The Last Broadcast (1998) User Reviews

A great take on televised mystery 'documentaries' with a terrible ending.

[AceTheMovieCritic · 6/10 · 15 December 2013]

Let me start off by saying that if you went into this thinking it would be a Blair Witch project prequel, you are wrong. The concept is that this film is a documentary, although this would be a TV-grade 'mid afternoon' documentary, based around the murders of 3 crew members on a program called "Fact or Fiction" in the New Jersey pine barrens. It's meant to look like one of those cheap afternoon shows with guys 'hunting' for the lochness monster, or big foot, or even the Jersey Devil. One of those paranormal docs, or a murder investigation program they'd have on A&E or a channel like that. Something you'd find in the middle of the afternoon, when nothing else was on, and get kinda creeped out watching it. That was this films goal, and they captured that cheap quality PERFECTLY! Everything about this aspect works, and it works splendidly. And it's played totally straight. The people interviewed feel authentic, and the eerie monotonous narration works, cause this is what the guys narrating the tea-time documentaries would be doing. Go watch any of those 'true crime' type programs, and you will find this same style of narration.

It's this stab at the familiar that gives the film it's tone. First it presents it's alleged murderer, Jim Suerd, who is a strange and anti-social young man, who was the only survivor of the killings which ended the lives of the crew working on the fore-mentioned program. He's presented in a good, and creepy fashion. His mannerisms are awkward, and he claims to be a psychic, although we are also told that he is an amateur magician, and skilled in trickery. If the documentary was solely about him it would still feel creepy and interesting. BUT(!) When it begins to sway towards the supernatural, and the mystery of who the killer is begins to widen, tensions really begin to raise.

This film is brilliant on atmosphere, it really is. The tensions seem to constantly be rising, and everything seems to be building towards something...which makes it all the more aggravating that it had to have such a terrible ending. I won't spoil it for you, but I can just say that it totally butchers the mood set by the film, and is actually very jarring; as if it wasn't even part of the original project and just tacked on at the end.

For me, this film would have been near perfect, had it ended differently. It could have gone any direction with the several mysteries it established, as long as it kept with the tone and I'd have been fine. But instead they opted for this terrible completely off tone piece of--well like I said I won't spoil it. I'd say give it a watch, but the wasted potential makes for a bitter viewing. It actually made me mad that I liked the film leading up to the end, because it butchers it that immensely.

~6 out of 10~ For it's great capturing of a sub-genre, but loses a lot of points because of that ending. That F*****g ending..

So much potential, but ultimately very boring

[MisterAwesome · 3/10 · 20 March 2015]

I had this one on my watchlist for quite some time now and decided to give it a spin this evening. It started of pretty good and I was hooked, but after 30 minutes or so the movie just kept dragging on and became very boring. I noticed that I wasn't closely paying attention because of this and was eager to turn it off. After a minute or 60, it became interesting again for a few minutes but then went back to it's dragging self.

The movie has some similarities to the Blair Witch Project, but doesn't even come close. A lot of the found footage material was so badly shot and 'damaged' that it wasn't even fun to watch anymore because you hardly could see anything.

The acting was decent at best and at some points not even convincing. The characters were dull and had very little backstory.

Without giving anything away, the big revelation is a big letdown and nothing is really explained about the 'how' and 'why', which makes it very frustrating.

Don't be fooled by the 5,5 rating which is pretty good for a horror movie on IMDb these days, it's definitely not worth wasting an hour and a half on. If you haven't seen the Blair Witch Project, you should definitely view that in favor of The Last Broadcast.

Interesting Idea but Failed Execution

[BrandtSponseller · 3/10 · 11 January 2005]

The Last Broadcast is presented as if it's a "documentary" about the murder of two hosts and a hired hand for a cable access show named Fact or Fiction. In the scenario, Fact or Fiction was in New Jersey's Pine Barrens to present a live show on the Jersey Devil. A second hired hand is convicted of the murders (this isn't a spoiler because it's stated at the beginning of the film). The film also makes an attempt to become more philosophical towards the end, and there is an unexpected twist.

For me, this film failed on most levels, although there were a few small things that worked. The Last Broadcast is often compared to The Blair Witch Project, which arrived a year later. The comparison is appropriate, and it's difficult to imagine that The Blair Witch Project writer/directors didn't lift the basic idea from The Last Broadcast. The Blair Witch Project didn't work for me, either, although in my view, it works better than The Last Broadcast does. Both films rest on a similar gimmick of claiming to be partially a composed "documentary" and partially a collection of videotaped images by a group of young adults who are about to get killed in the woods, and we're watching them as "evidence" of what happened to them. Both have ambiguity whether something supernatural happened, as the characters were exploring a legend about a supernatural being, or whether more mundane homicides occurred. There are finer-grained similarities as well, but I mainly bring it up to give you an idea of what The Last Broadcast is like if you haven't seen it but you've seen The Blair Witch Project.

