FrightFest

The biggest challenge is to spot the marketing bullshit. Unfortunately the guide is full of it. I sometimes read the description before and right after the film. Calling "Downhill" Lovecraftian for example (just because of use of cultists) or using a Susperia reference for "Red Christmas" (just because the DoP used coloured lighting gels) is simply misleading and the equivalent of a click bait article. I sometimes watch the first few seconds of a trailer, if available, to filter bad looks, shitty acting, etc. But in the case of "Red Christmas" the trailer suggests a complete different tone and content.
I get those descriptions are very subjective and always positive to promote the film, but I wonder if those are provided by the companies or written by an independent third party. And if I was involved"The Evil In Us" I would be pissed off as the text promotes "Crow"

I think the descriptions of the films are written by someone at Frightfest, as they never match the official marketing hyperbole. That said, there still has to be an element of marketing in the descriptions (especially true of Discovery titles) to encourage people to see them.

Yep, I suppose they're always going to be written to get as many bums on seats as possible. If you can find any trailers or reviews for the films before choosing it makes decisions a lot easier and less blinkered. Of course, this is easier said than done when so many films are premieres in one form or another and/or don't have distribution yet.

It's a shame we can't also have Ian's review in there to cut through the crap- at least one film he introduced this year he described as "It could be the biggest pile of shite ever" before clarifying "It's not, it's really not..."

benj wrote: It's a shame we can't also have Ian's review in there to cut through the crap- at least one film he introduced this year he described as "It could be the biggest pile of shite ever" before clarifying "It's not, it's really not..."

Brilliant! Which film was that?

wakko wrote:

benj wrote: It's a shame we can't also have Ian's review in there to cut through the crap- at least one film he introduced this year he described as "It could be the biggest pile of shite ever" before clarifying "It's not, it's really not..."

Brilliant! Which film was that?

I believe it was Attack of the Lederhosen Zombies.

I'm still not sure if he was saying it wasn't a pile of shite or merely saying it wasn't the *biggest* pile of shite.

I'm still wondering which scene in Karaoke Crazies was supposed to be "the most outrageous ... in any film this year"...

benj wrote:

wakko wrote:

benj wrote: It's a shame we can't also have Ian's review in there to cut through the crap- at least one film he introduced this year he described as "It could be the biggest pile of shite ever" before clarifying "It's not, it's really not..."

Brilliant! Which film was that?

I believe it was Attack of the Lederhosen Zombies.

I'm still not sure if he was saying it wasn't a pile of shite or merely saying it wasn't the *biggest* pile of shite.

He said something like: "Look at that title. It could have been the biggest pile of shite ever and we'd still have played it with a title like that. But it's not. It's really not."

Thank you. Someone who was listening to what I said. I was going on about how good the title was and how often of films with great titles turned out to be.....