Megan Is Missing (2011) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
237 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
the only thing disturbing is why was this even made.
jason_leo10 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
i watch a lot of movies and have come across kid related stuff before IE hard candy, the woodsman, hound dog,. how it starts is very insulting to anyone with a brain by saying its actual footage etc... 2 seconds in you know its not and the fact it is based on actual crimes that it uses mixed with fiction is disgusting to actual victims. if you think the film is made to raise awareness about danger you are very sadly mistaken as shown by many aspects of the film. three main scenes raise serious questions about the film makers intentions and whether he should be let near anyones kids. the first is the photos designed to shock you. second is the over the top up close rape scene of what is meant to be a 14 year old kidnapped girl. last but no means least is the web cam chat about summer camp. in one scene Megan tells her friend about her first bj at summer camp when aged 10 she goes on to describe it in detail appearing to not have been bothered but it but more to have enjoyed it. this scene has no bearing on the film but does raise a serious question as to why the filmmaker glorifies child abuse. really strange and very disturbing. in short the acting sucked the filmed sucked and the filmmaker should probably be looked at by they police
183 out of 226 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I get what they were going for, but that doesn't make it good (heavy spoilers)
gavynhelfyre26 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I'm sorry. I know I'm in some sort of minority about this movie, but frankly I think it was terrible.

The first part of the movie was pretty poorly written and the acting wasn't terribly much better. Far too much of this movie was told to us instead of shown, which is a surefire way to make you not care about characters that the finale requires you to care about. If a character has to tell you that they're broken, instead of you seeing it revealed through their own actions and the revelation of those weaknesses... even the revelation of their awareness of those weaknesses, then you haven't made me feel for the characters inherent sadness.

"I'll pretty much do anything as long as you tell me you love me," should be a heart breaking revelation... but it wasn't earned one bit. It just fell flat and made me say "okay, so she's broken.... what a stereotype".

Frankly I think making this a found footage film was a mistake. While I'm sure it was done to try to bump the realism factor, the genre itself is so limiting that it forces awkward scenes and also some very strange moments like Megan and Amy doing some sort of video chat on their phones when they're literally on their way to each other (apparently a very short distance). It also forces one to question who in the film was recording all of these Skype sessions and why were they recording them?

Moving beyond that, crucial points in the film are also gaping plot holes. When the Amy character finally goes to the police about Megan's possible kidnapper (after strangely not telling them about him earlier, you know, before the odds of her being alive shrink dramatically) they plaster her name and face all over the news. I'm sorry, but that sort of thing does not happen. Additionally, if all of Megan's Skype sessions were recorded, wouldn't the police know about Josh before hand? Also, if Josh is going around posting photos of Megan on message boards, then there's obviously a way to track him. Unless we're expected to believe that Josh is not only a kidnapper, rapist and murderer, but also a computer whiz.

None of it adds up, but it's all crucial to the plot.

Finally, let's talk about those last 22 minutes.

I'm sorry, but if you're deeply disturbed by those last 22 minutes, you have missed A LOT of films in the last 40 or so years. The last 22 minutes felt way too sanitized, likely because of the characters ages, when held up against things like the original Last House on the Left or even the remake of The Hills Have Eyes (watching the attack scenes in those films, I felt I needed a shower afterward just to feel clean. Last House particularly felt so much like a snuff film when I first saw it, it took a long time for me to watch it again). She's kept prisoner, raped and then stuffed in a barrel with, yeah you saw it coming a mile away, her dead friend. Then we sit through a man digging a whole for 10 minutes while Amy, clearly not seeing where this is going, tries to talk her way out of the barrel.

This all leads to a big problem with the climax- Amy never really seems to take her situation seriously. She never does anything but scream at Josh. She seems to think that "if you let me go I won't tell anyone" will be taken seriously. To top it off, even during the brief moments in these last 22 minutes when she's not chained up, Amy makes absolutely no attempts to escape. At one point there is clearly a jagged piece of metal a few inches from her head, and she never goes for it... she just keeps crying for help.