The first problem with The Last Broadcast is that it doesn't play like a documentary. I've seen many documentaries. I've never seen one that looked like The Last Broadcast. Rather, this film looks like how an amateur filmmaker who has never seen a documentary might imagine documentaries, armed only with a description of the genre. That's a big problem, because the film hinges on playing like a documentary. In a similar vein, there is a problem with the Fact or Fiction program, and the actors playing the hosts. Even though Fact or Fiction is supposed to only be a cable access show, the material is done poorly and the actors are unconvincing. Again, it looks more like an amateur filmmaker who has never seen cable access programming imagining what it would be like based on a description only.

Like The Blair Witch Project, another big problem with The Last Broadcast is that for some strange reason directors Stefan Avalos and Lance Weiler decided to use purposefully bad camera-work for much of the material, especially any footage shot by the Fact or Fiction guys, and footage by the documentary host, David Beard. While the idea to use purposefully bad camera-work isn't flawed, the execution is flawed, because the camera-work is so ridiculous that it again comes across like an amateur filmmaker imagining what bad camera-work might be like. Characters inexplicably will not keep the camera still (a really annoying scene showing this is when David Beard is filming himself in the woods towards the end and keeps revolving). They inexplicably have extreme close-ups of mouths, eyes, etc. If the idea is to make the documentary and the cable access show seem real, such exaggerated bad camera-work just does not work.

Another problem is that the documentary keeps repeating material. Most of the videotaped evidence is repeated many times. The 911 phone call is repeated. The narrator keeps repeating the same ideas over and over. It all plays like an attempt to pad out the film's running time. Also, the narrator has a very annoying monotone, which comprises the bulk of the dialogue throughout the film. It is another aspect that does not help sell the film as a documentary.

Finally, the attempt at becoming more philosophical about media's influence on reality perception is very sophomoric, and the big "twist" at the end was fairly inexplicable to me. There were a couple other small points throughout the film that were confusing to me, as well, such as why the soap opera director wasn't involved with the Pine Barrens shoot, but my attention might have drifted a couple times. I was also confused how Fact or Fiction, which was otherwise so technically bare bones and incompetent, was able to manage an audio/video as well as an Internet satellite feed miles into the woods in 1995.

On the plus side, the premise has promise--the story is interesting, and there are some nice shots of the woods accompanied by atmospheric music. Perhaps if the film were handled more conventionally, The Last Broadcast may have been moderately successful. Even though the twist made little sense to me, the style of the film at that point, which pulled further away from the feigned documentary, worked better for me.

Disappointing

[PetLecom · 3/10 · 9 April 2020]

The Last Broadcast definitely has an intriguing premise and setup, but it's ultimately mostly squandered.

The first half of this movie is definitely better than the second half. They do an effective job at explaining the situation and giving us some backstory on the characters. The acting during the interview segments is, for the most part, effective and comes off as genuine. I was really excited to see where everything was going to go but...

It really starts to drag in the second half. They keep repeating the same things and the same footage we've already seen and heard. It really got boring after a while. I just kind of wanted them to get to the point but it only got worse. The film completely loses focus. In the last half hour it suddenly becomes a commentary on media? The 'message' feels clumsy and tacked on.

And then there's the ending, the twist, the big reveal. I caught on a few minutes before it was revealed but thought there was no way it was actually going to happen. But it did. And it sucked. I get what they were going for, it's supposed to be this huge reveal that you aren't actually watching a documentary but everyone who's ever watched this movie knew they were watching a movie. It just comes off as silly and nonsensical. And oh my god, does the camera work look terrible after it changes styles. It's unbelievably cheap looking compared to the rest of the movie. It's almost parody levels of stupid as far as twists are concerned. It is such a disappointing payoff. Everything falls apart in the end.

Starts off promising but gradually goes downhill before completely going off the rails at the end.

Important for Found Footage genre, but boring and tedious in execution

[j-nickturner · 2/10 · 31 March 2020]

I accept this as important in terms of an early found footage genre film. Unfortunately, there is little to no entertainment value. The story probably would've worked better as a 45 minute semi-short film as much of it becames repetitive and tedious.

If you are a die-hard FF fan, then maybe you can appreciate it for being one of the first (as far as I'm aware). But don't expect to enjoy it.

Poor narration - unbelievable plot line

[anrkist713 · 1/10 · 25 May 2005]

*spoilers* I will admit that I was unable to make it all the way through this movie. The two reasons for this were.

1. Narrators voice was monotone. When you narrate a movie, it will pull the audience out of the experience, so you better have a really fun/sad/interesting voice to listen to. The narrator did not seem to care what was going on, no matter what happened it was always the same low drone voice. Picture Ben Stein.. "Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?".

Some people had touched on bad acting, but I can live with a bad actor if the movie has a believable plot line. Which brings me to #2

2. So what made this movie soo unbelievable? The fact that, in 1998, a poor bunch of public access TV hosts had access to the internet in the middle of the woods. Even today we don't really have access in remote areas without expensive equipment. Perhaps I missed the explanation of how this was possible.. but I doubt it. I love IRC, so to see this movie use it as part of the plot line was laughable..

In closing, I hope that everyone involved in this movie learned from it. The Blair Witch creators took this idea and made it better. 10x better and even The Blair Witch kind of sucked. So when you see this playing on Sundance or IFC, please take that into consideration.

