers really wanted to reach the number of films at least to the trilogy, following in the footsteps of the main slasher of the time - ' Scream'. But if in the Wes Craven franchise the first film became cult, the second - very good, and the third, although significantly dropped in quality, but still remained quite good, then in the series ' I know ...' the first tape in terms of quality caused questions. Having sustained an acceptable level in the sequel, in the third film, the producers seemed to wave their hand, saying, do what you want.
They did. In the triquel, they came together:
Screenwriters, who probably carried childhood traumas from the time when he and his friends gathered at the campfire to take turns telling terrible stories, but when the turn came to Michael D. Weiss and Lois Duncan, everyone got up and left.
- Editor, who probably too literally understood the phrase ' use scissors' and really chopped the film with huge garden irons, jumping from frame to frame in a completely random order;
-operator, which parents never bought a computer with 'Photoshop', but now he has got all the filters in the world and will definitely try them. And then there's slow-mo, wow, we should stick it wherever we can;
Actors who were recruited on an ad in a free newspaper on the page between horoscopes and the crossword puzzle;
And the director who looked at all this herd and after the first take locked himself in the trailer, from where he did not come out until the end of filming.
The triquel is so fantastically bad that you watch it just for sport. It's like a challenge to myself: can I sit until the end? And there's also a certain amount of curiosity: Can the second act be worse than the first? Is the third worse than the second? Spoiler: Yeah, maybe. If the first two-thirds is just a very bad movie, the last half-hour is the kind of burp kids can be put on for bad behavior.
But there's something the movie will do for you. You'll never, ever guess who's hiding behind the Fisherman's mask this time. Honestly, if Goofy or David Beckham were there, I would have much fewer questions for the writer.
1 out of 10
The most unnecessary triquel and boring slasher of at least the 2000s. There was nothing to do with another part of “I Know...” because no one expected it to come out. The first part, despite some strains, was perceived as a “hurrah”, the second was already elevated to the absolute basic elements of the genre, and the third tries to seem interesting not only to fans of the franchise, but also to all other viewers, but it turns out that this is a bad thing.
Ninety-eight percent of the timekeeping we see is black and white. Not blue, not red, but black and white. In 2006. And this is not the case when the authors tend to observe any retro style, as, for example, it was with "Call of Cthulhu" (2005). Instead of showing us a spectacular night and scarlet blood, editors feed us the grayness that fits the script. Almost all the time we are forced to delve into the relationships of the main characters, written so weakly that even children’s games in comparison with “I always knew...” seem a stronghold of wisdom. All the murders are filmed with shaking hands, the cliché “the villain attacks from behind” and “the secondary heroes love to quietly approach and scare” prevail over the original, and the maniac himself looks as inappropriate as the pterodactyl in the encyclopedia about dinosaurs. If in the sequel we were shown an analogue of Jason Voorhees, then now we have a brother of Freddy Krueger with a similar habit of scratching his blade at hand objects to intimidate victims.
The plot is connected with the first two films only indirectly, and the identity of the killer appears in an open magical light with the ability to disappear before the eyes (literally!) and survive after very serious injuries that would kill any other person. Plus, there's a boring soundtrack and no acting. Especially "impressive" policeman, the level of indifference which did not conquer even the Russian Fedor Bondarchuk. Many scenes (especially in the second half) want to rewind to see someone kill someone. Or at least traumatizes, because, despite his magical abilities, the maniac likes not so much to kill as to mock the victims. And the audience too.
Why and for whom it was removed – I do not understand. Even “Nightmare on Elm Street” in its not the most successful period, there were more fans than “I know...” Nothing prevented the filming of an interesting story about a killer who is believable, but the writers decided to go into magic. It’s a good thing we didn’t do anything in space. Even then, everything would be more interesting.
