Polaroid (I) (2019)
User ReviewsReview this title
This is a good tense thriller and my children and I enjoyed it immensely.
For my 930th horror film "Polaroid" makes a painfully average entry in the list. The good things here are as follows: decent acting, alright characters, some okay scare sequences, itsy bitsy twisty plot etc., etc. But, the good things become not-so-good things when You've seen them a hundred times before. The characters and the plot come from an uninspired, unoriginal script, it's quite predictable and the twists have little to no impact. The scares are disappointingly whack, except for two or three creative sequences. It's just... not a wholesome movie at all. The concept itself is cool & there's potential in it, but the writer chose to give in to all the Hollywood-ish ways instead of trying to stand out. The cinematography's cold and smokey, not a lot of complaints there. What else... The original score is there and it works, but it's as uninspirined as the plot.
Objectivily, it's definitely a 5/10, subjectively I'd want to give it less. I do recommend this to anyone who's not calling himself a horror fan & to all the teens that need a late night light horror flick, "Polaroid" makes a decent pg-13 rated horror. All in all, a disappointing expierence. I hope Lars Klevberg does a better job on "Child's Play", I really do.
The first-tier movies are big budget blockbusters like POLTERGEIST or THE MUMMY (either the 1999 Brendan Fraser or the 2017 Tom Cruise) or THE SHINING. Aside from the story itself, which apparently no amount of budget can guarantee no matter how many millions are spent, these movies have top-quality technical elements and top-drawer actors.
The second-tier features movies like the first FINAL DESTINATION or DARKNESS FALLS or the first JEEPERS CREEPERS. These movies characteristically have much lower budgets and typically feature a couple of namebrand actors with well-established careers mixed with a chorus collection of nearly unknown but still very competent and often up-and-coming actors. The namebrand actors are never leads and are usually character actors or "supporting" actors. Rather humorously, you can actually look at the roles they play and you can tell that they are only there to trade their recognizable name for a paycheck. They probably only had to be on set for a day. They're the archetypical "working actors". Movies in this tier often get picked on but they're usually of good quality with more than satisfactory production values and I'm of the opinion that they often get an unfair rap from reviewers, amateur and professional.
The third-tier movies are generally garbage that somebody shot on an iPhone. These movies feature off-the-shelf music that rarely matches the scenes it corresponds to, cinematography that mostly consists of an endless succession of head shots so tight you can count the pores on the actor's noses (so no need to scout for legitimate filming locations or properly dressed sets) and performances so wooden and stilted that SOUTH PARK cutouts put them to shame. Any time you see Gravitas Ventures or Uncork'd at the beginning of a movie, third-tier caliber is almost certainly what you're about to watch. Seeing either one of these in the beginning credits of a movie can literally give me a stomach ache. Not quite all, but almost all found footage movies fall into this tier. Just sayin'.
POLAROID falls cleanly into the second-tier. The "working actors" for POLAROID are Mitch Pileggi and Grace Zabriskie, both accomplished and well-established actors; Ms. Zabriskie has been making movies for a solid 40 years. She has the "creepy old dame" market all but cornered. Just having her look at you with her permanently baleful expression lends cinéma vérité credence to any horror movie.
POLAROID is not at all original which bothers me not in the least. At this point in the history of moviemaking, genuine originality is approaching impossibility. I ask only that, whatever the story may be, that it's rendered with quality and enthusiasm, and POLAROID does that. Very simply, there was a very evil man who did very evil things culminating in his bad ending which resulted in his becoming an evil spirit attached to a Polaroid SX-70 land camera. If your picture is taken with this camera, you're dead in some terrible way. And don't think about trying to destroy the camera OR the pictures because the evil spirit takes a dim view of THAT, too.
The bulk of the movie is the string of deaths, the discovery of the nature of the camera followed by the discovery of how circumstances transpired to result in such an unhappy state of affairs, the development of a plan to bring an end to the evil spirit, and then the implementation of the plan.
Standard fare. Standard through line. Everything accomplished with quality and at least adequate-to-purpose acting. A few good jump scares scattered throughout for flavor. Definitely no Oscars here but absolutely your money's worth. You know what you're getting when you buy your ticket.
The only criticisms I have is that there are a couple of plot points that don't ring true. For example, one erstwhile very argumentative teenager suddenly declares, utterly unbelievably altruistically, that perhaps the fact the evil spirit is coming after him, inevitably resulting in his death of course, might perhaps "buy time" for the leads to figure out how to stop the evil spirit. Oh, sure.
Good movie. Well made. Worth seeing by any fan of supernatural horror.
Anecdotally, if it was me trying to figure out how to put a sock in the evil spirit, I'd have gone to a professional football game and taken a picture encompassing all the spectators at once. That'd keep 'im busy for a while.
So is it any good and worth the wait? Unfortunately, it's very average and, had this received a big theatrical release by now, it would probably have been as well received as Slender Man and Ouija were... so not well at all.
It's almost as if the studio wanted a horror film, hired a writer, told them to watch The Ring and Final Destination 3 for inspiration, and then write the quickest script they could. Completely predictable, undeveloped characters, mostly off-screen PG-13 deaths with characters walking around in the dark... you've seen it all before but done much better.
But don't get me wrong, Polaroid isn't a terrible horror film to pass the time, it just ultimately falls under the category of being another very predictable teen supernatural horror that brings NOTHING new or exciting to the table. Surprisingly it's actually not a remake of a Japanese horror film - so kudos for that - but it still feels very derivative and doesn't stand out from the crowd of films of this type. You can be as unoriginal as you want, but you've still got to excite your audience...