Loses it's way towards the end

[bob the moo · 27 July 2002]

In 1995 a group of presenters for the cable TV show `fact or fiction' travelled into the woods to search for the Jersey Devil. When they are killed, one of the group, Jim Suerd, is convicted for the murder. Years later a documentary maker receives video tape not included in the trial and sets out to find what really happened.

I don't care which film was made first and I don't care if `last broadcast' and `Blair witch' are similar or not. All I care about is if the film itself is any good. The set up is good – a documentary that is put together in the style of many documentaries you might see on channel 5 etc and it is easy to get taken away by it (if not taken in!). it feels like it's building to something and it's reasonably compelling. However this drive loses it's way as the film tries to make comments about the subjectivity of the media and it detracts from what happened on that night.

This is a shame because the documentary style was well put together and believable. But the twist is silly (I think) and the final half hour could have been scary instead of trying to be a comment on the media. The acting is good if basic – it is just like they're playing themselves – but all the documentary contributors are totally believable.

Overall it held my attention and is well made considering the budget. The idea is clever but I was let down by the lack of thrills or scares and the fact that the final 30 minutes is just one big let down as the focus is lost.

Kinda blah...

[jcslawyer · 5/10 · 3 February 2020]

A little disappointed in this one being that it's an early found-footage/mockumentary style film. I was intrigued by the story because I was waiting for the big reveal. I was definitely not expecting the twist, but was hoping that we'd see how it played out and how everything was orchestrated.

I couldn't get invested in any of the characters. I thought Rein and Locus had more potential; Jim and that other dude (whose nameI already forgot) weren't interesting characters and the actors kinda sucked. The narrator's voice was really annoying. His big twist was outta nowhere, but then nothing's done other than going back to the woods and repeating a line over and over again rather than show how hedid it or what happened to that other dude. Otherwise I don't care and you didn't leave me thinking about anything other than how I didn't really like it. But I did give it a 6/10 because it kept me engaged and I think some of my fellow found footagers may find this to be more interesting than i did.

The premise was definitely one that had much potential, but it the end it's unsatisfying. I think if you're a fan of found footage or mockumentary films, you can watch this as a study of what could be improved upon.

Don't watch this Alone? Don't make me laugh!!!

[alangiruk · 4/10 · 21 March 2003]

The poster cover of the Last Broadcast claims 'Don't see it Alone'.

This is a joke. This is not a horror film. It's not scary. The ending is a total anti-climax. I am baffled by comments claiming this has caused some viewers sleepless nights. I mean, come on people, really. When I watched this alone, my reaction was: 'is that it?' When I watched it a second time with my mates, after it ended, their reaction was: 'hey, where were the scary moments?'

Forget this and go for the Blair Witch Project. A much superior film.

Just kind of neat

[phenomynouss · 5/10 · 12 April 2020]

Probably the most fascinating part of this entire film for me was that it was made in 1998. There's just something endlessly compelling about watching an extremely obscure amateur-style film from over 2 decades ago while perpetually being reminded that I'm getting older. It's a sensation completely different from watching a professionally filmed Hollywood movie from the 90s, probably similar to reading a personal diary from someone written in the 1800s rather than a professionally published novel.

But the film itself was mildly intriguing in its own right. My only gripe would be that there was an insufficient balance between the first half (Jim and the trial and the sequence of events leading to the murder) and the second half (casting doubt on the alleged guilt of the suspect and an extremely slight possibility of the supernatural).

I am a complete sucker for subtlety in movies like this, and this film executed it perfectly, to the point where any and all supernatural or paranormal implications are so slight that you could easily miss it completely.

But while those things are dealt with with great subtlety, the film itself doesn't manage to rise beyond "mild" in terms of interest or excitement or compulsion. Aside from the incoherent ending, it all amounts to being overall "Neat", not so much boring or even entertaining. Just kind of neat.

awwwww....

[gobamnit · 4/10 · 23 September 2012]

This could have been a good movie.

Fantastic.. The acting/direction was spot on... all the way up to the last 15 or so minutes, where it just sort of commits suicide right in front of you.

It gets far enough that I think a decent fan edit could actually bump it up a couple stars... just cut out that last bit, a little creative editing here and there and come up with a creepy image of the jersey devil and call it a day.

This movie didn't need a twist. At all. It was delivering on almost every level. Hell, the twist itself wasn't that bad, just the way it was delivered. A little subtlety would've went a long way.

I shall return, interfrastically.

[neale_graham · 8/10 · 2 November 2002]

Contains spoilers

Since the release of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, a less well-known shaky camera effort released the year before has had to endure countless comparisons with its more famous counterpart. One day perhaps reviews of The Last Broadcast will not make such a lazy comparison, but clearly that time has yet to arrive. On the surface, they are similar: an eclectic group of people go into secluded woodland and end up in peril with only a video montage left of their final few days. But whereas The Blair Witch Project provides you solely with the footage of the gang's descent into jeopardy, The Last Broadcast comes at the event from a different angle, that of retrospective and revisionist documentary.

