Tag Archives: found footage

1990s, 1999, folk, found footage, Grade, Horror, mystery, Past, Review, review-movie, Year

Film Review: The Blair Witch Project – 1999

Leave a comment
Director(s)Daniel Myrick
Eduardo Sánchez
Principal CastHeather Donahue as Heather
Michael C. Williams as Michael
Joshua Leonard as Joshua
Release Date1999
Language(s)English
Running Time 81 minutes
Report CardClick to go to Review TLDR/Summary
  • The title card.
  • An explanation that the film is comprised of “real” found footage.
Though the opening seems tame today, back when it was released, this introduction marked The Blair Witch Project as a very real kind of horror. The explanation of the source of the footage informs the viewer that no one in the film is going to make it and the amateur quality of the footage and technique throughout the film seemingly confirms that this film is in fact genuine. The tame introduction gives the footage that follows a credibility that something more stylized or pronounced would ruin.

The film opens on the title card, white letters against a black backdrop, before informing the viewer that the footage presented comes from three student filmmakers who disappeared while shooting it. In other words, this is a “true” story based on true, un-edited, footage.

As if in demonstration and confirmation of this status, a completely unfocused mess of colors permeate the screen. It becomes apparent that the camera technician is trying to get the camera to focus on its subject, Heather (Heather Donahue), who explains that she is going to film a documentary on the eponymous “Blair Witch”. Unlike other horrors that start with the “true story” introduction, like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre by Tobe Hooper, The Blair Witch‘s look confirms its announcement, thereby imbuing it with a grounded feeling. Consequently, Heather’s announcement transforms from quirky and cheerful to swan song; the viewer knows that her documentary will lead her to her disappearance. The cheery footage is confirmation that she, and her two cameramen, Joshua (Joshua Leonard) and Michael (Michael Williams) are no more.

This impending doom permeates the film and tinges each of the introduction to the documentary’s crew with melancholy. Heather’s unending enthusiasm feels like a cruel joke. Likewise, Michael telling his mother goodbye hits harder because it’s the last time he’s ever going to see her. As the crew sets off to Burkittsville, Maryland to get footage for their “film”, the viewer knows they’re marching off to their doom.

  • Town sign for Burkittsville, Maryland
  • A statue of an angel.
  • A shot of tombstones at a cemetery.
The amateur attempt at setting a creepy mood via striking and unnerving establishing shots captured by 16 MM film immediately makes it clear that this is a student film. The voiceover narration by Heather adds to this feeling and consequently makes the entire production feel amateurish. The earnestness by which Heather tries to make her documentary creepy makes what happens to her and her crew cruelly ironic.

Upon getting to the location of where the “Blair Witch” myth started, Heather, the director of the documentary, switches cameras from the camcorder, which records in color, to the 16-MM film camera, which records in black and white. The former camera is her attempt to capture a “behind-the-scenes” and the latter camera is for the for the documentary proper. The juxtaposition of the black and white scenes to the colored scenes which came before, accentuate the realism the film goes for precisely because of the amateur nature of Heather’s filmmaking.

As she uses the 16 MM to film a set of insert shots in foreboding manner – a town sign, an angel figure, headstones in a cemetery, etc – it’s apparent she’s trying to evoke a sense of fear and immensity for the audience she thinks is going to watch her piece. Her narration is overdramatic and makes the attempt at horror on her part feel cheesy. However, it is precisely because her attempts at selling fear in such a forward fashion fail, that the terrors she experiences in the latter half of the film gain their legitimacy. Because the polish associated with a studio project is missing from these “proper” shots, they give the “improper” shots an extra genuine feeling.

  • An old man talks about the Blair witch on the camcorder.
  • The old man repeats his story in more professional manner when captured on the 16 MM camera.
  • A child covers their mother’s mouth when the latter mentions the Blair Witch.
Because the film switches between a camcorder and a 16MM film camera, using the latter for the expressed sake of the “professional” documentary Heather is shooting, it gets to establish multiple layers of “reality”. By revealing a layer of artifice, the film disguises the acting of its actors as a documentary proper – an even more real description of reality. This unseen privileging of the “camcorder” reality over the “16 MM” reality lets the film use exposition and action that seem random as ways to amp up the tension.

Case in point, Heather and her crew interact a decent amount of townspeople for clues about the witch before deciding to go off into the forest to get footage on landmarks associated with the malevolent entity. They approach most of these people with the camcorder first, before then asking their subject questions about the witch. If the answer satisfies them, they switch to the 16MM camera and start to shoot “serious” footage. The viewer gets to see the crew canvas targets, ask them questions, hear vague series of answers which paint a dark mythos that reveals very little, and then switch cameras to film those townspeople who had something “interesting” to say.

