The Break-In (2016) User Reviews

Could've been good...

[futuredoc-38862 · 3/10 · 10 August 2019]

I actually kind of liked this film...for the most part. First of all, the premise was relatively unique, even in the saturated "home invasion" film space, and the ending was somewhat unexpected and clever.

The cast was also decent at portraying realistic characters with the exception of the main female character, Melissa. She was so over-the-top cutesy and bubbly, every time she spoke I cringed and it totally took me out of the film for that moment as I thought about how annoyed I'd be having to hang out with a grown woman who acts like a little girl 24/7. Maybe she's like that in person...but hopefully not. It's really off-putting and irritating seeing a women in her 30's (I'm assuming) constantly push this "aren't I adorable??" act.

Another miss was the inclusion of a scene that was supposed to be a dream, yet was apparently filmed on the lead character's phone because we see it as the audience. That piece caused a lot of confusion, as it wasn't clear whether it was actually a dream or if another physical activity occurred (trying not to include any spoilers here) and the dream was misunderstood by the lead himself, but it could've been more concisely explained. If it was in fact a dream, we shouldn't have seen it as the entire movie is "found footage" pulled from a cell phone.

All in all, I found it entertaining enough as a diehard found footage fan, but it had some major dings against it that could've easily been improved. Not a bad effort for what appears to be literally no budget at all, and I appreciated the bought that obviously went into the storyline, though.

Another found-footage mumblecore thriller

[AnDread_The_Blind · 5/10 · 3 March 2017]

If that triple combination, which seems to be so common nowadays (movies such as Creep, They Look Like People, The Good Neighbor), makes you tingly, you will probably enjoy this. But if you're not the biggest fan of either found-footage or mumblecore, which I admit I'm not, then this might fall a bit flat. The 10/10 reviews are friends of the filmmakers. It's way too obvious—not sure who you think you're fooling with a 10-star review that is your only review on IMDb. I think the 1- and 2-star reviews are a bit harsh, though.

I was moderately entertained until the last ten minutes of the film, which really soured me on it. Let me run through the pros and cons.

Pros: The basic set-up is simple, but intriguing enough to hold promise: an engaged couple, Jeff (Doescher) and Melissa (Binkley), who are expecting a baby, and prone to anxiety, start freaking out when they hear of others in the neighborhood being burglarized. Jeff gets a new phone and gets obsessed with recording everything on it, especially when he notices anything suspicious. Although they come off as a bit smarmy and bougie at first, the dynamic between Jeff and Melissa is good, and as the tension between them and the impending threat of a home invasion ratchet up, I felt myself on edge waiting for them to confront the danger, as you know they eventually will. Not much happens, as it is mostly dialogue, and thankfully I found the writing and delivery fairly engaging and convincing for this mumblecore style. One of the characteristics of mumblecore is naturalistic and sometimes improvised dialogue taking precedence over action; this dialogue is often contrived and is as likely to take me out of the film as immerse me in it. Dialogue that is trying desperately to be "natural" or "quirky" just sounds so obviously forced that it really isn't "realistic" (and I am bothered by the whole notion of films having to be "realistic" anyway). I'm not sure why I found the dialogue in The Break-In better, other than it felt, for the most part, like the way people would talk to each other, with a believable inflection and affect that was neither flat nor too over-the-top "actor-y."

Cons: First, the title is boring and isn't going to pull many people in, unless you're a sucker for home invasion fare, which this film only halfway is.

Next, while I enjoyed the dynamic between Jeff and Melissa, the friendship between the neighbors felt forced; they talked too much about how they loved being friends with and living next door to them. And the neighbors just aren't as good actors, though you don't really get to see them do too much.

Third, if you're going to do found footage, don't add outside music into the film. It always makes me stop and think, "This shouldn't be here." It's sparse, only used during the creepy night scenes when Jeff thinks someone is trying to break in, but at the end, there's a particularly egregious use of poppy music that's supposed to tug at your heart strings, which is baldly manipulative. Finally, most importantly, the last ten minutes is a mess, for several reasons that I won't go into because of spoilers. I'll just say that one problem is that it violates the found footage premise in more than just sound—we get an image that we later find isn't "real." This feels like a cheap move to trick the viewer. Then the "twist" ending, whether you see it coming or not, again feels too manipulative and not really earned.