Few self-respecting horror franchises fail to achieve the performance of three films, and I Know What You Did Last Summer is no exception. However, if “Nightmare on Elm Street”, “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and “The Scream” for all their controversial moments were able to maintain the bar of quality, then the beginnings of Kevin Williamson and Jim Gillespie was not easy to keep afloat audience popularity. The original film of the franchise, based in part on Lois Duncan's teen novel of the same name, proved to be successful both artistically and creatively. The story of four friends faced with the angry revenge of a man in a fishing suit was not that intricate, but knew how to keep in constant tension and sometimes seriously frightened. In pursuit of the success of the original, the producers decided to release a sequel that lost Williamson and Gillespie, but returned to the set Jennifer Love Hewitt and Freddie Prince Jr. But it must be admitted that on their own, the actors could not return the narrative to its former heights, becoming hostages to simple directing and frankly mediocre script. And yet, I Still Know What You Did Last Summer managed to pay off at the box office, delighting studio bosses who feared failure. Of course, despite such ambiguous results, the development of the third part also went into work, only its fate was many times sadder than that, a hundred happened with the sequel. After going through the fire, water and copper pipes of years of development, I Always Knew What You Did Last Summer, he left the wide-screen distribution schedule to entrench himself on home video media, something the franchise had never done before. Having invested a lot of money in production, the producers could not come to a single artistic denominator, excessively delayed the preparatory process and in the end gave the picture to director Sylvain White, who was just beginning to take his first steps in cinema. Add to this the frankly incompetent script of Michael D. Weiss, completely forgettable actors and crazy effects that hide disgusting special effects, and we get a depressing result that you want to forget as soon as possible and never remember.
So, the plot of the film unfolds years after a mysterious maniac in a fishing suit launched his sharpened hook and sent to the next world not one unfortunate victim. As time passed, his atrocities went from dry police reports to an unsettling urban legend that intimidates impressionable young people around the fire. And every time there is another American Independence Day, teenagers continue to remember Ben Willis, about whom nothing has been heard for a long time, but the glory of his bloody campaign will never fade. I did not forget about the maniac and five of our new heroes who went to celebrate the holiday in the amusement park to have fun and tickle the nerves of one of the comrades. However, the seemingly innocent joke turns deadly, and the victim of fear turns into a lifeless corpse, which, of course, was not part of the plans of the guys. After a short thought, the teenagers decided that they did not need to ruin their fate and decided to get rid of the body, as if nothing had happened. But that was the biggest mistake they ever made. A year after the tragic prank, the characters begin to receive mysterious reports that someone knows about what happened last summer and punishment will surely overtake those who decided to escape justice. The only trouble is that from now on young people are confronted not by an ordinary maniac, but perhaps an immortal creature with supernatural abilities. Defeating such an enemy is not easy.
The authors’ desire to bring some freshness to the somewhat stagnant franchise is understandable, and yet it must be admitted that I Still Know What You Did Last Summer is far from what fans of the very first film in the series wanted to see. Directed by Jim Gillespie from the script by Kevin Williamson. Instead of an intense detective story, which with each passing minute heats up the suspense level, we see a surprisingly faceless action that constantly rushes from horror to youth thriller and back. But at the same time, none of the genre components are fully disclosed by the authors, from which absolute nonsense is felt during the viewing, some wonder hit the screens. Trying to develop the narrative according to the patterns of the original film, Sylvain White is unable to build even a semblance of the eerie atmosphere that once frightened us. The usual introduction of the picture with an innocent victim continues no less secondary continuation of the story of completely unforgettable teenagers who will later leave our world in an accelerated rhythm. Only the viewer does not care at all. Who dies of the good old hook and why the unfortunate must be pitied? There is not a single moment or modest episode in the film that allows the audience to get closer to the characters. Moreover, they are so spatial that in some places you even want the maniac to succeed, since only his efforts can end this mess of apathy as soon as possible.