One thing I really did like was the cinematography and the directing. Norwegian director Lars Klevberg does a fine job with the script he has to work with and I look forward to seeing what he does with the upcoming Child's Play remake. I also liked the cameo from Grace Zabriskie (The Grudge, Child's Play 2) and the Monster Man himself Javier Botet is always great. The young cast - mostly unknowns - were decent despite weak and typical characters.
Overall, a 5/10.
1. story (7, not completely original if you have seen movies such as Shutter, but it had some original elements that I loved) 2. Atmosphere, jump scares and chills (compared to even many high-budget horror films, this gets an easy 8 or 9) 3. Acting (7, way above average for a horror film, but this is no drama, so it doesn't matter if it lacks Oscar-winning performances) 4. cinematography (10, it was very good) 5. Music score (9, it was suspenseful) 6. Twists (4, it did have a good one, but I felt it was a bit rushed) 7. Character stupidity (0, which is the perfect score. The characters in this movie are actually smart and don't make you angry like many other horror movies do) 8. Character development (in reality 3, this is where the movie suffers, but the characters are likable and nice-looking enough to compensate for this aspect a little, so it gets a 5)
The people who gave this a low rating fall into four categories:
1. People who are too hard to please and only want something like the Ring to get scared. 2. People who don't like horror movies in general. 3. People who haven't seen enough horror movies to actually be able to make a comparison and realize how good this is compared to others. 4. People who were sleepy or distracted.
I have to admit I watched this movie during daylight and while I was a bit drowsy (big mistake), but it was so good that it kept sending chills down my spine until I regretted watching it under not-so-perfect circumstances. I would have been terrified otherwise. (A feeling I absolutely love as a horror movie fan).
Final verdict: 9 Do I recommend this? Absolutely.
i'm really disappointed and we will find this movie again in the flop 10 2019. i can already say that
Using the premise of an outdated object was good.
The actors and actresses play their parts well and it's kitsch butin a good way.
A shorter film would do this as well so it had padding but didn't distract.
I'm sure twilight Zone did an episode very similar.
But this is worth a watch on a Saturday night with pizza and beer.8
the acting are in fact good, the score are also very immersive and boosts the horror, the editing are nice, so overall ,as in the film ''super 8'', ''polaroid'' follows up in a good tradition of well made film making
what i liked was the true magic as that spelled us back then when the polaroid came on the market, and photography has always fascinated people as a frozen moment of time, and many horror films has been made on strange photographies, the one i remember best is ''the omen1''.the fact that you got your photo on an instant were in those days real wizardry, todays youth scrap their camera even without making a photoprint of their pictures and life today are more or less broadcasted online24/7,so thanks to the makers and the reminisence it brought to me by making the film polaroid
the grumpy old man gives an 8, but this is a strong 8 for sure
Don't get me wrong, it us a film to watch without taxing your brain.
The effects were good, there are quite a few jump scares throughout the film. The acting is good also. It is your typical teen horror film, good looking kids in which you rarely see the adults in their lives.
No nudity, hardly no swear words in the whole film. In fact the film is rated a PG 13, so that should tell you how much is in the film.
Go and watch this with an open mind, don't expect an Oscar winning film but expect a better than average horror film.
So back to the film; normaly at the end of the film, a Horror film
with an age rating of 13 Years mostly is getting boring.
But not this film. In the end, it was even more intense than I expected.
A good Story, and a good Directing !!!!
The pros of thus movie are few. There are a few creepy scenes and a jump scare or two and the cast tries as much as they can. The cons are too numerous to mention all of them but here are a few: 1. The movie is basically a rip-off of an old twilight zone episode and is badly written. 2. There are no rules as to when the monster attacks the victims and it might switch from one person to another instead of going in order. 3. The girl who is self conscious about her neck scar wears a yellow scarf because this apparently does not make her stand out at all. 4. The dialogue is cringeworthy at times. 5. The effects get worse as the movie goes on and the polaroid camera sounds like it's about to detonate when the flash is getting ready. Ironic since that model camera makes no such sound. 6. The characters are paper thin and make dumb decisions. 7. They can actually prove that something supernatural is after them since it is shown that when they harm the picture the same thing happens to them, but instead they go off on their own to do research and end up getting the sheriff killed. He gets ripped in half and yet there is no blood. 8. The ending is basically lame. One girl is cracking jokes 5 minutes after witnessing the death of the sheriff. I guess the younger generation really bounce back quickly.
Overall Polaroid is a mess of a movie that makes you feel like its 3 hours long instead of the 1 hour 30 minutes. Watch something else instead...
Take for example Lights Out, Get Out, REC and other such other productions that clearly show that if someone capable is behind the camera the result will be satisfactory. So where did Polaroid fail exactly?
Well I appreciated the fact that it did not drag on for too long with its premise, thus it developed quite nicely and put us fast right in the middle of the action, sooner that expected. But after this, the kills were of no impact whatsoever, the explanation came with the most common answer you find in horror and the final act seemed....under cooked. I mean it looks like a made for tv film, or perhaps a better production of the SyFy channel.
All in all I will not recommend Polaroid. I don't think it had too much potential, because the trailer tells you everything you want to know about it, clearly stating it is a straight forward idea with no sideways.