I'm sorry, but this film just doesn't work. It expects you to find it's subject matter shocking and disturbing because it's made its characters 14 years old (though the actress who played Megan looked far older then 14). This fails because unless you sell me on what I'm watching, just telling me that this person is a specific age will not make me engaged during their problems later in the film. It doesn't engage a willing suspension of disbelief. Make me care up front, or when I need to care... it'll be too late.

I get what the filmmakers were going for, and I applaud the effort. I think that if they hadn't tried to cash in on the "found footage" boom that's been going on, they may have made a much more engaging and effective film. A film that makes you care, instead of expecting you to care because adult actors are playing characters of a certain age.
84 out of 114 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Disturbing? Yes. Entertaining? No.
lvanderwindt17 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Uhh, this movie has become a whole thing on TikTok so I had to watch it since im a big horror fan. The storyline itself gets exciting in the second half. The first half is super boring. Plus the acting didn't make it any better. In the second half Amber Perkins does get better with acting but it still wasn't good enough to keep me entertained. I get that it's supposed to spread awareness and not be entertaining but i don't really see the point of the first half anyway. I missed music and above all character development. Amy didn't have a lot of friends so she could've told everything to her parents. Amy's parents were only on screen in the beginning plus when she was missing. I felt like if her best friend went missing my mom would be really scared for me and not let me go outside to parks by myself, meanwhile Amy was chilling with her bear in the middle of nowhere. I mean, yes the two photos are disturbing. But they could've built the suspense up so much better, now it was just like 'yea idk and idc here are the photos take a free coupon while you're at it, oh also, dead body'. It was so platonic. So my opinion is: Bad acting, no cinematography, it does spread awareness I guess but I still hated the progression of the storyline. The three major 'trigger moments' were disturbing but could've been so much better executed.
26 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not pleasant
PeachHamBeach1 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I give it a 6 because it just seems like it's bordering on an exploitation flick. Not nearly as bad as some of Larry Clark's stuff, but instead of really good acting from frightened parents, we get bland, almost constipated facial expressions. Don't these parents give a crap? For reals?

As for the 2 main characters, at first, they are your typical little spoilt brats. It almost seemed like THIRTEEN, with the popular, slutty, troubled one and the virginal, unpopular, introspective one. I don't mind that a lot of ichatting was used. It's one of the most popular ways that teens communicate these days, and movies are a visual medium. I was irritated when the girls began to chat with "Josh", who claims that his brother, then his dog, broke his webcam. I wanted to scream at these kids, if you can't see him, turn the camera off! You don't see Josh's face thruought the entire movie, but he is an internet predator, and these girls are unfortunately just lonely, insecure and naive enough to stumble into his trap.

I have a particular hatred for shock value gore, and the horrifying fetish photos of Megan posted on some porn site were really upsetting to me, and unnecessary. We know the girl was victimized by a sexual predator/sadist. Is it necessary to strip her of every last shred of her dignity by including a simulated photo in a movie? That's why I was so angry at the publicised photos of the victims of serial killer Robert Berdella. When you show the public every last screaming moment of a victim's life, it just seems so demeaning to me. But maybe that's the point. Maybe these kinds of things are meant to make me so angry that I want to put every serial killer on the planet into a rocket and aim it at Jupiter.

It's a disturbing film. Very unpleasant. Not sure if I think it's exploitation or not, but I won't be watching it again.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not very interesting... then suddenly sadistic
mark-o-reillyd11 August 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Very strange film, Serious subject matter but feels more like a hallmark true-lifer on the dangers of the internet. The acting is hammy and it becomes entirely camp when mock footage of news shows get added to the mix. The only moment close to shocking at this stage is a short and slightly uncomfortable description of one girls sexual abuse suffered as a child.

....Then suddenly and with very little foreshadowing it turns into a disturbing snuff movie for 22 minutes. I usually do not spoil as much as this but this film needs it. A prolonged and brutal rape of a 13 year old in real time is probably something you should be aware of.

I give it 3 stars for it's ability to truly impart an emotional impact, even if it is disgust and for it's message to teenagers in regards internet stranger-danger.