One last note: although "horror" is the first genre tag, I don't consider this horror very much. There is an atmosphere of anxiety, which I associate with thriller, rather than a sense of dread, which I associate with horror. Still, that line is blurry, and mumblecore is pushing hard on that boundary. If you like movies such as Creep and They Look Like People, you might enjoy this, but if not, you might avoid it. For me, I'm split down the middle; it's good for a single watch if there's nothing better. Streaming free with Amazon Prime. 5/10

Disappointing ending

[ltravis-00439 · 3/10 · 27 September 2016]

I don't know why anyone would praise this movie, and give a long glorifying review with colorful words. I'm wondering if all those great reviews were friends of the director or actors. The movie had potential to have a great ending. First of all, whose feet were at the garage door, about halfway into the movie? Who was the guy standing on the deck? We were shown all the scenes through his phone, so why would we suddenly "see" his dream at the end? That just throws confusion into the end of the movie. Why hasn't anyone mentioned all the orbs floating around in their bedroom in several scenes in the last 25 minutes or so of the movie? I thought for sure that there may be a supernatural element, since there were obvious orbs? So am I believe those were real orbs that made it into the movie? If they aren't real, why were they added?

I also predicted the ending at the very beginning, since he mentions he used to sleep walk. This movie was suspenseful at the beginning, and I was very disappointed at the end.

Do they even know what "found footage" means?

[shaylad2055 · 2/10 · 24 July 2019]

Okay so the acting is good... The movie had potential and I was enjoying it until the ending.... Oh dear that ending! Are you ready for this..... IT HAS A DREAM SEQUENCE!!!! Tell me what kind of found footage horror movie has a dream sequence?!?!?!?!?!?!? Was his dream so realistic that it projected itself onto the camera. I mean come on!

DO NOT believe the 10/10 reviews! You will thank me

[studisco · 1/10 · 15 December 2016]

This was one of the worst movies I've seen in my entire 38 years on earth. The best thing about the movie is that it is only 1:12 in length, so you can start hating yourself sooner after viewing.

All of the 10/10 reviews have to be from friends of those affiliated with this awful, awful picture. I created an account solely to warn people of this atrocity.

It's long, boring, inexplicable and just makes no sense at all, even the resolution. Did he do all the break ins? Did he stab his friend? Do normal people film everything constantly and their friends/family aren't annoyed? This movie actually made me MAD. There is no way that anyone should have ever allowed this to see the light of day. I am considering a class action suit against Amazon for allowing it free with Prime.

I'm sure the people who made it are nice enough. But this was just absolute trash. If I could smear feces on the screen to further drive the point home, I would. Most terrifying of all is that the writer/director thought, at some point, "this is a good effort" and is still allowed to live freely outside of a mental institution.

....

[gravitygrave-24344 · 1/10 · 11 February 2017]

I stumbled upon this movie on Prime tonight and despite it's low rating of 2 stars, I decided to give it a try. Sometimes your run-of-the-mill B-horror film can turn out decently scary, despite not being everyone's cup of tea.

It was your typical hand cam sort of set-up, similar to Paranormal. A standard, douchey couple in a subpar condo start experiencing neighborhood disturbances. Things get real when their good friend and neighbor is stabbed in the result of a home intruder. Alas, the couple, although expecting a goddamn child, decides to stick it out and remain in their home despite multiple burglaries in the area.

Just as the film begins to finally build up a bit of momentum, it takes a sloppy, hard left and decides to play the sleep apnea card as a "twist" and what the man thought was a nightmare of him murdering the invader was actually a reality of the murder of his pregnant fiancé..

Rushed, sloppy, and ill-written.

The cherry on top was the morbid choosing of the cheesy house-pop in the final credits, complete with candid selfies of the couple. I feel genuinely ripped off for my time invested watching this film. What a joke.

