The fourth kind

All righty zen, I just saw this movie for the first time.

In short, it is about taped sessions with patients who may have been abducted by extraterrestrial beings.

There are a few twists to it, which I did like. And I enjoyed seeing Mila Jojovich in a different role other than her Resident Evil parts. I do like this actress. I actually didn't recognize her in this film since I was used to seeing he in the Resident Evil movies.

But here's what I didn't like about the movie: whenever something serious was about to happen, the video would just go to static and all we'd get is the audio. This is my biggest complaint about the movie. I want to see what's happening dammit.

Now here's the clincher.

Nothing really smacked of alien abduction.

Everything smacked of demonic possession.

One good example of this is on one cassette recording was a distorted voice speaking ancient Sumerian.

You see, there is a Christian chain of thought that claims that UFOs are actually demonic entities deceiving people into thinking they are aliens. For a better explanation of this, I'd recommend listening to Chuck Missler's "A Christian perspective On UFOs".

Overall, it's not a bad movie, and I liked the twist ending, but I hated the camera cutting out to static when something happened. I want to see what's happening. I want to see what they see. The audio is interesting, but inconclusive. Video is more conclusive.

So I give this movie a C.

Do you also believe that Paranormal Activity was "real" footage?

Blair Witch Project?

reply to post by godfather420 & RomeByFire


Where in the op, is the claim that they thought the movie was "real?"




reply to post by EvilSadamClone


I would also have to give the movie a C. I liked the premise, and I like Milla Jovovich, but the movie was a bit lackluster, and the whole paranormal activity idea is worn out. The best found footage movie imho is Troll Hunter.

The Fourth Kind was decent though.

The premise sounds decent, but what you mentioned of the intentional static intereference sounds like it would annoy the hell out of me.

I don't like annoyances like that.

( Thanks again......I owe you big )

i enjoyed the film.

i watched it without knowing anything about the backstory.
the actress playing the therapist was convincing. after the film i googled it and discovered it was a mockumentary. i was impressed.

i'd give it an A- ....... but it raises to A+ for mila jovovich.



-subfab

I like your demonic interpretation of the movie, it's been a while since I saw it though.

The reason people usually don't show the "monsters" in such films is two fold really. 1 budget constraints, "the fourth kind" was a pretty low budget film and making monsters (cgi or puppet / animatronic) is damn expensive and 2 It's pretty hard to make anything realistic that doesn't end up coming across as cheesy if you see it for more then a glimpse of a second.

reply to post by FugitiveSoul


Because of the notes at the end of the film, saying that Dr. Abigail doesn't live in Alaska any more and that she practices psychology elsewhere but she still maintains that her daughter was abducted by other beings, and that her estranged son, 22 years old at the time of the movie, believes that she's responsible for her missing daughter.

And that the former sheriff won't have anything to do with the film.

They wouldn't have those kinds of things at the end if it were fake.

So some of that stuff is real. What really happened though, I don't have a clue, so I really can't say.

Plus if it were entirely fake, why would there be two actresses for the same role?


Edit:

Eh, never mind. I just read the wiki on it and I was wrong. Dang it. I'm sorry about that.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by FugitiveSoul

 

Because of the notes at the end of the film, saying that Dr. Abigail doesn't live in Alaska any more and that she practices psychology elsewhere but she still maintains that her daughter was abducted by other beings, and that her estranged son, 22 years old at the time of the movie, believes that she's responsible for her missing daughter.

And that the former sheriff won't have anything to do with the film.

They wouldn't have those kinds of things at the end if it were fake.

So some of that stuff is real. What really happened though, I don't have a clue, so I really can't say.

Plus if it were entirely fake, why would there be two actresses for the same role?


Edit:

Eh, never mind. I just read the wiki on it and I was wrong. Dang it. I'm sorry about that.

edit on 28-3-2012 by EvilSadamClone because: (no reason given)

Fooled you!

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


Yeah, going to static annoyed me. I want to see what's happening.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


Seems I was giving you more credit than you deserved.

I couldn't even watch this movie the first time...I was bored out of my skull.
I should give it another shot though...I probably clicked it off before anything decent happened.