3-6-09
I came upon this recently and it struck me something fierce.
Now, I have little faith that this movie will be good. The concept is preposterous/farcical and the explanation for why there's a tiger in the house is pretty weak. The whole thing kinda stinks of Snakes on a Plane silliness...
But at the same time, I can't believe that a movie like this can be made in the major studio system (Lionsgate isn't small-time). If anything, it's unconventional in a so-simple-why-didn't-I-think-of-it way. And does a title taken from a William Blake poem mean that it's going to be subversive in any way? (Side note: Isn't there a Ray Bradbury story called "Here There Be Tygers" with similar elements?)
I'm also a firm believer that nature can be incredibly scary. I just think that it doesn't work well in film because animals (dogs and monkeys excluded) cannot be trained to act... which means that this movie will probably rely on non-scary CGI.
Now, I have little faith that this movie will be good. The concept is preposterous/farcical and the explanation for why there's a tiger in the house is pretty weak. The whole thing kinda stinks of Snakes on a Plane silliness...
But at the same time, I can't believe that a movie like this can be made in the major studio system (Lionsgate isn't small-time). If anything, it's unconventional in a so-simple-why-didn't-I-think-of-it way. And does a title taken from a William Blake poem mean that it's going to be subversive in any way? (Side note: Isn't there a Ray Bradbury story called "Here There Be Tygers" with similar elements?)
I'm also a firm believer that nature can be incredibly scary. I just think that it doesn't work well in film because animals (dogs and monkeys excluded) cannot be trained to act... which means that this movie will probably rely on non-scary CGI.