First off, it has to be said that the events are totally fallacious. While to some this is blindingly obvious, I had gone into the film without this knowledge and had naively assumed that what I was watching was factual. I had no reason to doubt that what I was being told was true, given that I had never heard of the ‘Fact or Fiction' murders of some seven years ago and that the style of the film seemed thoroughly convincing. Certainly the message at the outset about the cast not being actors had me fooled. So with that in mind, perhaps my review of the film will be slightly more generous than those filmgoers who took being duped rather badly.

The ostensible filmmaker David Leigh sets the scene, describing the murders of two cable TV show hosts, Steven Avkast and Locus Wheeler, plus production aide Rein Clackin. The only apparent suspect is Jim Suerd, a weirdo loner and computer geek who was recruited by the TV hosts as their guide into the paranormal for a live tele/web cast from the Pine Barrens of New Jersey. In a bid to arrest flagging viewing figures, the quartet head into the icy woodlands on the hunt for the legendary Jersey Devil to film the show. Suerd leads the way, taking the group three miles from the nearest access road. This homevideo footage is interlaced with a talking head documentary style as Leigh quizzes those who knew Suerd and those involved in the investigation into the case.

Things start going awry when Suerd reacts badly to a wisecrack from Clackin which is caught on camera and replayed throughout the film. It forms the basis for the prosecution's video evidence of a man capable of committing the homicides. When blood is found on his shirt and given the remote location, there are no other viable suspects. Suerd is handed two life terms but shortly after sentencing, he dies in prison in `mysterious circumstances' leaving the filmmaker without a crucial piece in the jigsaw. Nevertheless, Leigh, as narrator, sets about sowing seeds of doubt in the viewers mind as to Suerd's guilt in a thoroughly convincing manner. The evidence he puts forward suggests that what looked an open and shut case may not necessarily be so. But the turning point is the unexplained delivery of a box of videotape footage of the night the murders took place not seen by the jury. Now, having had much of the tape digitally restored, Leigh has crucial evidence that seems to suggest that the killer almost certainly was not Suerd. As the film progresses, the film restorer says that one frame could reveal the face of the guilty, proving once and for all the guilt or innocence of Suerd. It takes until five minutes from the end for the tape to be enhanced sufficiently to identify the murder. Needless to say, it's both shocking and wholly unexpected.

The Last Broadcast cost a reported $900 to make. If that is the case, the filmmakers deserve fulsome praise. This is a clever, interesting and well-executed idea that convinces as both a horror flick and serious case study into a flawed criminal investigation. Bearing in mind that (perhaps foolishly) I had no idea of its dubious authenticity, I was totally engrossed as the story twisted and turned down paths I never expected it to go. It was a far more convincing proposition than The Blair Witch Project (which cost $22,000 to make) and to my mind a whole lot more frightening too. Perhaps this was because I knew the Blair Witch was a hoax when I watched it but believed the Fact or Fiction murders to be genuine. Regardless, it remains a creepy proposition. There are plot holes certainly. For instance, how did blood from all three that led the police to assume Suerd's guilt get onto his shirt if he was not the killer? And how was he online all night on his run-of-the-mill laptop out in the middle of the woods given that `the Innernet' (as the Americans love to pronounce it) was a relatively new phenomenon when the film was set? Some things just didn't add up in retrospect but it would be churlish to pick apart the film just for the sake of it. The acting on the whole was good (well they had this gullible viewer fooled anyway) and the film, while in no way of studio release quality, looked like it had a budget considerably higher than just under a grand. The twist at the end of the film surely ranks up with The Usual Suspects and Fight Club in the `I didn't see that one coming' stakes. Some have criticised the ending for letting the film down. I disagree but, as ever, it's a subjective thing. Make your own mind up.

What we're dealing with here is a complete lack of respect for convention. Not only was it exceptionally low budget, it was also the first film in US motion picture history to be released without having used any celluloid. It had been edited on a home computer and dispatched by satellite. Had I seen this film before The Blair Witch Project I would have been even more impressed with its unique approach. As it stands, the two films should stand apart from a horror genre that has been treading water for so long it must be in danger of drowning. Rather than bangs, gore and all-too-predictable panto-style shocks, the film creates its own eerie atmosphere and scary believability by relying on the environment and the actors to create a sense of unease and impending doom. It offers a new perspective and new techniques in going about putting the fear of God into you. And for that reason alone it comes highly recommended.

Could have been good

[tmdarby · 3/10 · 21 December 2015]

I wanted to rate this movie much higher than a 3, up until the ending. After seeing the end I struggle to give this more than a 2. The movie drew me in very well, and the documentary style has you believing it all the way through. The acting was fairly good for a low budget horror movie. The story was really good, other than the end.

It was a really good movie up until the ending. I can't believe the ending they went with. It made little to no sense and completely ruined what could have been a pretty decent horror movie. This movie gets filed under the "could have been good" category for sure. It's hard to explain how disappointing the ending was for this film. Probably because the build up was so good.

Psychic or Psycho?