Pleasantly surprised by the obvious mistakes

[xanderdeafman · 1/10 · 9 February 2021]

First up: When you recording something, set the security to records ONLY WHEN IT"S MOTION-ACTIVATED, so as not to waste space on the hard drive. Second: You recorded something, don't go arguing you seen some man outside your window, SHOW IT ON YOUR CELL PHONE or LAPTOP, what you recorded is EVIDENCE of what you SEEN, there, Melissa can SEE what you saw. Simple. Third: I suspected the man outside the window is JEFF'S PROJECTED VISUALISED IMAGE OF HIS STRESS, so if he'd CHECKED his cell phone and see what he recorded, he'd have seen there's NO ONE THERE. DID HE CHECKED? NOPE. THEY NEVER DID. They argued whether he'd seen the man or not. Five minutes later, the DETECTIVE SAID they caught a man a few blocks over. Question: How the hell did the man outside the window gets over there so FAST? Answer: The man outside the window is Jeff's FIGMENT OF HIS IMAGINATION ON OVERDRIVE. Jeff's anxiety rose so high, it's affecting his sleep, his sleepwalking, and thus, his sleep-murder of his fiancee. Sad. He shoulda relax, not gets all stressed and anxiety. And lastly I wants to say this, who the hell uses beep-locks when there's a a DEADBOLT on the lock, USE IT. TWO LOCKS IS BETTER THAN ONE. But nooo, Jeff's like, "this magic buttons locks the door, so good." And his next door friend can use it to get in. Creepy. No real people would do that, share lock codes. NOPE. That'll add stress, oh yeah. smh This movie got so many holes. The garage door, he goes outside, he goes back inside, we saw him opens that and then not closes it when he goes back inside a few times. DId he leaves the garage door OPEN? I have no idea. Crazy. The dream sequence, how amazing Jeff's cell phone has, the technology to be able to records HIS DREAM SEQUENCE and have it safely recorded. (sarcastic). This busts up the movie, destroys the credibility. Such a shame. Not once he checks the Security videos, to be sure nothing's there or not there, so he can be SURE no one is there. But nope, he never checks. So every 24 hours, the hard drive resets, all records wiped, for the next 24 hours. Crazy. The foot prints he found, he could have checked the security videos and realises it was HIMSELF who lefts it there, or it could be SOMEONE ELSE who came in during the night. But it could be HIMSELF sleep walking. Who da knows, anyways. We'll never knows. The videos are all wiped. smh God, what a pain in the arse this movie is. So many flaws. This needs cleaning up. Then it'll be better. I gives it 1 Star rating. Very disappointed. Pleasantly surprised by the obvious mistakes.

This movie is so slow.

[wigglesbug · 1/10 · 24 November 2016]

I've been browsing Amazon Prime to find some thrillers/horror movies to watch and came across this movie. It seemed to get some good reviews, so I thought I'd give it a try. I wish I'd found something else.

First, it is in the same vein as "Paranormal Activity" or "Blair Witch" in that it is shot in the first-person camera perspective. So, not very original there.

Second, the story takes a long time to get going. As in, 65 minutes. It isn't until the last twenty minutes of the movie that it *maybe* gets interesting. Other than that, it is the main character just babbling on and on while recording on his phone. Maybe the story seems original, but when you add in the way it was shot and lack of any meaningful story development it ends up being the same Hollywood recipe.

Third, they throw out a clue here and there about what the end game is (which I'm not going to mention), but I'm sure you can put it together. The "twist" (if you can call it that) seems more like an after thought or a really forced desire to be original--especially since it took so long to reach the climax.

The end result is an uninspired story line that is capitalizing off of the success of thrillers before it. It strikes me as a "get rich quick" scam. No wonder the run-time is one hour and eleven minutes; there isn't enough story to have even 90 minutes of film.

I guess if you're bored it's a way to kill time. Or maybe put it on the background at a party. You don't really have to watch the film to figure out what was going on.

Flawed but good

[dianereneew · 6/10 · 29 September 2017]

Not much chemistry between the cast members, but it still worked. The story dragged, and yet I still watched, curious to see where this would go (I don't give up when it comes to not-terrible horror movies; you can find some real gems that way!). I'm so glad I didn't stop watching because the last 10 minutes turned really turned this movie around. I literally had a WHAT THE...moment. Should have seen it coming but I didn't. Would I recommend it -- on a rainy afternoon, why not. Am I sorry I watched it-- not at all. I loved the ending.