Over-all, completely gratuitous.
26 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Gen Z TikTok - Stop
zbbdyqbii25 November 2020
I wasted $3.99 renting this movie because of the reactions of Gen Z on tiktok. This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen.
92 out of 121 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Creepy and disturbing
jarch02030 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This movie had originally looked like a good laugh, but it was truly quite the opposite. The apparent goal of the movie is to warn teenagers and parents about the dangers of the internet, however from what I could tell, the movie was *actually* made to act out some disgusting, disturbing fetishes.

My first problem with the movie is that it exploits these teenagers. The 13 year old girl is discussing giving head at the age of 10. Not only does she say it happened, but she goes into about 10 minutes worth of detail. It was at this point in the movie that I began to question the director's intentions with the movie, and believe me, it got worse.

The end of the movie features 22 minutes of "uncut footage" wherein we watch: - the 14 year old girl (Amy) chained to a wall in a dungeon - Amy being forced to eat out of a bowl like a dog - Amy being brutally raped (yes, the entire thing - blood and everything) - Amy being shown her best friend Megan's dead body which is sitting up in a barrel - Amy being put in the barrel with her best friend's dead body and banging to be let out - "josh" digging a hole, which is literally a 10 minute scene where he digs as Amy screams from inside the barrel - finally josh buries Amy alive with her best friend's body

Now usually I am not offended by gory, disturbing scenes. In fact, sometimes they definitely help portray a message. In this case, however, the last 22 minutes were UNBELIEVABLY unnecessary, and simply horrifying to watch. It is EXTREMELY inappropriate and downright creepy.
48 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Beware the evil interwebs!
stitchesaresore24 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I've put off watching this one for quite a while because a.) I'm not huge on the found footage trend and b.) Megan is Missing looked pretty badly made. But as an active member of several horror communities, I kept seeing this movie pop up with comments about "a very realistic portrayal of teenagers" and "the last 22 minutes are so disturbing". After seeing enough people say that they'll never get over the ending, I finally decided it was time to see for myself.

As the movie starts, we're already greeted with some terrible acting. Some text shows up on screen informing us that everything viewed here is taken from news clips and the girls' cameras, video chats, and cell phones. So they try to play this out like a sort of documentary. Let's keep in mind this is supposed to be in 2007, yet everyone is walking around video chatting 24/7 on their super awesome cell phones.

We're introduced to Amy, a shy outcast virgin from a good family, and Megan, a popular sexually active girl with a rough home life. Nobody likes Amy, but Megan is able to get her into a party by trading favors with the jerk host. After attending the party where everyone is drinking and using drugs (complete with Amy walking in on Megan pleasuring the host, being hit by an overly touchy party goer, and getting sick in a terribly embarrassing way), Megan and Amy video chat. Megan goes into detail about her first blow job -- which was totally rape, BTW -- and gets busted by her mum, which leads to talks about running away.

Later Megan starts chatting with some dude who calls himself "Josh" that her friend told her about. She's seen a picture of him, but his webcam is broken. They agree to meet up, but she doesn't see him. She finds out he was too shy, but decide to meet up again.

The next morning, Amy starts video calling Megan's other friends (because who actually sends texts or makes phone calls), much to their annoyance. Everyone gets mad at Amy for Megan's disappearance after the girl reports Megan's talks with Josh to the police. He contacts her from a new ID and threatens her. This does not stop Amy from going alone to make a video diary under a bridge and she is kidnapped.

For some reason, Josh decides to record things with Amy's camera and then he just tosses it out where it can be found. We're shown the uncut 22 minutes he recorded of Amy in captivity. He forces her to eat without her hands and later rapes her. She keeps her bra and knickers on during all of this and the rape remains focused only her face, though we see his bloody fingers to remind us that she was a virgin. The last moments of the film go on far too long of showing him digging a grave while Amy begs for her life the entire time. (During this scene you can see the shadows of other people around.) He then buries her alive.

The entire thing serves as a "don't talk to strangers online!" warning. This is why a lot of people found it disturbing because "IT COULD HAPPEN". But even with that reasoning, you're better off watching an episode of SVU than sit through this disaster.
30 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Horrible and creepy (not in a good way)
rarepeperonis19 August 2020
If you told me some group like M.A.D.D produced this movie i would believe you.