In fact, it is precisely the film’s switching between the two cameras that gives it the terrifying texture that’s made it such an integral part of horror canon. The film invites the viewer into the film-making process and shows them a view of “reality” and then “reality via artifice” in comparison. These moments provide a point of minimal difference that cements that the found-footage comes from the real world, the world the viewer actually resides in. When on camcorder, the townsfolk talk naturally and seem like average residents. There’s nothing obviously phony about them or their presentation. However, when the film camera is used, the townsfolk adopt a persona for the camera, as though conscious that they are now “officially” going to be on film, so they have to act their best. By providing a point of contrast and a measured difference, the film convinces the audience of the “truth” of the two realities its presenting.

Obviously, this technique implies that the theatrics are only happening behind the black-and-white screen. As a result, the camcorder scenes achieve a level of “legitimacy” that gives them a staying power. For example, a baby screaming out and rushing to cover their mother’s mouth when the latter mentions the Blair Witch stories on the camcorder immediately feels like an omen, because it’s not “staged”/repeated in 16 MM. Thus, the camera gains the power of being a filter for reality. It’s a measure of control that demarcates what is reality and what is artifice.

This idea of the camera as controlling force is the driving theme behind The Blair Witch Project and explains why it’s one of the most frightening found-footage films ever. Heather is obsessed with getting more footage of the events, constantly shoving a camera in someone’s face or trying to get more coverage of terrifying events as they happen. Her compulsion to record is criticized by both Josh and Michael at various points, as they see the behavior as at odds with the group’s ability to navigate the spectral occurrences they run into. However, as she explains herself, the act of documentation is all “she has left.” The camera is the only tool she has left to frame the horrors around her into a cohesive narrative that she overcome.

This is also why the camera is constantly associated with civilization, with Heather and company constantly mentioning that their detour in the woods as having to end eventually because America is destroying its environment. Far from being a cause of concern, the characters repeat the statement in the hopes that the unconquerable vastness of the wilderness will eventually give way to the calm control provided by civilization. In this way, the camera becomes the normalizing force of the social order – a tool meant to help carve out the wild and mystical unknowns into something more agreeable. It is an extension of an American dream which envisions technology being used to cut through and remove the inexplicable from the day-to-day.

This posture towards technology stands in stark contrast to Japanese horror (J-horror) films coming out at the same time, like Ring by Hideo Nakata and Pulse by Kiyoshi Kurosawa, which focused on the anxiety inherent in technology. In Nakata and Kurosawa’s films, technology provides a conduit through which the supernatural past can make its presence felt once again in the “modern” world. In The Blair Witch Project, far from being a tool of the supernatural, the camera is never allowed to witness supernatural events happening as they happen and instead is only ever allowed to assess their consequences, suggesting that the supernatural can’t be tamed by the powers of modernity. This effect is made all the more suspenseful because of the ambiguous worldbuilding provided by the townspeople. Not a single story any member gives is wholly consistent with another, so the nature of who or what what the Blair Witch and their respective capacities is a mystery. One phenomenon hearkens back to one legend of the myth while another leans another way. With no rhyme or reason to the terror at play, the viewer is stuck, like the crew themselves, to experience the scares without knowing the stakes.

In this way, The Blair Witch Project, is a found-footage horror truly representing the sub-genre’s name. It’s a demonstration of the inability of film to mediate horror and provide enough of a gap to render it palatable and tame. Found footage, far from providing answers, only hints at the uncanny power of the abyss which gives no refuge or answers to anyone willing to seek them. By the time the film gets to the latter sections, the characters no longer find solace in their cameras because their ability to frame the situation is removed. The 16 MM and camcorder become interchangeable as the distinctions between what is reality and what is artifice becomes blurry before vanishing into a void with no answers. The behind-the-scenes footage becomes artifice and vice versa as the places to hide from the terror of the unknown disappear.

When the film approaches its end, the edits between scenes become more jarring and provide less information as to what’s happened in the “down-time”. It’s apparent that the characters are clearly filming less as they find themselves trapped and terrified in a situation they can’t comprehend, let alone control. Like the characters, the viewer gets no reprieves from the terrors, as the camera cutting off doesn’t mean respite as much as it means one awful moment is going to cut to a moment even worse in the future. The audience is strapped into a roller-coaster of nightmares that shows no signs of slowing down as the film races towards its finish.

