Polaroid (I) (2019) User Reviews

Hard to hate, impossible to love.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 5/10 · 4 April 2020]

Polaroid isn't what you'd call a bad film, it's pretty watchable, the main issue with it, is that it lacked any degree of originality.

Watching it I was convinced I'd seen it before, but I think the plot has been done elsewhere, the scares offered up nothing new. Solid production values, decent acting, it's hard to slate it because by modern standards it's decent.

A few decent scenes, the final showdown perhaps the best of them.

I wouldn't watch it again, but compared with some so called horrors it wasn't all bad, 5/10.

A Generic Endeavour for A Horror Buff

[TwistedContent · 5/10 · 11 May 2019]

"Polaroid" is an arguably good-looking, all-the-clichés-rehashing mainstream paranormal horror flick, which offers some entertainment and cheap teen scares.

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.

do not fall for fake reviews from actors and director

[natcalgary · 5/10 · 11 May 2019]

Is movie is exactly what you would expect. mid range. Pretty predictable with a couple cool death scenes tossed in.

Ok but not great

5.1

Lights??

[wjbolton-73508 · 2/10 · 28 February 2020]

I guess there was no more money in the budget for lights. Its amazingly ridiculous, can barely see any detail because of the lack of lighting

Had to turn it off.

[LibbyLuWho2 · 3/10 · 30 March 2020]

Not because it was bad, but because it was SO FREAKING DARK it wasn't worth watching. I literally adjusted my television settings to be as bright as possible and still couldn't see what was happening. Don't waste your time!

How did this get so many good reviews?!

[heather_lynn_brown21 · 3/10 · 11 May 2019]

I swear I've already seen this movie... at least 50 times. It's like the writers used a common horror movie tropes manual when writing this. If you've already seen movies about cursed objects that kill off the attractive group of friends one by one then you won't get anything new from this movie. It stays right in the box.

A solid little horror film

[Tweekums · 7/10 · 19 October 2021]

Bird Fitcher is a high schooler in a small American town. She is a keen photographer but is less keen on being photograph. One day she is given an old 1970s Polaroid camera by a co-worker at the antique shop where she works. She takes his picture and notices a strange shadow on the image; as it is an old camera she doesn't think much of it. That evening friends drag her to a party where she takes a group picture and her friend Avery takes a selfie. Later she gets a call telling her that her co-worker has died... the shadow is no longer on his photograph; it is on Avery's picture! After she dies Bird makes the connection between the shadow and the deaths. Is the camera cursed and if so will they find a solution before those in the group photo all die?

This is a pretty decent little horror film. The premise may be more than a little similar to that of 'Ring' only involving having ones picture taken with a cursed camera rather than watching a cursed video. The idea is obviously fairly silly but it is effective and provides plenty of good scares, as well as the expected jump scares. The explanation for the camera's deadly properties is good and features a nice twist. There is a fine atmosphere; outside snow is always falling and indoors are mostly quite dark... you'll certainly want to watch in a darkened room to see everything. The cast is solid; Kathryn Prescott in particular impresses as Bird. The special effects are mostly pretty good and while the deaths are fairly scary they aren't gory. Overall I wouldn't say this is a must see but it passes ninety minutes well enough if you like horror movies.

Dark picture

[tlou-32728 · 1/10 · 22 February 2020]

This show did not have enough light to see it very well so makes it hard to know if it was intentional because of the story or lack of funds to have a light bulb changed. Just trust that the bad reviews were earned although I did try to be fair in watching to the end. Sadly a forgettable show.

Polaroid is a decently executed, yet cliche teen horror that shows flashes of genuine foreboding creepiness, and some plot predictability along the way.

[tresm87 · 7/10 · 15 May 2019]

6.5/10 I was honestly hoping to see this in the theatre after watching the trailer for what seems like almost 2 years ago. Apparently it never even got a theatrical release. When it comes to horror, most of us know what to expect by now. Usually young protagonists in trouble with formulaic scares abound. While this doesn't break any new ground, it does tell a solid enough story surrounding an old haunted Polaroid camera and the teens that get ahold of it. The lighting and tension is actually very well done and built rather well, and I was genuinely tense a few times. There is also some great usage of certain SFX that create a very unsettling sonic atmosphere. The teen centered story can get slightly annoying and cliche at times but it just comes with the territory. I thought there was a certain backstory that was very unnerving as well and by the time the intense finale arrives, everything is that much more effectively frightening as things are amped up. Overall it's going to be slated for its predictability, but if you give it a chance as an avid horror fan, I'm sure you'll be able to appreciate it for what it is. It accomplishes what it sets out to do with it's creepy story.

Electricity wasn't invented according to this movie

[hanbulban · 2/10 · 10 May 2020]

Every scene has the lights off, house light off, school don't have lights even police station light was turned off except a desk lamp, streets have no lights, there is no such thing as electricity in this movie such a badly shot movie with horrible storyline

Not new, but good, solid supernatural horror.

[S_Soma · 8/10 · 11 May 2019]

Based upon my own observation, there are three tiers of supernatural horror movie.

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.

Originality points

[daillstate · 6/10 · 11 February 2020]

No agenda, just basic horror with a decent villain and a shaky premise. Pretty decent pg-13 film

An average movie

[andricfilip · 5/10 · 27 January 2020]

This movie is really not that bad as everyone is talking. It is an average PG-13 movie and I must say that I enjoyed it. It isn't scary enough though, but, again, it is a decent movie.