Tedious beyond belief

[bks-508-290401 · 1/10 · 28 October 2016]

I'm a huge fan of found footage, it jangles my nerves because it gives a feeling of realism, and there's no peripheral vision so you don't know what will be there when you turn around. I've seen quite a few, some good, some not so good. This one is at the bottom of the pile for me. I totally get character development, and I enjoy it, but almost this entire film consists of mundane conversations between the lead male with the droning, monotonous voice and his sickly sweet fiancé with her exaggerated facial expressions and annoying vocal fry. I'm sorry, but the film is almost over, nothing has really happened so far, and I really don't care what you'll be calling your baby, or what dance moves you used to be able to do. I'd say there's about 10 minutes of tension in this film altogether, if that. I'd give it no stars if I could. I will say that I didn't see that ending coming, which lasted all of five minutes and was quite a surprise. But that's all.

Great watch

[rachwashington · 10/10 · 26 May 2016]

I was really impressed by the originality of this film. I love watching Indie films, but oftentimes they aren't original and / or seem actually amateur (which, let's face it... if you're going to produce a film, shouldn't it be GOOD? Anyway..!). So this movie was GOOD. I was genuinely interested for the duration of the movie. And it's not long either, which was fine with me. It caught my interest. I liked the story. The acting was good. And it appealed to me throughout. I am giving it a thumbs-up because I ALMOST didn't watch this movie because of a couple negative reviews I saw, but then decided to (especially since it's only about an hour). I'm glad I didn't let their uncalled for negativity ruin my potential to watch a good movie! I'm excited to see more from Doescher. He really seems to have a creative mind and know what he's doing. Way to go, The Break-in!

Just a bunch of talking

[semisweet-56984 · 3/10 · 15 January 2017]

I felt like this whole movie was basic everyday conversation. It was flat. I can't believe that I was already 55 minutes into the movie and just feeling what little suspense there was. I was left confused with so many questions. The plot was not strong or even fully developed. I was very annoyed at the cellphone-found footage format that the movie was set in.

The actors were great and very strong. They did a wonderful job at bringing the characters to life. The movie could have been so much better especially given the craft of the actors.I felt like their talent went to waste.

I am just overall confused with this one.

Absolute rubbish!

[kim-92471 · 1/10 · 22 June 2016]

If you watch this film it's 70 minutes of your life you will never get back - it's beyond terrible!! There is no tension at all, no attempt at acting, both the main characters are annoying (especially the girlfriend) and you can guess what the so-called 'shock' ending will be within 10 minutes of watching the film. I truly don't understand the high review scores for this...I can only assume the bloke who directed it got his mates to give them. It's just awful. Imagine a couple you know, they've just got a new phone, and they want to show you their 'day-in-the-life-of' footage...complete with looking for baby clothes (as they do in this one) that's what watching this drivel will be like (only I suspect your mates' one will be more interesting).

Impossible to wrap my brain around the stupidity of this movie

[tjfar · 1/10 · 2 June 2016]

Then ten star reviews must be from the producers or others involved in production of this movie. Because, this movie is dumb beyond belief.

I am a fan of found footage movies, so that doesn't bother me at all. But what I can not understand how in the hell is there a dream sequence in this movie? How does that work? Did the character dream so intensely he projected his dream onto his cell phone? Seriously, the movie does not even have the convictions of it's own premise.

Easily, one of the worse movies I have ever seen. But at least it won't be forgettable. So I guess it has that going for it.

What a waste of time.

Cell Phone movie!! smh

[oceankalamo · 17 July 2016]

I was excited to see this movie after reading the plot. Once I saw this was taped with a cell phone (i.e. low budget style) that was a turn off but decided to give it a chance anyway. After the first 5 minutes into all of the rambling on chitter chatter about Bob and who the heck else they were talking about..I became so bored and drawn away from the film I almost forgot I put on "a movie". It reminded me of when your at a house gathering or art galley opening with many people that you do not know and everyone is talking in this monotone voice, eventually what all begins to sound like...blahh blah blah...blah blah ..blah blah. Have no idea if this cell phone captured something more interesting but these characters, voices and script was becoming annoying. More effort in the writing would have been more appreciated to start or maybe more editing to get things going.