It looked like a shock video made to warn kids about the dangers of the internet. But it's hyper innapropriate and no teen should watch this. Who is this for?

I would have no problem if a film used shock imagery to educate but this was just weird exploitative and creepy. The ending is a child predator wet dream this was insanely weird. Why did we need the story about this bj when she was 10? Did we really need to see blood on the guys hand to understand that it was her first time?

I'm a big horror fan i saw some insanely creepy and violent movies but this was just weird man i don't know. Anyway the acting was abysmal, 3/4 of the movie was very bad. And the last 20 minutes is weird and unneccesary exploitative and probably only made to give child predators ideas.
16 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Exploitative, marginally acted, and crosses a very offensive line
bob_meg16 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The Internet Predator genre, freshly minted, has still yet to turn out a progeny that has anything meaningful to say to the audience other than "the Web is dangerous, parents beware." The teeth-gnashingly bad "Trust," made by Ross from "Friends" (sorry, I'll legitimize David Schwimmer when he's earned it) gave us soap-opera hubris and phony emoticons masquerading as a serious drama, and now the indie "Megan Is Missing" serves up tepid acting and a full-on onslaught of torture porn luridness (involving PRE-teens, no less) under the auspices of a "thriller."

This movie lost me immediately because --- well --- it starts with a bald faced lie: a lengthy statement claiming that this film was pieced together from actual footage, etc. Yes, I know it's a fiction, not a documentary. And I know Blair Witch did the same thing. The difference? TBWP actually had engaging, well-acted characters who could "sell" that lie effectively.

But, it's immediately obvious due to the caliber of the acting of MIM that it's nowhere CLOSE to real footage...the two girls who have to shoulder this travesty seem to be reciting their lines, instead of injecting them with any real feeling or emotional realism. All the footage is coincidentally brilliantly timed , the camera left on for all the needed moments. We then proceed to follow these girls, Megan and Amy, as they slowly fall into an Internet predator's clutches. There are so many lapses in both logic and plausibility in the first hour that it's only tiresome to list them all.

What really irritates me about this "film" is the last third. After the "real-time" action ends, a title card announces the last 22 minutes of footage from Amy's abandoned camera will now be played, unedited. And then we launch into a tiresome, loathsome sequence of seeing one of the girls imprisoned, raped, degraded, tortured, killed, and buried. My first big issue with this is the girl's age. Look, if you want to present the horrors of this problem (and it is a serious problem) do we NEED to see a teenager debased for this amount of time? Does that REALLY add value? I don't see it. Even in the most splatter-based torture porn movies...the victims are rarely this young, and the footage so lingering. Michael Goi, the director, seems to think we "need" to see this level of detail.

And there, you need to ask yourselves: "WHY?" One look at Mr. Goi's credits gives us some clues. He directed one very tawdry soft-core back in '99, then spent a decade as journeyman DP on numerous TV and cable outings. Hmmm. Maybe he's suddenly turned into an altruistic crusader for child safety? Yeah, right. And there's a hot guy or gal in YOUR area who wants to meet YOU tonight!
21 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Starting off good with a message
kosmasp3 May 2020
A found footage missing girls film - who'd have thought it? Well I guess it makes sense sort of. And the movie does start off rather good. The teenagers talk a certain way (especially when not supervised by parents/teachers/adults) and it adds a notion of realism to it.

But that gets broken later on, moreover than not. When a "friend" has a predictable over the top breakdown that makes no sense, to name just one example. At the time this was made they could not have them filming themselves with their phone, so the old "why even film this?" comes up quite a lot. And this rings even more true for the last 20 minutes.

