Innovative arthouse classic AND blockbuster? Almost.

Rating: Null/10 (2 November 1999)

OK, I'll make one thing clear. I enjoyed this film. However, I wasn't particularly scared or freaked out like I was lead to believe I would. Still, advertisers make a damn good living from making a film seem ten times better than it really is.
Maybe it was the fact that when I saw it, I was sharing the experience with several hundred other popcorn-swilling punters in a huge state-of-the-art cinema where you go out expecting to have entertainment handed to you on a plate. Most of the people there weren't phased at all. I say most however; three of my friends were completely messed up by it. Maybe I missed something.
I can't help thinking how much more I would have enjoyed it if I had watched it in one of the subterranean screens of the arthouse just down the road. The audience would have been smaller, more subdued and more importantly wouldn't leave their mobile phones turned on. There, after all, is where the film deserved to be because it has bucketloads of artistic merit as opposed to mass appeal. The extensive use of method acting and improvisation really shines in places and if viewed under the right atmosphere, is exceptionally effective.
This film doesn't however have the makings of a true classic. Any box office figures that point to the contrary can be put down to media hype. When you look at it, bits of the film don't gel and the audience doesn't really get a chance to truly connect with most of the characters.
On the other hand what I like most about this film is that it shows that gritty realism with the absence of glamorous actors, makeup, special effects and post production can work extremely well. I just hope and pray that more filmmakers pick up on this in the future because the contrary has been getting out of hand in recent years.