[pizowell · 10/10 · 14 January 2001]

You may see The Last Broadcast on the video store shelf and just say its another knock off of The Blair Witch Project. Well actually The Last Broadcast came out before BW. It chronicles a group of independent film makers making a documentary on the Jersey Devil. There are many similarities to BW in The Last Broadcast which would lead one to believe that The BW film makers watched The Last Broadcast and ripped it off.

Blair Witch Project is much better than Last Broadcast, but The Last Broadcast is just as suspenceful in my opinion. Most of it was filmed with a hand held video camera on a shoe string budget like BW, but isn't half way as popular. The Last Broadcast is a little redundant and kind of long winded toward the end, but it is very easy to lose yourself in the movie until the disappointing finale. It doesn't look into the legend of the Jersey Devil or exactly explain what it is, unlike the Blair Witch. She even had a special on the Sci-Fi Channel about her. The film makers all acted in the film and cast their friends in lead roles. The acting is nothing to write home to mommy about, but the character of Jim Seurd is worth the price of admission alone. I had a wonderful time watching The Last Broadcast and wish more people would check out the movie that The Blair Witch Project ripped off. 8/10

I Still Know What "The Blair Witch" Did to "The Last Broadcast" This Summer...

[Headshot · 10/10 · 6 August 1999]

"Star Wars" had "Battlestar Galactica".

"The Abyss" had "Leviathan" and "Deep Star Six".

"Babylon 5" had "Deep Space Nine."

"Last Broadcast" has "Blair Witch."

All the above were films or TV shows with original ideas that were used and/or usurped by other studios. Some of the spin-off ripoffs were better, some were not.

"Blair Witch" fans defend their film, made and released nearly a full year after "Broadcast", by saying that their film is only identical on a surface level...teens travel into the woods to make a documentary and are killed. The truth runs much deeper.

Both films used video instead of film, both films used a pseudo-documentary format, both showed what happened to the characters using footage they shot to tell the story, both leave the audience wondering just exactly what happened. The main difference is that "Broadcast" told you the story from a different perspective...the point of view of a documentary filmmaker involved with the killings. "Broadcast" is, in this respect, much more intelligent than "Blair Witch". "Blair Witch" is more frightening, more eerie, where "Broadcast" doesn't get really creepy until the end, where you realize where the story has taken you. You have been led down the garden path, past the lies that pass as truth, and face-first into the face of darkness. "Blair Witch" is more personal, first-person driven rather than detached. This is more impressive, but it is also louder and more obvious.

I enjoyed both films, but I respected "Broadcast" more. It did it first, it did it well. "Blair Witch" will make more money off the backs of the filmgoers who were fooled by the hype, but "Broadcast" will love on as it's predecessor. Don't go into "Broadcast" expecting a scarier movie, just a more intelligent one.

A Good Film

[Mike Z-2 · 8/10 · 8 November 2001]

Written for my high school newspaper my senior year.

A few years ago, Lance Weller and Stefan Avalos were sitting around and from their ennui came the idea that they make an inexpensive movie. They had less than a thousand dollars to spend, but they also had advanced digital camera equipment that was sufficient for their film. Eventually the product developed from that idea was an independent, documentary-style horror film with plenty of home-video shots of camp-sites, and people running around the woods at night. Does that sound familiar? It should.

While The Last Broadcast was made before the much more famous Blair Witch Project, the difference in their success was the distribution. When distributors approached Avalos and Weller asking for permission to distribute their film, the directors rejected the offers because they wanted to change the movie (either by removing parts of it or changing the title). Instead they opted to distribute it themselves and now it has been all over the world, winning many awards along the way, and even gaining the recognition of being both the first full-length film to be digitally broadcast in a movie theater and over the internet. It had a one week run at the International House in Philadelphia when it was first released, right before it went to Belgium and the Cannes Film Festival among other places.

In terms of whether or not the makers of The Blair Witch Project stole their idea, it is known that those directors did see The Last Broadcast in Florida over a year ago. Avalos and Weller, whom I had the chance to speak with when I saw the movie during its special run in Doylestown recently, said they have gotten many calls from lawyers encouraging them to sue but "are working on current projects and in general have better things to do." They were very down-to-earth, and even showed my friend and me the projection room where the small digital projector, which resembled your typical CPU and contained the movie on its hard drive, stood next to the giant movie reels used to show regular films.

The basic plot of The Last Broadcast involves four men (two of whom are Avalos and Weller), from a cable access television show called Fact or Fiction, going into the Pine Barrens of New Jersey hoping to catch a glimpse of the infamous Jersey Devil on camera. One of the men gets out of the forest alive, a very eccentric recluse who went on the trip because he claimed to know the whereabouts of the Jersey Devil, and of course he is accused of murdering the other three. The whole film is told in a compelling documentary style that presents the facts of the case, the police investigation into the murders, Suerd's trial, and the documentarian's (David Beard) view of who really committed the murders. All of the interviews and "factual" information are interwoven with "actual" footage that was taken by the four members of the crew before their brutal murders, and all of it flows together seamlessly until the disturbing and astonishing conclusion. Throughout the movie, the familiar Pine Barrens provide a grim backdrop.