The villain in his favorite fishing suit is no longer a creature of our world. But this circumstance does not cause the slightest bit of admiration and fear, but, on the contrary, amuses and laughs, purely another comedy. No mystery in this franchise no longer exists, it was worth accepting closer to the end is also not sinless sequel. In the third film, the monster with a hook repeatedly flaunts in front of the camera lens, has amazing endurance and completely refuses to die. His methods of murder cause only condescending irony, and motives are not worth thinking about at all, because White’s tape does not dispose of an audience for the thought process. To aggravate the situation could only chaotic installation, irritating eyesight color filters and unstable camera, hiding the juiciest moments in view of insufficient funding, most of which went nowhere. Because of such dubious tricks, "I always knew what you did last summer" loses the last glimmer of adequacy. The film looks frankly cheap and extremely weak. And even against the background of other simple video sequels of popular paintings, Sylvain White’s tape looks tortured, frankly strange and completely unworthy of attention. The situation does not save even a maniac in a famous suit, who looked into the territory of Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees. Flirting with the paranormal was never a feature of this franchise and did not bring anything sensible to it.
In the end, I want to say that I Still Know What You Did Last Summer put an end to the development of a really promising franchise and there is no reason to get acquainted with this opus, which exists only because someone decided to make it. So take care of your nerves and precious time.
1 out of 10
The title of the review most accurately reflects my attitude to this film. It just shouldn't be there. Neither the director nor the writers had any idea or thought of how to make any script. A meaningless copier seems like an idea is not considered and has never been considered. And I used to scold the second part of the franchise I Still Know What You Did Last Summer in that it does not present anything. This is what really does not present anything, moreover defiles the old.
There is nothing to say about the plot, copying in its pure form, without any attempts to bring something. But I will leave it to the minds of the filmmakers, if you can call them that! How it was possible from the perfect horror film, which is the first part, in the future, to make such a “swamp mud”, I can not understand. It is not clear what was done with the fisherman, what is something in the fishing cloak. I don’t know why there are no normal characters. In the previous two parts, every single character was interesting and charismatic. And here the wood is like a log.
Acting jobs are terrible. The actress who replaces Jennifer Love Hewitt is disgusting and not even close to Love Hewitt, sky and earth. Other roles are especially male, I just freaked out, sloppy, sloppy, and again sloppy.
If you respect the first two films and haven’t seen it yet, for whatever reason, I beg you not to watch it. This is the ultimate measure of idiocy and impudence. This is a visual aid to how the creators of this masterpiece do not care about the audience and their feelings.
1.5 out of 10
After I Still Know What You Did Last Summer failed to live up to expectations and costs, the film's sequel was abandoned. And it seems that this failure can be considered the reason why it would be no longer worth making films about a maniac - a fisherman hunting young boys and girls, but as an experienced viewer knows who will definitely need fame money, without it anywhere, and the very story that ended in 1998 will come to life again, the question was only when and who. Wait, it turns out, had a whole 8 years, it was then, in 2006, the screens released “I will always know what you did last summer”.
July 4th. A group of teenagers, having decided to laugh at a huge crowd, decide to have fun and have plenty of fun at a joke they themselves made. Alas, but everything goes not according to plan - in the turmoil their good friend dies. The guys burn all the evidence and swear that no one will tell anyone, and the secret will be taken to the grave. A year passes, each of that company already lives his own life and almost forgot that incident, however, after a note that says “I know what you did last summer”, everything is immediately recalled, and after the first murder, everyone needs to be on guard, and at the same time have time to reveal the secret, about who, besides them, knows this secret.
Probably, hardly any of the famous directors wanted to make this film, and so it was given to a newcomer, Sylvain White, who certainly could not suspect such a trick. The movie is disgusting and totally unnecessary, that's the thing. It is not clear what White was thinking, most likely about huge royalties and fame, but in fact he was saddled with a real hack, which is not worth $ 20 million. If the first two movies are fun to watch, you want to turn this one off after 15 and 20 minutes, because everything in this movie is terrible. The script that Michael D. Weiss wrote also has a lot of questions. Speaking about the script, I want to say first of all that he, like the film is disgusting - almost most of it borrowed from the first film, only underwent some frivolous changes in the form of dialogue and action, over which I want to laugh - in one scene the hero, even when he is in mortal danger, tells his friends that they would leave him alone, he just walks. And there are a whole bunch of such moments, even more than the director set up. The script will even hint to us that this is not pathetic plagiarism, that the writer remembers about the first film, only it will be said in one short dialogue, for a maximum of 5 seconds. But how they messed up a maniac - a fisherman, and what they did in the final scenes is simply unthinkable. What does that mean? It's a real mess! Weakly shows his skill and cameraman Steven M. Katz – the camera does not calmly follow the actor, but runs, which is already poor in relation to the film, in some moments it dangles or moves from frame to frame, but the thing is that it would be better if the camera was not moved at all and it stood in one place! The cameraman did not seriously approach his work, as did the director and the screenwriter. I liked the music of Justin Kane Barnett, not bad, dynamic, in the spirit of previous films, but it’s a pity that this is the only plus of the film.
Even the actors are not able to save the film, and the point here is not so much in fame as in professionalism - if the heroes of the first two parts tried, out of their way, that the viewer liked their game and the film itself, the actors of this film does not care, they were removed, they received a fee and you can safely go home, and this is not the case! The actors don’t try to play, show emotions, reveal character, no, there’s something like that, but it’s not a game, just a memorized dialogue in the script, which was written by a very strange person who does not think about his work, and therefore the corresponding negativity, from which the film is even more annoying from the simplicity and the fact that he does not try to scare us. Very bad.
Total:
"I'll always know what you did last summer" is just a real piece of slag that can not only scare, but also give any emotions, except anger at the time spent. Everything in this movie is disgusting, because people don’t care about the movie, give them money, but I won’t believe that this unimaginable, god-awful movie was made for 20 million! I haven’t seen such disgusting movies in a long time and I don’t advise you to watch either, don’t waste your time on this slag, and spend those 90 minutes on something else, and it will be more useful than this misunderstanding. And yet, my question is for whom this film remains open, and probably no one will be able to answer this question.
Thank you for listening!
It was an unsuccessful attempt to continue the series. Neither a large (by the standards of such films) budget, nor the participation of the same film companies that were engaged in the creation of the first and second parts helped.
The film can be destroyed on all articles. The script is terrible: the plot is torn, the characters now and then are unclear where, without any motivation for their actions. The dialogues are stupid and as if cut off by half, here are the guys discussing the latest events, and after a couple of seconds, without switching, they are in a completely different location, and for a completely different reason.
Actors - that the actors, they are, play the next "meat teenage victims." Well, how they play, move in the frame according to the algorithm "got there-came here-said an unnecessary phrase-saw a maniac-zaoral-died." And not close to the charm of the same Love Hewitt, Gellar, Philip.
There is a musical accompaniment, but it is “out of topic”, does not create the desired atmosphere. Remember the first (and even the second) part – there each song and melody conveyed a certain state of the heroine, or the intensity of the moment. In the third part, music even with the task of "background noise" can not cope.
To my taste, the use of dark and gloomy shades in the frame did not benefit the film at all. Apparently, they wanted to add anxiety and anxiety, but it turned out repulsive.
The murder scenes are evocative...they don’t cause any emotion at all, and it’s in a slasher where people are supposed to be chopped with a damn hook! Apparently, all the special effects went to these super-cool “blinks” a la “25th frame”. In addition, the poor operator in the process of filming was periodically electrocuted - it is impossible to explain otherwise why the camera on a flat spot begins to jump and make a pretzel.
In general, it would be better not to try, but to give the money to Craven - he knows a lot about maniacs.
What an ugly and boring movie I just watched. I am ready to forgive the writers that the plot is 2/3 slime from the previous parts of “I know what you did...”, I am ready to close my eyes to the unsuccessful actor’s torment in order to squeeze out of myself at least some semblance of emotions, on the wretched scenery, on weak camera work and editing, but I cannot forgive the creators of the picture the complete absence of intrigue, tension, spectacular scenes and what they did to the maniac.