Yes the message is important and kidnapping (literally) with abuse is a bad thing. There was no need, nor did it make sense in the internal logic of how the movie was told, to get shown what we get shown. Not to mention the existance of that video or why it was thrown away to be found by the police (conviniently of course). Shocking and disgusting the filmmaker himself admits that people walked out, but sees it as necessary still ... if it wasn't for that strong beginning, I'd have gone with a 1 star rating myself
11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Just a very unrealistic, badly put together movie...
j-b-51-77789112 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
At the beginning of this movie we are told that it is based on a true story. I'd like to see that story as this movie seems like the most unrealistic depiction of an Internet predator case I've ever seen. I can recall watching a 10-minute awareness movie in high school that was more true to life.

Don't get me wrong, I think that it is vital to stay informed, kids do get lured over the Internet, but the way this movie presents it is laughable.

First of all, the characters are incredibly shallow clichés. The abused girl who values herself very little and thus engages in risky behavior including drinking, doing drugs and having indiscriminate sex. Her best friend is the cardboard cut-out of the good girl, and is picked on for being so.

Both girls seem completely naive to the point where they should not be allowed to be online, let alone in chat rooms. While chatting with "Josh" they are almost oblivious to his contradictions (dog wrecked web cam/little brother wrecked web cam), his stalker-like behavior and his avoidance of showing himself on video or in person.

Even more problematic in my viewing of the film is the way the kidnapping case was portrayed. If a minor like Amy came forward with evidence like she did, her identity should be kept a secret, as should the information she shared. There are reasons why certain information is not revealed in an investigation. Also, as Amy was one of the last people who saw Megan, she should have been questioned, and the information about "Josh" should have been discovered much sooner.

Even after all of this, Amy is still chatting with "Josh" even when it becomes very apparent he is the kidnapper.

Also, in a case like this, officials should be able to track "Josh's" location via his IP address.

Also, "Josh's" profile as a criminal is very blurry. He seems to be intelligent in some cases, however, he makes some major mistakes in other cases. He is not a believable criminal, and were this movie reality, the police should have been able to track him down.

This movie was just not up to par for either being an informative video or a "scary movie." It relied solely on the hype and fixation people unfortunately have on the idea of people being dramatically kidnapped by Internet predators. Skip this one.
99 out of 132 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
They went missing, and...?
paul_haakonsen26 January 2013
This movie was nothing at all what I had expected or hoped it would be. The first three-fourths of the movie is basically just teenage girls goofing around, trash talking and being teens. However, I will say that the last quarter turned out to take a more interesting twist, however, it hardly made up for suffering through the first three quarters.

You should take heed that there is a lot of explicit sexual dialogue in the movie, which I sort of found inappropriate and too much, especially coming from girls who were only 14 years old.

The story is about a teenage girl who meets a stranger on the Internet, and then ends up missing. The whole community is in an uproar, searching everywhere for the missing teen. Then her best friend goes missing as well, and no one knows who is behind the ghastly abductions.

Acting-wise, then "Megan is Missing" doesn't really hold anything overly impressive. The performances put on here are adequate, but not memorable. And I was mostly just offended and outraged at the way the teenagers behaved and talked, more than I had feelings or sympathy for them. So on my account, the movie failed to properly deliver its messages. And it was only the more gruesome events in the last quarter of the movie that managed to fully turn out to be interesting in my opinion.

"Megan is Missing" is the type of movie that you watch once, and then never again. For a movie that is based on real events, then it turned out to be a rather one-dimensional and non-emotional portrayal of the events.
30 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Out of 90 minutes, only one second managed to be good.
mrhs612-18 May 2011
And even that second wasn't that great. It was basically just a surprise shock. I'm not going to write any spoilers, because I want to make sure you read this. The first hour is just annoying teenagers babbling about how they're cool for having sex and drinking and making fun of the only virgin.

I don't know what emotion the first hour was intended to provoke, but annoyance was the only one I felt. And at least the 45 minutes do nothing to build the characters or the plot. You grow only to hate Megan more and more. In fact, you grow to hate every character except Megan's best friend, Amy, who is a self-hating pitiful girl that every one makes fun of because she isn't a giant whore.

The last 20 minutes are only there for shock value, and most of it is terribly acted, boring, and just make you feel uncomfortable.

There is a one-second reveal that made me jump, and only because I happened to walk back into the room at the exact moment.