Worst movie I have EVER seen

[lauraann-30809 · 1/10 · 11 June 2016]

This was by far THE worst movie. If it got any stars above 2, then it's just people who know the Josh guy who created it. It's not intriguing, thrilling, suspenseful or anything you would think this movie would be. The ending has NOTHING to do with a break-in, which is what the title is. You spend an hour watching the most nauseatingly happy people do the most mundane stuff (I.e. shopping, cooking, drinking wine with friends) and then in the last 12 minutes or so, when you think to yourself, "FINALLY! It's September 13th!!," you are given an ending that does absolutely NOTHING. It has NOTHING to do with a "break-in." It's this guy who had, for whatever reason, walked around with his camera phone (one that doesn't seem to work so well) recording all day long (this phone's battery was awesome though) because he was, oh so excited he didn't have a flip phone anymore (in 2011), that he sleep walks and, thinking he sees a man with a ski mask, kills his fiancée. The end. Nothing on who the guy standing outside of their house was, who was breaking into the houses in the neighborhood or even who stabbed their best friend, nothing! The description says, "More than 2,000 Americans are victims of home burglary each year. How safe is your neighborhood?" but the end of the movie gives statistics about how many homicides are committed by sleepwalkers :/, so which is it that we are supposed to be focusing on here? I'm so glad this movie was never in the theaters for me to waste money on and that I watched it for free on Amazon, even still I feel robbed.

What could have been a good movie spoiled by too many flaws

[curiouscarnivore · 3/10 · 5 March 2016]

This movie could have had potential but there were too many crucial details that in true life would never have happened. The detective when visiting the couple who's husband was filming with a camera,behaved and performed actions that a detective would not do as part of his job.. example: when he was shown where the utility box was located, he all of a sudden became a forensic specialist, pulling out a brush and orange plastic lens to check for fingerprints? I had to laugh at this scene as it was in no way believable.Of course there would be prints on the damn box.. but he quoted" nothing unusual was apparent after his forensic test lol.. also when the neighbors were broken into, yes it wasn't pleasant to see that the husband had been stabbed, and when the next door friends visited him in hospital.. The one who was stabbed told them the detective had visited and that they had a "possible" suspect.. and yet again in reality no detective would then give the specific name of any individual, as it's not procedure and an totally unprofessional action of a detective to give any individuals details to any victim of crime until the person in question is proved to have enough evidence to charge him.. And as far as the statement just before end of movie ..it stated that the husband was on trial for murder of his wife and baby..

The poor guy was sleep walking. he even had evidence on the cameras in the bloody house.. so as far as on trial for murder.. It would be exception to the whole case his action were what can be placed under as diminished responsibility.

Maybe for most viewers it was a cool movie but as a experienced film critic, its small detail that is of importance, and mistakes and errors in this movie spoil the characters in question whole integrity and is a frustrating trait that seems to be reason to effect many other films as well.

Lots Of Filler With Very Little Thrills

[HorrorOverEverything · 3/10 · 5 June 2016]

Awh Found footage, a genre that at one point I was very interested/obsessed with, after I watched Blair Witch project I was very interested in finding other movies similar to it. Some years back I remember searching for similar films and really only being able to find like 4 or 5 legit ones. Then Paranormal Activity was released and the genre became extremely over-saturated, now a new found footage movie is released just about every week and they bast majority of them are absolute crap. Is "The Break In" a fresh new take on the genre, or is it more or less the same old crap we have been fed in recent times.

The film follows Jeff Anderson (played by Justin Doescher who also directs the film) who has just gotten a new smart phone which has prompted him to film every little thing in his house for really no reason at all. He has a cute wife named Melissa (Maggie Binkely) who is pretty much the most understanding/calm female I have ever seen in a horror film. Jeff has just recently installed security cameras in his house due to their being a break in in the area. Ultimately these cameras prove to be useless since the high majority of the movie is filmed from the perspective of Jeff's phone.