While the directors, Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez, deserve credit for pushing such a low-budget idea to such great lengths, the reason the film is able to work at all, let alone so effectively, is because of the seeming veracity of every actor. Every member of the cast, whether it be the primary trio or the townspeople, has to put on multiple layers of performance, both presenting a “genuine” representation and an obvious façade on that representation that seemingly also stems from it. In other words, the actors have to present a fantasy off as reality and then pass another related fantasy off as artifice. Despite interviewing a plethora of characters, there’s never a point where this dichotomy fails or feels questionable. Actually, the spontaneous nature of the storytelling and dialogue feels so put together and cohesive that it reaches that magical place where it is both too unkempt to feel constructed but is also pointed enough to not come off as feeling totally left-field.

Even though the film might not be as terrifying as it was when it first came out in 1999, at the height of mainstream acceptance of the internet, its construction and “honesty” make it a compelling watch for anyone willing to invest seriously into its premise. The natural character interactions, commitment to authenticity, lack of polish, and unpredictable roller-coaster of scares of The Blair Witch Project are still rarities in the found-footage genre which it helped to popularize and make commonplace, and all serve as proof of just how special the film is.

REPORT CARD

TLDRThe Blair Witch Project is proof that a solid idea and tight execution can be scarier than any polished Hollywood production. Despite being one of the first “found-footage” horrors, The Blair Witch Project is still one of the best. It effectively combines ambiguous worldbuilding, realistic performances, and quick and efficient pacing to deliver a horror that reveals our natural proximity to the terrors hiding beneath the veneer of civilization. Those viewers willing to suspend their disbelief and give in to the film can still find some of the terror that audiences back in 1999 first got a taste of.
RatingA+
Grade9.6/10

Go to Page 2 for the for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3
2020, 2020s, A, found footage, Grade, Horror, mystery, Past, Review, review-movie, supernatural, Thriller, Year

Film Review: Host – 2020

1 Comment
Director(s)Rob Savage
Principal CastHaley Bishop as Haley
Jemma Moore as Jemma
Emma Louise Webb as Emma
Radina Drandova as Radina
Caroline Ward as Caroline
Edward Linard as Teddy
Seylan Baxter as Seylan
Release Date2020
Language(s)English
Running Time 56 minutes
Report CardClick to go to Review TLDR/Summary
Haley starts the Zoom meeting at the start of the movie.
Haley removes the tape from her camera.
Haley (Haley Bishop) sends out invitations to the meeting.
Someone else joins the meeting as Haley steps away from the camera.

We start in the virtual plane. A Zoom call opens up. The mouse moves to start up a meeting. The computer screen is the stage this play takes stage on. The physical pierces through the virtual as the filter tape that covers the meeting host’s camera is slowly removed. Privacy gives way for a chance at intimacy. We finally see our host, Haley (Haley Bishop), as she gets ready for meeting. Unbeknownst to her, someone else has joined her meeting room.

Haley moves the laptop down the hallway to look for the noise.
Haley discovers Jemma (Jemma Moore) is the source of the noise.

Suddenly we hear a loud thud. Has something happened already? Does it have something to do with the unseen participant in the room? Haley leaves to find out, moving the laptop with her to bring us along on the journey. The screen is no longer bound to one place and is allowed to be active. As she makes her way to her living area, she realizes the sound is coming from outside. She peers out the window.

Crisis averted. She realizes that this noise, this false source of fear, is her friend Jemma (Jemma Moore), who’s outside making a ruckus in an attempt to get Haley to give her, Jemma, permission to join the zoom meeting; thus, the boundary between the physical gives way to the virtual as the encounter between the two transitions to the online call.

In just a little under 4 minutes, Rob Savage’s Host manages to showcase its themes, set up a scare, and foreshadow the structure of the story (along with finer plot details). As the rest of the members of the Zoom meeting show up, it’s revealed that the jolly group of friends, made up of 5 women – Haley, Jemma, Emma ( Emma Louise Webb), Radina (Radina Drandova), and Caroline (Caroline Ward) along with their male cohort Teddy (Edward Linard ), have come together under Haley’s instructions to perform an online séance. However, it becomes clear that things are going to take a turn for the worse as the group is inevitably forced to defend themselves against supernatural forces.

Now while creepy séance movies are nothing new, Host manages to raise the stakes by taking the process online. A séance is a ritualized procedure whereby individuals participate with one another to communicate with the spirits. The procedure involves the dissolution of the physical into the spiritual. It is not a coincidence that the nature of a séance matches up so well with the nature of an online meeting. Like the best J-Horrors (Pulse, Ringu), Host is focused on exploring the way the web has become the realm of a new spiritual – a site of connectivity where the the bonds between the living and the dead commingle. As communication transforms so does the nature of the haunting.