If you're looking for a genuinely scary movie, this isn't your movie. If you're looking for a movie showing the danger that children are in due to online predators... this still isn't your movie. The characters are too one-dimensional to be believed and if you're a parent, trust me your teen doesn't act like this.

If you're looking for a cheap shock based only on surprise, you can do better. I've had serious shocks from movies that don't annoy you for 80 minutes before getting to a shock moment.

Basically, watch something else.
65 out of 100 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
i don't think anything needs to be said, Mr Goi.
move_on_reakshun1 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers

it's simple, you watch this review and enjoy it. it's not being mean, but it's extremely well written and absolutely hilarious at the same time. while i haven't seen the film, i feel as though i have. i don't think i should have to sit through the whole thing after this guy has done so well as to point out every single error in the film and how much difficulty Michael Goi has in understanding technology and the youth.

these girls are meant to be 13 and 14, they look to be in their early twenties. the writing is absolutely atrocious, and is only matched by the delivery of these 'actors'. when Larry Clarke has been challenged for his content regarding sex between minors, Goi's willingness to portray a 14 year old girl as a drug addicted sex case goes largely unnoticed. i guess if anyone had actually seen this film, then perhaps more outrage would be far more widespread.

i urge you, watch the review, do not watch the film.
32 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A lot of Hype for A lot of Gore
mrsdrasek25 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was kind of pointless except for shock value, it didn't send a message at all other than claiming "based on true events" and hype over the last 22 minutes being "actual footage". Parents need to realize that although the film boasts that it is sending a message about online sexual predators this film is very brutally graphic. I got tired of hearing moms say they were making their daughters watch this. No normal parent would let their children watch this garbage to "send a message". Be a parent and do your job. It wasn't hard to find out where some of the ideas came from for the film. It was loosely based, but drew from the murders of two young Oregon girls. Their murderer was not even a man they met online but a neighbor who's daughter they befriended. They were also abducted on their was to school. Only one was buried in the blue barrel in the back yard, the other in box in his shed. He was caught and convicted and is serving out two life sentences. Sure stuff like this happens every day but it can be put forward as a message sender like movies such as "Trust" to get the point across, not a below B flick horror. Sadly its would be message is lost on the target audience that could have watched a more thought out form of it, rather than it just being more horror fodder for gore fans who seem to the bulk watching it.
37 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Effective but tasteless.
ocosis9 August 2021
I thought the two leads did OK on the acting front. But the film is pretty tasteless. And pretty mean spirited.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Like that one time...
miel-van-dam28 February 2013
I remember that, a while back, the government of my country (The Netherlands) was trying to put together an educational program to teach teenagers about the dangers of the Internet and how sexual predators are active on it (don't meet up with someone alone, and all that). This film's only purpose seems to be made for just that, it's an educational video. In the USA you have those ads "Meth, not even once"? This has the same message written all over it. No harm done, but don't call it a movie...

Some of the reviewers on this site and several others have said that the message is the most important thing about this flick, but I'll let you in on a secret: it's not. The acting was horribly unconvincing, the characters where flat, shallow stereotypes, and as far as the rape scene: go watch "Irreversible" and then come back and tell me that was the worst, stomach hurting, godaweful scene you ever saw in a movie. Plus, that movie *will* enrich your life, whereas this one really doesn't.

In short, if you haven't seen it: don't watch it.
106 out of 149 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Oh. Dear.
Gladys_Pym11 May 2011
Where on EARTH do you start.

First, I'm not an apologist for abuse - I'm a therapist who works, every day, with abuse and trauma. So I really GET an attempt to explore this issue - and warn - from the victim's point of view.

And, to be fair, filming this in 8 days? Remarkable.


I'm left with all kinds of icky feelings. True, Megan is pretty unbearable. She's become a bit slutty, offering what she CAN offer to boys because she can - because it doesn't matter that much (enough) to her, and that first harrowing trivial hour makes it clear what made her life, her body, less important to her than it should have been.

And Amy? Well, she's annoying, and a bit too squeaky clean, but this is annoyingly tangled up with her own self image, when in fact it's Megan's self image that is really more impaired.