The Break In suffers from the same things that plague all these types of movies, more filler than actually thrills, no interesting characters, and a bland shock ending that is meant to leave you on the edge of your seat but really only left me shrugging and bored. That's really all there is to this flick, you spend the majority of the film watching Jeff and his Girlfriend kill time by shopping, hanging out with their friends, and talking about the fact that Melissa is pregnant. All that leads up to one big shock in the last 3 or 4 minutes of the film.

The Break In had me slightly intrigued when it first started, non paranormal story line and some decent acting, but in the end it was just another bland found footage film. I think it's time we let this genre die, at least for while.

3/10

Watched 10 minutes and that was enough.

[Saiph90 · 1/10 · 27 November 2016]

OK, it really is totally unfair to review a movie were you only watched it for 10 minutes but I am as I feel robbed of 10 minutes of my life. Looking through Amazon on my fire stick this was free, it seemed to have an interesting premise so I took a punt. Found footage, god help us this genre has been utterly flogged to death, it is to scary, interesting it is boring. At the start a bloke gets his phone out and starts filming his girlfriend making dinner, I can just image getting home from work and thrusting my phone at my wife as she made dinner, then the friends come for dinner and you film them eating? At this point I gave up with the useless acting utterly boring dialogue and script, looking at other review probably one of my better decisions.

Similar, but different.......and in a great way

[jdoescher · 10/10 · 24 March 2016]

I am a big fan of indie horror. I watch pretty much every unknown horror that hits Netflix. So I figured I would give this one a try.......at first, started off much like a lot of the found footage movies out there.

Sets up the story and characters, filmed a lot like Paranormal Activity. But unlike a typical ghost story, this one was about a home invasion. To me, that was much more realistic than a demon in my house. I don't want to give anything away, but watch this film! And then tell me you don't double check every lock in your house afterwards.

The last half of the film is especially terrifying. Again, I am a big fan of found footage films. Some people hate them. But if you are a fan, this one is worth the rental.

hate found footage? you'll hate this one even more!

[dankaufman-22184 · 1/10 · 24 May 2016]

i am not a huge fan of found-footage horror, but this one inexplicably got a high rating on amazon. so, i watched it, and now i almost hate myself for watching it.

you know that point in found-footage where you ask yourself 'why the hell are they filming this'?, well, you'll find yourself asking that every single second of this movie, which seems to last forever despite its short run-time. seriously, the guy films everything, all the time. why? because he likes his new phone, and apparently all of the important people in his life, not to mention police officers, are totally cool with this guy having his iphone trained on them all the time. ugh.

sort of spoiler: the movie is supposed to consist exclusively of footage from an iphone and from 4 security cameras in the home. so, how the hell does a dream-sequence get in there? seriously. a dream- sequence. ugh.

oh, also here is a HUGE SPOILER: the entire movie, minus its last 5 minutes, is a total red herring.

Non-supernatural riff on Paranormal Activity

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 9 July 2017]

THE BREAK-IN is an indie riff on PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, as are so many, and featuring the same kind of atmosphere of tension and disquiet. This time around the story is non-supernatural and concerns a young expecting couple who are disturbed by increasing reports of burglaries in their neighbourhood. Their story is captured via found footage in a low budget but fairly realistic way. The problem is that the events that do take place are few and far between and they're also quite familiar despite attempts at atmosphere building. The twist ending is the only thing of note in this one.

Contrived and adolescent attempt to run away and join the "found footage" circus.

[WrittenReview · 3/10 · 19 May 2016]

While we would all love to hit up our local hardware store and fill our houses with security cameras to be the next "Paranormal Activity", there is a reason only one franchise has made it to theaters since "The Blair Witch Project". If you're wondering what that reason is, look no further.

"The Break-in" jumbles together unnecessary security cam and YouTube-quality iPhone 6 footage, while the audience is made to watch the product of, simply, a poorly written narrative. In the hackneyed form of first-attempt screen writing, a young, pregnant couple moving into their new neighborhood. The namesake and only areas of conflict, the break-ins that have been occurring in the surrounding houses, begin to suddenly consume the lives of our couple, Melissa (Maggie Binkley) and Jeff (writer/director/producer, Justin Doescher). Once visited by a very hard-to-believe detective (Ted Fernandez) their simple, happy life is disrupted and the plot spirals down from there.