This is where the COVID-19 quarantine based setting of the movie comes in. Participants in a séance have to follow protocol to safely engage with the astral world. Breaking these rules can have consequences in the same way that breaking quarantine protocol can. Quarantine limits communication, relegating people to online messages as opposed to in person discussion. Without the physical presence of people around us, the way we engage in that conversation changes. We may be less inclined to follow rules of decorum or less likely to be as committed to engaging. In a more intimate sense, the forced closeness generated by quarantine protocol means that in-person relationships are forced to weather increased presences. People who you might have been able to ignore now are an everyday presence, and if they choose to ignore protocol they can end up infecting you with the virus potentially harming you and those you love. Privacy becomes harder to feign because the private is forced to seep into the public – another dissolution.

It is these qualities that makes an online séance during COVID-19 quarantine the perfect melting pot of ideas and themes. Barriers between the physical, spiritual, virtual, public, and private bleed into one another forcing us to ask tough questions about what we think about those closest to us and ourselves. Corona is compared to the nature of haunting. The breakdown of spirits is compared to the way the virtual space is made up. Each layer of the movie works on it’s own, but the strength of the movie comes from the way the ideas so easily build upon and proceed into one another.

This can most be seen in the way the movie marries its metaphysical vision to an equally exciting visual style. The way the script tackles its particular spirit(s) gives Savage and co. carte blanche to go hog wild with their ways of supernatural scares along with building up a mythos for what’s going on. Early on, the movie intentionally calls note to some small flickers on a user’s screen to goad you into focusing onto small details. That way when the screen changes from the group view to the individual view and back, you’re hyper focused on making sure nothing’s moving. The smallest flicker can elicit a scare. By layering moments like these early on, the movie manages to ratchet up the tension to incredibly high levels.

However unlike its most of its found-footage contemporaries, Host isn’t satisfied with just going for micro-scares and ending with one big scare akin to Paranormal Activity. It’s more ambitious and plays closer to something like James Wan’s The Conjuring; there are beautiful big set pieces, scares that are set up earlier in the movie, and practical effects are deployed wherever possible to help enhance the sense of immersion

Despite being constrained by filming (mostly) by themselves in their own apartments., Savage and his crew don’t shy away from going for big and impactful scenes with real heft demonstrating that embracing limitations is a powerful way to ground scares. Because it starts small and builds up progressively, the story is able to explore the development of the spiritual and offer space for questions to form on what’s actually going on.

By grounding the more horrifying elements of the supernatural encounter the movie’s individual elements can congeal. This is primarily achieved in two ways:

  1. Careful attention to characterization details
  2. Maintaing the feeling of a Zoom call.

Subtle interactions between the characters and in relation to the way they describe/deal with their respective living situations helps to fill in a lot of context as to what they’re doing and their respective histories with one another. Every piece of dialogue feels natural and conversations between the character’s feel consistent and proceed in a way that’s too natural to feel scripted but to well put together to fell fully done off the cuff. For example, early on the girls rag on Teddy before he shows up. Anyone who’s had friends can tell that under the playfulness is a real frustration at his presumed recent callousness at their group interactions. Moments like these are a testament to both the editor, Brenna Rangott, for picking clips that seamlessly flow off of one another and the cast and crew for playing off one another in a way that feels like actual friends would.

From left to right and top to bottom: Emma (Emma Louise Webb), Caroline (Caroline Ward), Haley (Haley Bishop), Jemma (Jemma Moore), Radina (Radina Drandova). The group uses the Zoom audio interface to boost up their ability to capture potential noises happening around them demonstrating both a commitment to the application and a neat way of using it to the movie’s advantage.

However, what grounds the film and makes it work is its impeccable formal consistency; never once does the film break away from the formatting of a Zoom call. It starts and ends on the application proper. The audio and video feeds range from high definition and nice microphone quality to scratchy and lagging video streams. The characters make use of functions in the application to problem solve a variety of issues. As they switch between mediums, from phones to computers, audio feedback delays and connection issues come about. Variation comes from the quality of the videos as the film cuts between the group participant views of the screen to solo participant views of the screen, and having the characters move the camera when the situation calls for it. The result is a movie that’s brimming with visual life despite being so limited in location and space.

Furthermore, there’s no score, because the movie is supposed to be a chronicle of a séance. But instead of silence, the soundscape is littered with bits of feedback and small creaks which manages to unsettle just as well as any compelling horror score. No noise or visual cue betrays the feeling of the movie which in turn makes the more grandiose moments feel satisfying, authentic, and unexpected.