The artifice of the whole film being webcam, 'phone and video is clever. Clever as in cheap, and amateurish, which works.

But that last 22 minutes. Well. Sadly, it's better shot than the previous hour, it's boring in places, (digging is NOT good cinema), and, all in all, it left me, (leaves me), feeling hollow, and empty.

There is a claim, at the start of the film, that this is based on a true story, but I've looked, hard, and can't find any proof.

There's a terribly upsetting "Every day 2000 parents say..." about abduction. Gleaned from the Klass site. But on the very next line on the Klass site, this number is diminished, and also made less clear (ie. NOT juvenile).

I don't know. I don't want to damn this film, and I don't want to pretend abuse isn't a terrible thing. It's just that my sense is, somewhere, the director got lost, and the producers didn't say so.

I admire that this is being done - ie an attempt to raise the issue. AND that the film was clearly made on a shoestring, in 8 days. But 22 year old actresses just don't (can't) look 13, and simply because abused girls don't LOOK like they have any depth doesn't mean they don't HAVE any depth.

This isn't a complete damning of this film. 'Enjoy' would be wrong, but I watched it, at least. It's just - I don't know... It could have been so much better, and it could STILL have been filmed in 8 days.
30 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Its only a movie.
horizon200813 May 2011
Well, I guess after reading the rest of the reviews here I can categorise how this has been received as either being a great horror movie, a rubbish horror movie, or those that find it a "sick" movie. Funnily enough, its the last category of review that I find the most interesting. Do folks generally read up on a film, and what its about before they watch it? I would tend to think they do. So those of you who thought this was "sick" - can I ask just wtf did you expect to see? An inane Adam Sandler comedy? A Hollywood blockbuster with Bruce Willis? Maybe a animated Disney film? Do you catch my drift? Why did you bother going to see this, or renting it, if you knew it wasn't for you? Many people avoid "horror" movies simply because they just don't like them, but in here we seem to have a few idiots who are claiming that this is the "most disgusting film ever made" (lol) - you really haven't seen many films have you my friends? To call this sick is a huge overstatement, and while its purely a work of fiction, I find it quite unsettling that someone here asked that the director be shot - hmm....who's "sick" now eh? A work of fiction inciting a work of real-life murder? Nice! Actually the guy who directed this has been around for a long time, and a lot of his work is comedy, and while I found a few bits of the movie unnerving myself, it still played quite well and it certainly didn't stay with me beyond the time it took me to watch it. Maybe it was full of plot holes and maybe the acting was a bit hammed up now and then, but for a flick shot in a short space of time, and on a small budget, I think it wasn't bad at all (that digging scene is way too long though - the first cinematic hole ever dug from start to finish without a cutaway? lol). Anyway, I suppose it would make parents of teenage girls think twice about who their kids might be talking to in their bedrooms in this age of rampant social networking. But beyond that, I've seen much sicker than this, and I didn't ask for those directors to be killed even once.
42 out of 89 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
sethklee-7768718 November 2020
God help us for Gen Z TikTok finding this, because this is awful. Everything from the script, to the acting, to the directing, to the editing. The dialogue was so obviously written from the way a 40 year old man thinks teenage girls act. The characters are cliched (abused girl engaging in risky behavior and her goody-two shoes best friend), it's unrealistic (for instance, Amy's identity would have been kept a secret after she came forward), and there's plot holes (the police easily would have been able to track Josh down). The acting was awful, unconvincing, and forced (Charlie the cat is cool though). While the ending is not good and it's not nearly as disturbing as it's made out to be, at least it was memorable. But, combine that with some peoples' ignorance and it may be the movie's greatest sin, since it's what has led to it regaining popularity once again.

When defending this movie most bring up that it's supposed to spread awareness, like it's some sort of end-all be-all shield from any criticism. But it still sucks. All it does is teach people who know nothing about the internet to be scared of it and prey on young girls' fears. At best, it's outdated. Other movies have done it before and much better, without the creepy exploitational vibe this movie gives. Hell, even those awareness ads we used to be shown in elementary school were more realistic, were better acted, and had a better message than this.