As opposed to the very simplistic Blair Witch Project, The Last Broadcast is a very complex jigsaw puzzle with finely drawn characters, an excellent and wholly believable mystery, and an equally shocking, if not more satisfying, conclusion. Broadcast is also provocative in that it serves as a mind-opening commentary on the news media's manipulation of the facts (usually to create an agreed upon truth for the public to accept) as well as the ludicrousness of the tabloid media.

Destined for cult status with its nine hundred dollar budget, The Last Broadcast is excellent, and certainly one of the most original and well structured films I've seen. Before Thanksgiving the film will be on VHS and DVD at video stores, and it will be shown on HBO several times in the coming months.

A brilliant film.

[Cowman · 4 November 2000]

I don't care what anybody says; I think this lies amongst the most brilliant films I have ever seen. The documentary itself looks totally convincing, and the movie's ending will have you disturbed for days afterward. Sure, it was awkward to switch camera perspectives, but it NEEDED to be done. It couldn't have been worked any other way, and still have the same effect. People don't seem to understand this, and it is why THE LAST BROADCAST gets so much negative feedback.

In order to understand the sheer genius of the movie, you need to watch it multiple times and catch the many, MANY clues about the events that occur at the ending. This flick's rewatchability value is extremely high, and it never gets boring because you spot so many little details that make you think "oh, I see..."

I don't care whether this or BWP came first, but for the record, I don't care. They were both excellent and different films.

Buildup Better Than The Payoff

[wandernn1-81-683274 · 5/10 · 27 April 2020]

Another found footage type movie where the buildup was a lot better than the payoff. Surprised to see that it was done on an extremely low budget. I'll give it a 1 star bump just for that. Definitely won't be well received by everyone. I really wanted more from a story about the 'Jersey Devil.'

Fact or Fiction? Who cares?

[BA_Harrison · 3/10 · 17 September 2017]

Mockumentary The Last Broadcast investigates an incident known as The Jersey Devil Murders, in which members of the cast and crew of a cable TV show were brutally butchered while filming at the Pine Barrens. The only survivor of the massacre, Jim Suerd (Jim Seward), was found guilty of the killings, but was he really responsible?

To be brutally honest, who cares? Preceding the thematically and stylistically similar The Blair Witch Project by a year, the film proves even more tedious than its more famous (and highly over-rated) counterpart, with numerous dry interviews with people associated with the case, and lots of grainy, wobbly video footage, none of which I found the slightest bit scary.

If The Last Broadcast had shed just a little bit of light on the legend of The Jersey Devil itself (a horrifying creature that is supposed to live in the Pine Barrens), then it might have been more interesting, but the monster is merely a McGuffin, rarely mentioned and certainly never seen.

After lots of admittedly convincing interrogation and analysis, the film completely drops the ball by abandoning the documentary format for a more traditional approach in which the identity of the killer is finally revealed. This abrupt change in style totally ruins the authenticity of the movie and smacks of a film-maker who couldn't think of any other way to wrap things up.

Few movies enrage me this much.

[Asphalt_Assault · 23 March 2001]

Spare yourself the pain - DO NOT EVER WATCH THIS PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A MOVIE. It's not scary, it's not interesting, it's not atmospheric, it's just BORING! I had to honestly turn it off and leave the room for a few hours before I could continue watching, or else I'd have just fallen asleep. MAJOR SPOILER AHEAD.

The narrator has as much emotional range as a brick, the acting is wooden and unconvincing, the characters are unlikable net-junkies, the music is twing-twang inbred banjo-pickin' and the ENDING??? I have NEVER seen an ending that is quite as terrible as this.

*MAJOR SPOILER (but read on anyways, it'll save you the torment of watching the whole thing)*

The narrator did it! Yes, the monotonous boring geek from the beginning of the film, the one who's giving the voice-over all the way through. The one you wished would get an axe-to-the-face within the first 10 seconds of the movie... is the murderer. He somehow went out into the woods, and kills them all. Why? Who knows? Do we care? I don't. The ending was clearly a highschool competition-entry for a contest entitled "Our movie sucks so much - but how can we make it worse???"

I hired this celluloid monstrosity out for free as part of the Blockbuster 3-for-2 offer... and I STILL feel ripped off.

Bloodsport 4, Blair Witch 2, Bless the Child and Bloodsurf are the only movies I've ever witnessed that are as physically painful to watch as this... this, this THING!

Chock-Full of Spoilers--Beware!

[foxgirl · 2 February 2003]

To begin, let me say that I am not a great fan of The Blair Witch Project. I was, however, impressed by the hype surrounding the supposedly novel and revolutionary execution of that film, and had long been under the surface impression that no movie had before attempted something like that. Granted, there are aspects to BWP's production and post-production that may indeed be revolutionary, but the DVD case to The Last Broadcast isn't lying when it claims credit for BWP's inspiration.