6/10

difficult to rate, bad start good end

[NijazBaBs · 5/10 · 18 May 2019]

This is another movie that is difficult to rate because it is neither significantly good nor significantly bad. Start is worse than end, because only near the end we got good story, intro, explanation, details, insight. Unlike the 2nd half of the movie, 1st half was so bad, lacking explanation and with so predictable obvious common effects, making the whole movie look fake, not even showing the evil. I liked the end, emotional and facial expressions, and really did feel fear and sadness in few occurrences that character did too. Neither worst, nor best. Not worth watching more than once.

Shockingly dull

[KaZenPhi · 3/10 · 2 March 2020]

The english language almost fails me here.

I was looking for an alright movie to pass the time on an afternoon while I was down with the flu. Something charmingly inept and entertaining or potentially decent and watchable. You just never know beforehand. Polaroid finds itself at the precise halfway point, in the unholy abyss of mediocrity, the depressing 5/10 sludge that I dread.

If the word "eh" turned into a movie it'd be this. Devoid of any creativity, style, charm, suspense, horror. It left my brain before it entered it, I'm somewhat shocked this isn't a direct-to-Netflix movie.

Despite the exhaustive lack of originality this could have been ok, had it been much better or much worse. Avoid at all costs. It excels at being dull to the point where it's somehow even too dull to fall asleep to. A strange loop that must have appeared in one of Douglas Hofstadter's nightmares at some point.

This Polaroid captured a slightly under average movie

[KoolCatReviews · 3/10 · 4 April 2020]

The bar is never set that high for morderen horrors alot just tend to sit in that 4/10 rating however this is slightly below average. Its not really that bad, it's becomes alittle bit boring. It doest really do anything new or intresting the premise is very similar to alot of other movies. The main character for me is quite poor and there are few clichés that come with this movie. The best part of this movie is the setting and there is some competent camera work. But story is just okay. Its not very scary and it's not very original. It not a horrible film though, just under average.

Goosebumps meets The Ring

[ulyssesgammahose · 7/10 · 1 June 2021]

A good introductory horror for teenagers who are old enough for scary movies but not really horrific ones. There's a monster, a mystery to be solved and a frightened but determined heroine. Although some characters are killed, it's not gratuitous or gory.

Polaroid is also very nicely shot, with a kid of dusky gloom throughout.

Too many such movies.

[Patient444 · 4/10 · 19 May 2019]

You see, you take an easy premise, like Truth or Dare, or Polaroid, you make it into a horror movie, which has to be to easiest thing to do right, thus where could one go wrong? Small budget? Unknown actors that do not manage to deliver properly? Or maybe the script & execution are just not of any standards at all.

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.

Cheers!

Cheesy

[josephkearns · 6/10 · 18 October 2019]

It's the good kinda cheesy. Cheesy in some parts and scary in other

This film should have been called, "No Lights Allowed"...

[splurben · 2/10 · 1 November 2020]

Production value is okay. But the idea over and over again people that are in a scary situation, being threatened by something shadow-like in a dark space doesn't try to turn on any lights or get to a place where there is light is just stupid. Over and over again, dark, dark, dark, even sometimes in daylight, the production is so dark. I can't think of anyone that doesn't go for lights when afraid in the dark, or at least try and fail to turn on the lights. Any other aspect of this film is over-shadowed by the lack of any common-sense reaction to horrific situations and as far as I'm concerned that is a fundamental necessity of horror: bad things happen even when people respond mostly reasonably or intelligently in a given situation.

People who gave this movie a low rating fall into four categories

[politehere · 9/10 · 18 May 2019]

I watch horror movies all the time. I watch every horror movie I can get my hands on and most of them are weak and boring. This one, however, is definitely one of the good ones that actually sent chills down my spine from the first few minutes until two thirds into the movie. The third and final act of the movie, which is the climax, was not as effective as the first two acts, because the scare tactics get old, and it becomes more action-oriented and fast-paced. Horror movies are scary when things are slow and allow the fear to build up, which is exactly what you will get in the first two acts. Here's how I would score this:

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.

Picture a review

[Darkside-Reviewer · 6/10 · 21 May 2019]

I watched this movie online recently while skipping through a bunch of different movies and the synopsis made this film sound pretty much like a rip off of the Ring but with a camera instead of a tape.

The movie follows a high school girl who isn't very popular she works at an antique store and is given an old camera she uses it to take pictures of friends and quickly finds out that whoevers picture is taken they are killed by some unknown shadow who lingers in the picture until the person is dead nothing can rid them of this curse so they try to find the owner of the camera and stop themselves from dieing.

The movie is actually pretty good and is well shot and directed it doesn't have a big budget or anything but the actors really put all there effort into it and the result is a movie that keeps your interest and makes you wonder who the owner of the camera is.

I recommend this movie to people who enjoy paranormal movies and movies about cursed objects like the Ring or Annabelle it's worth a decent watch.

Horror by numbers

[kolinobrien · 3/10 · 11 May 2019]

Pretty much as the title says. A true to formula effort with nothing new to say, unless you are watching your first ever horror movie. A group of teens with no personalities are gradually killed off by an 'entity', over the course of a movie that looks like it was made on a small budget, using the director's phone camera. Bad lighting, lame CGI (although very little of it), and pedestrian acting abilities all 'round. If you really need to see it; I would wait until it comes up on TV.

Its like watching riverdale

[ari-chea · 1/10 · 19 February 2020]

Everythings is so dark ,sad, depress,boring

They could have done better !

Not great, not original

[j-v-clarke · 5/10 · 19 May 2019]

It's very basic, little bit pathetic in parts, lost my attention several times during the movie. Wanted to like it but just didn't. Very unoriginal. I'd spend your time watching something else but I can see teenagers enjoying it. Not the worst movie I've watched recently but certainly not the best either.