11 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One of The Worst Movies I've Ever Seen---In My Entire Life
This is supposed to be based on actual events surrounding the disappearance of two teen girls. The director, Michael Goi claimed to have researched the case and used actual "computer files" to reconstruct the scenes.

Everything about this movie is terrible, the writing, the acting, the directing, even the lighting.

The actors stare directly into the camera all the time, and talk to it. When they have scenes together, there were supposedly Skyping, and the screen was split, again showing them talking to the camera. Aside from the oddness of having the actors talking to the camera instead of each other, teens don't Skype, they text. But that's just one of the many things fundamentally wrong with this film.

This movie is a good example for film students of what not to do.
37 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Terrible Movie!
chago_bajista21 July 2013
This movie is so pathetic that it actually encouraged me to write my first review on IMDb. Why? Because i think it would be a crime and an irresponsibility not to warn the world from the insulting garbage i just watched. The problem with this movie is everything! I can't imagine hoe they could ever think this was good. the acting is abysmal, the writing is lazy and even funny (in a bad way) and the directing is worst than terrible. The overall idea of the movie is just wrong, the way the characters behave is not even close to how real people would act. The whole point of the movie is antagonizing the internet when the director and the creators of the movie don't even understand the concept of online browsing. THE DIRECTOR... Oh my god this guy made some mistakes not even i would have made in a high school movie project! The quality of the shots doesn't match the devices this movie is supposed to be shot with (like cellphones, "computer files", and web-cam footage) WHO the HELL says COMPUTER FILES! There is even a scene where you can actually hear the guy yelling "ACTION!" and he didn't edit that out. How careless is that? Have you no shame? I was so impressed by this that I googled the guy, and he is the... wait i have to take a moment to say this... he is the PRESIDENT of the ASC (American Society of Cinematographers) That's it people. I'm out... I've got nothing. Do yourself a favor, and don't watch this movie. It's dumb, it's childish, it's terribly written, terribly acted, horribly edited and insultingly bad directed. It deserves less than a 0 in rating. From now on I will only write positive reviews for good movies because I don't want this to be my last one... It sure was my first one though.
51 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What the hell did I just watch?
reeseegaming24 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Found footage is generally a bad genre, but this movie brought it to a whole new low. This is the worst movie I've ever seen in my life! I seriously cringed so hard! In the final scene of the movie where Amy gets raped, she's smiling. That's how bad the actors were. There's another scene where there's a Skype call and you can literally hear Micheal Goi saying "action" in the background. The writers of this movie also forget details for seemingly no reason. Megan stays 14 during the whole coarse of the movie, yet Amy goes from being 13 at the beginning to 15 by the end. Wtf! The actual story only lasts for about a month, so how the hell did this happen? The shot quality is also incredibly blurry, staticky, and headache inducing. Furthermore, the film drags along at a snails pace and I can't even watch it as a comedy. In conclusion, this is the worst movie of all time. I had a much better experience with movies like Troll 2, The Room, and Double Down because at least you can watch those as comedies. However, you can only watch this movie to fall asleep. Don't ever watch this movie!
15 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
bad acting!
im_a_werewolf12 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This story follows Amy and Megan,two besties that share a weird relationship.This movie is filmed like paranormal activity,but with cameras,phones,and computers.

I give this movie three stars because this has really bad acting and really clichéd events.Like for instance,a boy on the internet,without a video camera talking to Megan though the internet.And him asking her to meet behind a abandoned diner.....which leads to Megan's disappearance to school the next day,then the next day,then never.

Amy goes to ask Megan's friends that are,you know,hoes.They don't know were she is ,then blames it on Amy.And the one who's yelling at her,is the one that introduced josh(the no camera on the web guy)to Megan.

Amy starts to talk to josh about Megan's disappearance,and he tells her to forget about it,then he freaking kid naps Amy,rapes her,and puts her in a bucket,where,wait for it.......includes her best friend's,Megan's,dead body.

He is so stupid,because all this time,he records it on Amy,s video camera.The PO-PO finds it and a couple photos of Megan being tortured.They movie people called it completely true,but i call bull crap.
18 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed