Thread #218299418
File: CureforWellnessOfficialPoster.jpg (27.1 KB)
27.1 KB JPG
can someone explain WHAT THE FUCK i just watched
10 RepliesView Thread
>>
>>
>>
>>218299418
It was marketed as a regular contemporary horror film, but it was much more of a gothic horror thing (structurally) which wasn't fashionable or popular at that time. Combine that with Dane DeHaan in the lead role who was a total flopmachine, just before his career completely dropped off. It would've been more popular ten year earlier and probably would be very popular if it were a Netflix original or something today. Personally I do feel the screenplay was a bit too tropey and undercooked, especially for how long the movie is. Felt like Verbinski was trying to play it safe and by doing so ironically made it much less interesting and palatable. Still, cool movie that feels quite different from most Hollywood films of the past 25 years.
>>
>>218299418
>>218299915
I think Dehaan was the worst part about the movie, the script was serviceable, but could have used another workover for pacing and suspense.
>Still, cool movie that feels quite different from most Hollywood films of the past 25 years.
Triple feature:
Cure for Wellness
Shutter Island
Stonehearst Asylum
The Cure for Wellness premise reminded me of Shutter Island. I saw Stonehearst for the first time a few months ago, also not a bad gothic horror flick.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>218299915
honestly, if they stuck with the bad end, it could have had that "The Mist" energy. Where people remembered it just for how insane the ending was. But they ass pulled a happy ending and completely fucked any potential of being memorable.
Also, it didn't help that this film is essentially a worse version of Shutter Island. A PG-13 horror movie that only went full R for the final 15 minutes.
>>