The whole film expects that the action will intrigue the maniac persona, that the main characters will conduct their own investigation in an attempt to get to the identity of the criminal, but all that the characters of the picture have is an endless, sluggish debate on whether to surrender to the police or continue to keep the secret of the death of their friend and whether to flee the city in an attempt to escape. The detective component of the film is completely devoid, and instead of a mysterious, colorful killer in a fishing suit, we, by the will of the writers and the director, have a walking mannequin, devoid of sinisterness, brutality and a kind of magnetism, which this hero had in previous films. The murders and scenes of the chase are shown so weakly, tastelessly and of the same type that nothing but a yawning attack can cause. With every minute unfolding on the screen action more and more plunges into despondency and apathy, and the further, the more irresistible grows the desire to interrupt the viewing. Until the last, there is hope that revealing the identity of the killer, the authors will be able to surprise the viewer and cause at least some positive emotions, but what the creators of the picture turned into a maniac causes a feeling of deep disappointment and regret about wasted time. Adding mysticism to the film was clearly superfluous and looks like a foreign body in a similar plot.
The only plus can be noted a few good musical inserts, nothing else to please the film is not able.
Instead of a good, light, youth horror film, when viewing which the viewer, together with the heroes of the picture, would try to unravel the identity of the killer and would enjoy colorful scenes of murders and the struggle of characters with a maniac, a mediocre creation was brought to our court, which is devoid of intrigue, tension, spectacular scenes, but oversaturated with empty dialogues that do not carry semantic load, and all this against the background of a cloned plot.
The review is not a review, but so ... let's look at two situations related to the film.
Europe. 2006. A guy goes to his girlfriend for the night. Greetings, smocks, after which the boyfriend pulls a disk out of his pocket. It's a surprise to her beloved - a new movie - a horror movie of those she loves. The girlfriend is happy, flies past the ceiling with delight, because this is a triquel to her favorite mind-blowing youth thriller, which she has been waiting for six years. The girl quits everything and sits down to watch the movie. You can't talk a guy into going to the bedroom. Honey, look what a spectacular opening credits and beautiful music, the film promises to be amazing. - It's a shell, honey, and it's rotten inside. You'll see. - Have you seen the movie? - No, but it is clear from the title that it is thrash: "I will always know..." Freeze here, it'll be "boo!" No, not now. - Honey, you're not watching. - All right, shut up. (Silences) Here, here we go, "boo!" No, I rushed. What a movie! (a few minutes later) - Honey, are you asleep? - What? Who, me? No, I'm looking, love. Here comes the fisherman with the hook! A lively bastard. Can't you kill him? Boring... Baby, are you asleep? Don't fall asleep, we still have business. But look, the fisherman is approaching the Glavheroin. It's going to be a chord! - Honey, turn it off, we'll check in the morning. - No, it's almost over. It's clear what's next. Honey, I don't know what you think, but the movie sucks to me. I can't understand what the director was thinking when he filmed it, but he probably hit his head a lot recently. Well, who would want to make a third movie after all these years? I'm pretty sure if I saw it in '99, I wouldn't like it any more than I do now. What nonsense? In the first part, of course, there was drama and intrigue, the second part, although similar to the first, but surpassed it in horror, I thought the third part will also be something new. No, the writers did not even think to change anything. The director stamped battered footage, the actors did not play, but tortured their roles, and the operator in general should be quartered for cursiveness. I can't imagine where that much money was spent, even if they bought more fake blood? - Honey, it's not that bad. I liked the movie. - You say that so as not to offend me. - Okay, love, I'm sleepy. Let's go to the bedroom. - Finally. I love you, baby.
