Note: I reviewed this film on Amazon, and the film was immediately brigaded by "new users". So I've decided to spread the review around a bit -- not because it's offensively bad (I've seen worse), but because someone is trying to artificially inflate the reviews (notice the other reviewed here, as well).
On with the show: I'm a found footage film junkie, so I'll be reviewing this film in the context of other found-footage films. If you don't care for found footage films, this movie is an immediate pass -- while it is competently made, the narrative and characterizations aren't anything you haven't seen a million times before, and the glaring logical flaws will leave you feeling swindled.
For the found footage junkies, here's the good: this movie is competently shot, and well-acted (for budget horror). The justification for constantly filming is, as has become standard, pretty weak, but the director made the very wise choice of putting the least-interesting actor (himself) behind the camera. The other actors, particularly the wife and the neighbor, are refreshingly genuine, even charming. The incidental characters, especially the detective, are enjoyable to watch.
Which is good, because not a lot happens in this movie. Even at a trim 70 minutes, the film drags. There are a couple of jump scares, but they are so entrenched in found footage tropes that you can see them coming from a mile away.
And that, ultimately, is the film's downfall: it is horribly, horribly, HORRIBLY cliché. The "twist" (and I use the term lightly - - it's barely a bend) is telegraphed so far in advance that you'll have the ending predicted shortly after the main characters are introduced. What's worse, the jump scares are inserted at precisely the place where you'd expect them to be, to the point where you can call them out about five seconds in advance. All the old classic are in here, including the "guy hurls himself at the car window for no reason" and "my wife is a deaf-mute ninja at night". To be fair, they do not have a spring- loaded cat -- perhaps the actors were allergic.
But what really killed the movie for me -- what drove me from indifference to genuine dislike -- was the complete lack of logic in the screenplay. MILD SPOILERS: The main character's phone appears to be recording his subjective experience of outside events. Which is to say, it is recording HIS MIND, not the real world. Actually, if you consider the footage at the end (where the phone is nowhere to be seen), you're forced to ask: how was what we just saw recorded? The only way I can make logical sense of this film is to conclude that it is, in fact, a traditional narrative film, but shot from the perspective of a found-footage film. Which is, frankly, a cheat to work around what may be the laziest writing in Hollywood. And in spite of this surreal framing, I STILL saw the ending coming from a mile away.
It's not the worst movie I've seen, but it is definitely near the bottom of the found footage barrel. Its only redeeming quality is the actors, who I hope have the good fortune to appear in better films.
On with the show: I'm a found footage film junkie, so I'll be reviewing this film in the context of other found-footage films. If you don't care for found footage films, this movie is an immediate pass -- while it is competently made, the narrative and characterizations aren't anything you haven't seen a million times before, and the glaring logical flaws will leave you feeling swindled.
For the found footage junkies, here's the good: this movie is competently shot, and well-acted (for budget horror). The justification for constantly filming is, as has become standard, pretty weak, but the director made the very wise choice of putting the least-interesting actor (himself) behind the camera. The other actors, particularly the wife and the neighbor, are refreshingly genuine, even charming. The incidental characters, especially the detective, are enjoyable to watch.
Which is good, because not a lot happens in this movie. Even at a trim 70 minutes, the film drags. There are a couple of jump scares, but they are so entrenched in found footage tropes that you can see them coming from a mile away.
And that, ultimately, is the film's downfall: it is horribly, horribly, HORRIBLY cliché. The "twist" (and I use the term lightly - - it's barely a bend) is telegraphed so far in advance that you'll have the ending predicted shortly after the main characters are introduced. What's worse, the jump scares are inserted at precisely the place where you'd expect them to be, to the point where you can call them out about five seconds in advance. All the old classic are in here, including the "guy hurls himself at the car window for no reason" and "my wife is a deaf-mute ninja at night". To be fair, they do not have a spring- loaded cat -- perhaps the actors were allergic.
But what really killed the movie for me -- what drove me from indifference to genuine dislike -- was the complete lack of logic in the screenplay. MILD SPOILERS: The main character's phone appears to be recording his subjective experience of outside events. Which is to say, it is recording HIS MIND, not the real world. Actually, if you consider the footage at the end (where the phone is nowhere to be seen), you're forced to ask: how was what we just saw recorded? The only way I can make logical sense of this film is to conclude that it is, in fact, a traditional narrative film, but shot from the perspective of a found-footage film. Which is, frankly, a cheat to work around what may be the laziest writing in Hollywood. And in spite of this surreal framing, I STILL saw the ending coming from a mile away.
It's not the worst movie I've seen, but it is definitely near the bottom of the found footage barrel. Its only redeeming quality is the actors, who I hope have the good fortune to appear in better films.