APhew
12-08-2004, 06:40 PM
I guess it depends on how you go in to the movie. I followed it's development from when it was first announced, from it's premier at a Fangoria convention (which I read about, I wasn't there), right up until it's release on DVD. I knew from the get-go that it was a low-budget film directed by someone who had mainly performed make-up and effects in the past. So, I guess my expectations were as low as they could go.
I actually enjoyed the film because of this. Especially F. Pauls part, top-notch acting there, I see a second career rearing it's head. (wipes off nose) It didn't follow the story word for word and some of the acting was abysmal, but overall it wasn't that bad to me. With what they had to work with, I think they did a very comendable job.
The movie was based on the original novella/short story "Midnight Mass" and not the full-blown book that came out recently.
Would I like to see it remade with a bigger budget and a top-notch cast? Sure! But for what it was, "Midnight Mass" was plain low-budget fun for me. I've seen A LOT worse. Crap, even Carpenter ended up destroying John Steakley's novel "Vampire$", due to budget cut-backs. You work with what you got.
This post was last modified: 12-08-2004, 06:43 PM by APhew.