**MAJOR SPOILER ALERT**

The cinematography on this film was on the whole far less annoying than that of BWP, but this is set up as a sort of twisted documentary after the fact. There's some photo-manipulated (watch the behind-the-scenes vignettes!) gore and a graphic asphyxiation scene, but apart from that? It's an old-fashioned spooky little tale of suspense and murder that leaves a lot of questions even after the disturbing last ten minutes.

I can see how some other reviewers came upon this halfway through and presumed it to be an actual documentary. I have seen dozens of shows like this on The Learning Channel, for example, and the execution in this case is excellently faithful. Far from stiff or unnatural, I thought the interviewees were as candid and believable as any I have seen on real documentaries, and their lack of poise only added to that impression. Instead of being an endless pastiche of jumpy video of whiny, scared, lost people, which is, to me, BWP in a nutshell, The Last Broadcast was as much like a cable crime documentary as it could have been, and the fact that film-style plugins were unavailable to its creators earns my admiration... the film-style sequences (particularly the ending) were impeccably hand-altered.

I consulted a number of reviews here on IMDb before watching the film, even if I had rented it on a whim, never having heard of it before. Without reading any spoilers, I got the distinct impression that even many fans of The Last Broadcast quite disliked the novel twist at the end. The fact that the documentary host was actually a calculating murderer was absolutely beautiful. It was a truly Holmesian twist, making the last ten minutes of the movie horrifyingly absorbing. I could not look away--and trust me, the asphyxiation scene certainly made me want to. As the distorted image of the murderer's face began to come into focus via the video restoration, I will admit that I had some inkling as to what the final twist would in fact be. When I saw the caption regarding the agreement between the video restorationist and the documentary maker to contact the authorities AFTER the face had been triumphantly revealed, I was sure. But even seeing things fall into place, I could not help but see them through to the end. In the last few minutes, the movie grabs you, takes your breath away, flees with you deep into the Pine Barrens, and leaves you there, to wonder.

How did Suard die? Why did the documentarian elaborately hoax the delivery of the mangled video? If he didn't, who sent it? If he did, was his own megalomania enough to hire the unfortunate video restorationist? What happened to the body of Avkast? If that body was so well-hidden, why did the murderer fail to at all disguise the location of the other two? Won't any of the interviewees question that the documentary never comes to light? The whole elaborate media-driven point of the documentary itself evaporates when you realize the documentary cannot possibly be shown because of the atrocious murder that occurs at its end. What, then, is the documentarian's eventual fate? I actually half-expected suicide deep within the Barrens, but then where is the triumph of getting away with this inexplicable series of ritualistic murders? I wish we had seen a true motive. For the documentarian to have slain all of them would have required him to either follow the party into the woods or have been in league with Suard, both of which seem weirdly motivated and difficult. Certainly in being sentenced to life imprisonment, Suard would have brought to light a collaborator. If there was no collaboration, was it just simple fury at the crappiness of the Fact or Fiction cable show on the part of the documentarian? ;)

The world may never know. Despite all the questions, all the untied loose ends, the performance of, in particular, the documentarian is truly beautiful. But no one in this does a poor job. This low-budget group of filmmakers and actors is to be commended for what I had previously thought to be the unique vision of the BWP people. It's worth seeing, as long as you are not expecting a creature feature.

I beg to disagree with those who say there is a disappointing lack of monster in the story, however. I think the asphyxiation scene clearly shows a great deal of truly monstrous and inhuman conduct, more than enough to be chilling, even terrifying. And knowing that there are six billion creatures on the surface of the planet that could have that capacity is more than enough fright for me, thanks... much scarier than the demon that supposedly haunts the New Jersey Pine Barrens.

Absolute garbage, avoid at all cost

[deloudelouvain · 1/10 · 20 January 2016]

This is probably one of the worst movies I ever saw in my life. And let me tell you that I saw thousands of movies, really bad ones as well, but this one must be in the bottom. First of all I don't get why it is listed in the horror category. It's not horror at all. In fact there is no category yet for this kind of movies. They should make a category "Movies that nobody should ever watch because they are awful". I guess the producers with their 900 dollars budget are big fans of series like "Unsolved mysteries" or so and they wanted to make a movie about it. Well Unsolved mysteries is pretty low quality but it's about real crimes so it is still watchable. But The Last Broadcast is fiction, with an incredible boring story, incredible lousy filming and editing, incredible mediocre actors. There is absolutely nothing good about this movie. Nothing! Give me a camera and I make you a better movie with my eyes closed. And people that give this movie a higher rating then 2 stars should be banned forever on IMDb. They are falsifying the ratings. They obviously were in the team or at least knew somebody that was involved in the making of this garbage.

A brilliant, but ultimately flawed film

[MikeSez! · 2 November 2000]

I had heard so much about this film, particularly when all the discussions about the Blair Witch Project came out, that when the opportunity came to watch it I seized the day and sat down.

Two producers of a failing cable show Fact Or Fiction go on a hike into the woods with a soundman and a local boy to search for the famed Jersey Devil. Only the local boy comes back, and reports the other three as missing. The case that follows, and the footage shot by the crew that night, lead to a trial and conviction for murder.

The question remains, however, did he commit murder? The film takes the form of another documentary maker investigating the case. Slowly the evidence is gathered, and tape previously unusable is painstakingly recreated until.........