Central Asia. Same year. From the depths of Kyzylkum, a young shepherd comes to the city. He's got the money, he sold a couple of well-fed sheep in the bazaar, now he goes shopping. Buys wonders for the house: bananas, ice cream, TV with a dividie player. Goes to the store with discs and with the appearance of a connoisseur-cinema is interested in new movies. A nice girl offers him a new super-thriller, "I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer," which she says is tearing up the internet and movie posters. This is a continuation of the super hits about the killer fisherman of the late 90s of the last century. The guy doesn't understand it much, but he doesn't give it a look, and the disc is bought. Dzhigit rushes back to his native sands and to his young charming wife Aipopek (in the open spaces of Kyzylkum, girlfriends do not get married). Late in the evening, driving all the cattle into the barn, the young couple sit in a yurt in front of the screen, and the film begins. - Sansyzbai, what is it? - It's a carousel. I've seen it in town. - That's good. Sansyzbai, who is this? This is the name of a maniac who kills people. - What's he doing? Is he going to kill her?! Oh, bah, help!!! - Stop yelling, stupid. - Here, look! He's coming, hey, look back! Mommy, they're killing you!
After the session, the stunned spouses are afraid to move, go to the toilet in an embrace, go to bed, tightly grasping each other. After that, not before any marital duties. Both fall asleep in a restless anxious sleep.
In the middle of the night, in deep silence, at the head of the couple, a loud and hoarse “bae-ah!!!” is heard. Following him, a shrill female scream fills the dark yurt. Then everything happens as if in a slow frame. Kurpacha, which sheltered the young, climbs up, exposing the floundering bare legs of Aipopek. Against the background, like an ancient Greek god, a sculptural figure of Sansyzbai rises, who with his eyes rushes to the opposite wall, where a charged double trunk hangs. With a powerful kick, he knocks out the door of the yurt and with a shotgun, he goes out so that the Terminator only gives him bows. He shoots three times into the darkness in the direction of that eerie sound, while blowing off half the head of some creature, bent behind the yurt. Not daring to approach him (if anything, because maniacs are not killed), he goes back to the yurt. It's early in the morning again. That's my wife screaming again. The noble again runs out in the costume of Adam with a gun ready, but sees his wife standing above the lamb, who lacks half a head. This was her favorite animal, which when penned fatally was far from the flock. Aipopek's Revenge is a broken TV and a discarded player. Sansyzbai’s answer is two red snake-like lines from kamchi on the young hostess’ back. In the bowels of Kyzylkum, relations are not particularly clarified.
Movies, by their vocation, should cause different reactions. Comedies, of course, are laughter, horrors are fear, dramas are tears. There are exceptional films involving, for example, anger (Snuff 102), fainting (Martyrs), nausea (Salo, or 120 days of sodom), and even suicide (Born). But when the film causes only boredom and sleep, as in the first case, and discord, as in the last - it is, sorry, nowhere. Needless to say, a weeped twenty million budget, dull and boring plot, talentless acting and, in general, the idea to shoot a slasher on a trampled scenario against the background of “saws” and “hostels”, and still shining with fundamental novelty. It would be useful for the filmmakers to reflect on the fact that the time of “urban legends” and “screams” is over, but if it is so tempting to shoot a tape in this spirit, then one could try to at least win on the naturalistic scenes of murders or on beautiful shots, or on acting, or on the stage. In general, the verdict is one - the film is unsuccessful. The time and money spent on its creation, as well as on viewing, can not be returned. But gentlemen of filmmakers have a chance to think: if you need to shoot something new according to the well-forgotten old, maybe you should do it taking into account the requirements of the time?
4 out of 10
I love I Know What You Did Last Summer and I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, so I decided to watch this movie, and it intrigued me at first, but I wish I hadn’t watched it. I rarely regret watching movies, even if I didn’t like them, but this movie is the exception. "I'll Always Know What You Did Last Summer" is a silly and ridiculous movie that has no idea or cinematic value. They say about such films that it is better not to watch them at all and not to waste your precious time.
The first two films are great and worthwhile, and so made a third film and sucked the story out of a finger and made an uninteresting and stupid movie that is frustrating and causes boredom and a desire to just turn it off. We again see new young people and a maniac killer who kills them, but the movie is so stupid that I want to forget him and not remember him.
The budget for this horror movie is $20 million, and it’s amazing. What did that money go for? It would be better if they were invested in something else and more useful than this film, which is not even a movie.
Of course, good is not enough, and we sum up: the story is filmed stupidly in the film, the actors are ordinary and play for real, and the falsity is felt, and because of this, it is immediately uninteresting to watch. I am sure that the film is talentless and does not deserve the attention of the audience. If you have not seen this movie, then it is better not to start, you will be disappointed.
2 out of 10
I will always know what failure this film has caused.
Accidentally learning that there is a third part of the famous youth franchise “I know...”, I thought it was a direct continuation of the unfinished second part, but I was wrong. The writers’ mistake is not that this film has nothing to do with the past parts, but that this film is talentless in many ways.
The plot of the triquel is in no way connected with the previous parts, and instead, the scriptwriters feed us the already familiar system - a group of teenagers unsuccessfully jokes on a friend, which leads to the death of the latter, and in order not to suffer themselves, friends give themselves a promise never to tell anyone about this case. And a year later, the same thing happens - strange notes, threats and murders.
Okay, I already accepted at the beginning of the film that we won’t see anything new in the plot plan, but that’s not the point. Not only does she ineptly copy the first part, but she also turns the battered plot into real nonsense and despondency. There is no detective branch here - in fact, 80 percent of the film consists of dialogue, some of which are horribly stupid and empty. At some point, the characters at least somehow try to find out who kills them and why, but they do it from the power of 5 minutes, and the rest of the time they do something else, although they pretend that they are in danger. I don't understand.
Now he's the maniac. In the past, Fisherman is a revenge-obsessed psychopath, a ruthless killer who acted cautiously and cruelly towards victims. The current Fisherman is a real flight of fantasy writers. From manic to urban legend, it is now something supernatural. Here and there, he is not affected by bullets, he is able to instantly move in different points of space and looks like a natural orc. What is this??? Why did the Fisherman suddenly become a demon-avenger, pursuing unknown personalities?
The film is boring, there are very few murders, and they look terribly clumsy and inept, and in general, thanks to sharp changes in frames, we often cannot understand how Fisherman kills. One shot, he pulls the hook, the other shot, the victim's all in blood. Is that a slasher?? This is a natural mockery.
Even the actors do not save the film, because they play ineptly, and do not even try to give out their emotions. There are few dynamic moments here, but they are, at least the final run of the characters from the maniac through an empty factory - almost the only bright moment in the film where there is a hint of tension. That's it. In the rest – we have a bland fake based on “I know...”, which can be seen only by fans of the first parts, and it will be a 100 percent guarantee that few people will like the film.
I don't know what you smoked that summer when you wrote Part 3.
The first part I know what you did last summer about the adventures of a maniac with a fishing hook was released in 1997. Thanks to an interesting plot, a good atmosphere and more or less normal acting, the actors became, if not a new icon, then one of the most striking representatives of the slasher genre. A year later, a sequel came out and it turned out to be quite worthy, which happens quite rarely.
And after all, the principle had to put an end to the story of the Fisherman. No, greedy producers and directors decided to make another film in order to earn extra money on the fans of the first two. It’s not entirely clear whether the film was intended as a sequel or a remake, but neither was the first nor the second. Plus, anyone who watched will have many questions, at least about the maniac himself:
Fisherman/ Ben Willis
1) How did he rise? He never had any supernatural powers!
2) Where did indestructibility and red eyes come from? Special street magic?
(3) Why did he suddenly kill fools who killed his friend (albeit using his image)? In the first and second parts of his motives were purely personal, he never claimed the role of absolute evil.
(4) If it's a sequel, where's the connection with the past? Where did all the relatives/friends/acquaintances of the survivors go in the second part of the characters? What did the fisherman forget in Colorado?
(5) If this is a remake of the first part, then why is there no new story about who the Fisherman is and where he came from? He could not fall from the sky and become a living corpse with the desire to kill stupid teenagers.
Such inconsistencies wagon and small trolley. There is no need to stutter about acting, there are no actors here either. Just a bunch of people on the street trying to play stupid characters.
I know I've seen the video and I don't want to see it again.