Granted, in the beginning the film shows promise with its witty dialogue and some realistic acting. And, hey, it's "found footage", which is supposed to be shaky, fragmented, and loosely cut together enough to be un-watched police evidence-made-film. But that gimmick is clearly given up in the end when we witness what seem to be Jeff's internal hallucinations; a masked man darting from the shadows, who, after Jeff announces has been stabbed 3 times, comes to life for one last feeble scare.

To sum up:

1st star: Realistic dialogue and (improv?) acting. 2nd star: Beginning, middle, and end (however uncoordinated they may be). 3rd star: "A" for effort, guys!

P.S. As a fellow filmmaker, it should be noted that digital footage no longer makes the static sound of a VHS when cut together. However, it does add interest and may not repel many mainstream viewers.

Cliché, illogical, and lazy found footage film features surprisingly good acting

[theoceaneer · 3/10 · 19 May 2016]

Note: I reviewed this film on Amazon, and the film was immediately brigaded by "new users". So I've decided to spread the review around a bit -- not because it's offensively bad (I've seen worse), but because someone is trying to artificially inflate the reviews (notice the other reviewed here, as well).

On with the show: I'm a found footage film junkie, so I'll be reviewing this film in the context of other found-footage films. If you don't care for found footage films, this movie is an immediate pass -- while it is competently made, the narrative and characterizations aren't anything you haven't seen a million times before, and the glaring logical flaws will leave you feeling swindled.

For the found footage junkies, here's the good: this movie is competently shot, and well-acted (for budget horror). The justification for constantly filming is, as has become standard, pretty weak, but the director made the very wise choice of putting the least-interesting actor (himself) behind the camera. The other actors, particularly the wife and the neighbor, are refreshingly genuine, even charming. The incidental characters, especially the detective, are enjoyable to watch.

Which is good, because not a lot happens in this movie. Even at a trim 70 minutes, the film drags. There are a couple of jump scares, but they are so entrenched in found footage tropes that you can see them coming from a mile away.

And that, ultimately, is the film's downfall: it is horribly, horribly, HORRIBLY cliché. The "twist" (and I use the term lightly - - it's barely a bend) is telegraphed so far in advance that you'll have the ending predicted shortly after the main characters are introduced. What's worse, the jump scares are inserted at precisely the place where you'd expect them to be, to the point where you can call them out about five seconds in advance. All the old classic are in here, including the "guy hurls himself at the car window for no reason" and "my wife is a deaf-mute ninja at night". To be fair, they do not have a spring- loaded cat -- perhaps the actors were allergic.

But what really killed the movie for me -- what drove me from indifference to genuine dislike -- was the complete lack of logic in the screenplay. MILD SPOILERS: The main character's phone appears to be recording his subjective experience of outside events. Which is to say, it is recording HIS MIND, not the real world. Actually, if you consider the footage at the end (where the phone is nowhere to be seen), you're forced to ask: how was what we just saw recorded? The only way I can make logical sense of this film is to conclude that it is, in fact, a traditional narrative film, but shot from the perspective of a found-footage film. Which is, frankly, a cheat to work around what may be the laziest writing in Hollywood. And in spite of this surreal framing, I STILL saw the ending coming from a mile away.

It's not the worst movie I've seen, but it is definitely near the bottom of the found footage barrel. Its only redeeming quality is the actors, who I hope have the good fortune to appear in better films.

OK, 1st Half

[steven98664 · 5/10 · 18 June 2016]

So this was OK for the first half. The setup seems complicated and filled with intrigue. The couple seems normal but interesting enough. The plot points at neighbors, aliens or something very odd going on!

The snippets of a culprit(s) creates the intrigue.

This is shot like it is on a phone, live action, shaky, etc.

The answers in the end are very simple.

We were drawn in by the obscure nature of this. It was like aliens or something might be trying to get them. The feel of Bodysnatchers or something.

In the end a very simple plot with not so complex and ending.