The style perfectly suits the film, and the fleeting glimpses of police photographs, evidence and glimpses of the tapes effectively builds a growing feeling of impending and catastrophic doom. For the vast majority of this film, you are taken on an increasingly dark journey into what happened that night.

Had the film ended with the final caption, and then the last restored image, it would have been a brilliant film. Unfortunately, it does not, and as others have said here the film is spoiled by that.

If not for that, I think this film would have acheived the fame and circulation of Blair Witch. As it stands, it is cerytainly worth watching, but you may want to switch off after that last caption......

Indie Film? Please.

[filmman56 · 1/10 · 8 June 2000]

As an independent filmmaker I am always hesitant to be so critical of colleagues, knowing what it takes to put a film together -- even a bad one. And although I admire the efforts of Avalos and Weiler, and concede a certain level of originality, this "film" is just plain horrible. Taken together with "The Blair Witch Project", I think it's clear we're in for a slew of these home video projects masquerading as legitimate film efforts. As further evidence I would call your attention to "Trans" -- yet another home video feature of little consequence.

I am confused as to the fascination with these video productions. Are we so completely dulled by the mindless crap flowing out of LA like a river of lava that we're willing to embrace anything done by young filmmakers using camcorders and desktop editing as brilliant and the cutting edge? Are we trying to induce a "New Wave" just for the sake of it?

I accept the idea of new filmmaking techniques. But I think the critics and public alike, embrace works like these simply to feel "connected" to something unique and fresh. But videos like "The Last Broadcast" are quickly becoming commonplace and stale. Filmmakers like Avalos and Weiler seem to think that a cheap video production imitating cinema verite will somehow replace critical elements such as a compelling story, interesting characters and good performances. I feel they are sadly mistaken. "The Last Broadcast" offered none of these necessary ingredients. And it showed.

Compare this video against truly creative independent works such as "Corn Dog Man" and you gain a quick perspective on the differences between new wave home-video and traditional independent film.

On the positive side, I think the sound work for "The Last Broadcast" was excellent and most effective. There was obviously a lot of work put into this production.

A complete waste of film!

[manchester_england2004 · 1/10 · 5 February 2010]

THE LAST BROADCAST is a fake documentary executed in a similar style to THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, a very famous movie that it is often compared to whether in a positive or negative context.

The plot of the documentary is actually very interesting. A fictional TV series is seeing its viewing figures dwindle. In an effort to prevent its end, the producers decide to film an episode showing a search for a local mythical legend known as the "Jersey Devil". The start of the movie explains how 3 of the 4 TV crew were found dead. The sole survivor was charged with and found guilty of the murders of the others. A filmmaker decides to gather the evidence surrounding the case to prove the survivor's innocence. The documentary he makes constitutes THE LAST BROADCAST.

Despite an interesting concept (a documentary examining in great detail the evidence of a murder case in order to disprove a convicted man's innocence) and also an interesting embedded story (the search for a local legend in the woods), sitting through THE LAST BROADCAST is one massive endurance test. I barely made it to the end and was constantly looking at the elapsed running time, cheering myself for surviving another minute of this cinematic torture.

Now I'll go through the individual elements to demonstrate why THE LAST BROADCAST is so terrible.

First, the narration. This is a fake documentary. As such, there is plenty of narration and often over still images. For this to capture interest, the narrator has to convince us that there is some significance to these images in relation to the rest of the work. Unfortunately, the narration is - as another reviewer has pointed out on here - done in a very monotone manner that fails to invoke even the slightest interest.

Second, the direction. For this story to work, the "interviews", video extracts, still images of exhibits and so on must all be carefully co-ordinated to ensure a clear narrative. Unfortunately, everything just seems to be jumbled up, without a specific order or structure. This makes it highly difficult to keep track of what the "documentary" is trying to tell us. Also, the home video extracts are very poorly filmed with no tension, suspense, scares, thrills or even laughs.

Third, the acting. The actors can be divided into three categories - the narration (done by the "director"), the crew of the fictional TV series and the "inteviewees" (police investigators, reporters, psychologists and so on). The acting is poor right across the board. Anyone who has seen an episode of a real documentary series (THE FBI FILES for example) will immediately be able to tell that the "experts" in this fake documentary are actors (and very bad ones at that). The crew of the fictional TV series do not seem the least bit scared or even interested by the investigation they are doing. And as already mentioned, the narration is monotone.

The only positive comment I can make about this excuse for a movie is the twist ending where there is actually a scene that is interesting to watch. Unfortunately it is not worth sitting through the remaining 80+ minutes to reach.

If you want to see a truly great fake documentary, I highly recommend GHOSTWATCH - an excellent piece of work that is carefully scripted, genuinely puts you on the edge of your seat, contains great scares and still makes you question what you've seen even when you know it's a phony.

If you want to see a great horror movie done in the style of a camcorder home video, I highly recommend REC, a fast-paced thrill ride from beginning to end that is genuinely scary and tense.

Finally, I advise everyone to avoid THE LAST BROADCAST like the plague!