"What a boring, mediocre movie!, I thought on the thirtieth minute of viewing, before interrupting five times. The plot and its implementation turned out to be so far-fetched that the brain is already tired of following events. “Porridge-male” from disgusting acting and children’s problems, and besides, they try to scare us, but it turns out to make fun of us. By the way, the game is such that it seems that students of the first year of a polytechnic instead of extras know how they got to rehearsals – they are filmed: baby, say this and cover your mouth with your hand, and this guy will yell a little, and we will go to lunch.
Somehow everything in the proposed story is exaggerated: the secret will die with us - but only frightened a person, and he died tragically from this. You think I tripped the wrong way. However, we cry, guys, we cry, we worry for the characters who are nervous, cut veins with hooks, from which for some reason only three drops of blood flow out (the clotting is bad).
And the action lasts, and the hook whistles in the air, and the conversations go in circles. Who is doing it, who is doing it, who is... Detective turntable, when everything is found out and not “clarified”. When the time comes to escape, they are not saved. It would be funny if it weren’t so commonplace.
However, there were just good passing moments, like, say, a rock concert or letters from photographs. Or the episode when the maniac pretended to be a mannequin (in general, his unexpected appearances are quite amusing). The budget “I will always know...” wasted boldly: the creators were not lazy to send assistants to stores for plastic, paper (which was then torn to pieces), hook and other attributes (and sometimes in such thrash except for ketchup, depicting blood, you will not see anything sensible). Children’s tasks are completed, adults are not even considered.
The villain turns out to be cunning, unkillable, mysterious, ugly, focused, cold-blooded, blah-blah, but we do not need such a villain - even his walk is not impressive to say: ay-yay-yay, what a bad person. For the heroes do not worry a bit, the characters are not spelled out, it turns out who-all-these-people. It’s just a matter of getting the timing over quickly. No, don't think about it, I was guessing what I was going for when I turned on "play": sometimes the mood goes into thrash. Just after precious minutes it changes, and involuntarily comes pity for the time lost.
Though why killed? It was interesting to watch the horrified victims. You know, that's kind of how housewives watch TV shows while cooking lunch or washing things. “Everyone has his own bad, as they say.”
The video is shot with good cameras, an acceptable picture adds a score. Plus, we note that this is not a movie, but just an additional bonus to the first two films to “cut the money”, so treat “creation” is not by high standards.
4 out of 10
It would be better to give 20 million dollars to the poor.
How often do you ask yourself this question: “What drives filmmakers when their project is doomed to failure?” But let’s look at it from the other side: what films are produced with this diagnosis? Of course, those who can bring at least some profit. No one is claiming the audience sympathies prize, but a little money you want and for this they go to any, if I may say, shenanigans. "I will always know what you did last summer" - a clear example of one of the most common shenanigans, where producers clearly play only on the name of the picture. Before the premiere of this stupid thriller, two youth horror films with almost identical titles appeared on the screens, but they became sales hits in the days of the premiere, and the audience was able to appreciate them. To "I'll always know what you did last summer" The latest statements don't apply at all!
The film is disgusted by the quality of the video. Torn, without integrity, with constant swings and disgusting colors, just turn away from the screen, constantly want to do something else, but do not pay attention to what is happening in the film. The latter also directly depended on the stupidest scenario, without a bit of imagination, and just a step-by-step pattern in all the details of interest will never be.
Negative sensations are caused by the play of all, absolutely all, without reservations and exceptions, the play of the actors: “bad casting is a bad game” – an indelible truth that in all its appearance is full of its colors, although they are far from attractive.
Well, maybe there's some good music somewhere else, but this drop of honey in a barrel of tar is such that it just dissolves into the utter absurdity of everything else that consists of "I'll always know what you did last summer", especially this emphasizes the ending - so "kill" the film still have to try. It would be quicker to erase memories.
1 out of 10
P.S.: Michael D. Weiss probably broke all records when in 2006, according to his scripts released this "miracle", and even "The Butterfly Effect 2".