Best of all, there’s no cheating with the use of awful glitch effects. Even the better found-footage horror movies like Hell House LLC tend to use cheap-feeling glitch effects where the camera presents a stream of static in an attempt to show the supernatural distorting things. It typically comes off as awful visual clutter that betrays the aesthetic of found-footage movies. Host completely avoids these issues because the practical stunts and effects are done so well that there’s no need to be afraid of showing the audience the horror.

However, the bursts of cinematic genius and narrative levity come to a close far too quickly. Many of the fleshier metaphysical ideas feel like they get truncated too quickly and consequently the depth present in each haunting is diminished. For example, the movie introduces the idea of personal totems that each character can use during the séance but makes very little use of it as the film goes on. Tying in some of the intense scary scenes with these more intimate character items would have helped give more definition to certain character arcs and relationship dynamics and made the supernatural subjectivity the film is trying to establish more apparent.

But in spite of these misses, Host is part of a select few found footage to evoke same sense of dread and unease that the The Blair Witch Project did at the turn of the century. By placing the narrative within the pandemic that many remains so fresh in many of our minds, it’s more easily able to get us to invest in the story and care about what happens to the characters because they’re like us: they’re trapped, forced to take responsibility for others, and susceptible to the smallest misstep from someone in their social group. It’s this empathetic identification that makes the sense of unease in Host so poignant and terrifying – a reminder of the shared horrors we’re still vulnerable to today.

REPORT CARD

TLDRHost is proof that budget matters less than the guts to commit to a vision and figure out the most effective way to demonstrate that vision with the tools available. Despite being made during quarantine and with a low budget, each member of the cast and crew came together to turn in a cohesive and well-oiled horror machine that looks and plays like a major horror blockbuster. There’s characters to cheer for, scares that get under the skin, and a story that’s easy to follow while remaining compelling to think about.
Rating8.7/10
GradeA

Go to Page 2 for the for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3
2010s, 2017, B+, found footage, Grade, Horror, psychological, Review, review-movie, Thriller, Year

Review: Creep 2

1 Comment
Director(s)Patrick Brice
Principal CastMark Duplass as Aaron
Desiree Akhavan as Sara
Karan Soni as Dave
Patrick Brice as Old Aaron
Release Date2017
Language(s)English
Running Time 80 minutes

Creep 2 starts after the events of Creep, with Mark Duplass’s character, now going by Aaron comforting his soon to be killed newly-made friend, Dave after the latter receives a baby Peachfuzz doll with a camera inside of it. After playing with his food for a short bit, Aaron kills Dave , but his face reflects a genuine state of sadness instead of elation at the completion of the bloody task. After the title card shows up , the movie cuts to Sara, an aspiring YouTuber, who meets with strangers on Craigslist and similar sites in an attempt to capture some interesting footage of potential weirdos. Clips from her episodes are shown and demonstrate that she’s interacted with a slew of lonely, alienated, and strange persons who all seem to convince her that strangers are harmless by and large. One of her early “clients” even shows her his baby Jaws shark figure with such elation that you’d think it was Aaron talking about Peachfuzz, setting up her future calm discussion with Aaron quite well.

One of the Sara’s (Desiree Akhavan) initial subjects on her web series Encounters talks about his Jaws 2 shark figure with the same fondness that Aaron gives to Peachfuzz.



With her online show, Encounters, not doing so well with the viewers (a point I think any content creator can relate to, myself included), she decides to respond to an strange and spooky request by Aaron against her better judgement in an attempt to give her channel the boost it needs. Once she gets to his place to inquire into the nature of the new job, she’s met with pure honesty from Aaron who describes himself as a serial killer. He slowly goes through his craft and the way it brought him joy before revealing that he’s recently run into a creative strut and wants to create a new and moving work. He takes inspiration from Francis Ford Coppola who he claims said, “I have not made an original film since The Conversation in 1974. I’m not sure I am capable of it, but I really wanna keep trying.” This statement by his cinematic hero breathes a new life into his creativity and like Coppola, he seeks to create something distinctly him in spite of his imaginative decline- a documentary.

In a lot of ways the movie reminds me of Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon, another movie that involves a serial killer getting a documentary made about his activities. But unlike that movie where every member of the documentary crew is aware of what the titular serial killer, Leslie, is capable of, Sara doesn’t take Aaron’s statements seriously. Sara and Aaron’s initial conversation is played 100% straight on the part of Aaron whose candid discussion of the macabre is 1 part funny and 2 parts terrifying. He discusses finding victims and ripping open their bodies as though its a task analogous to praying- it’s a normalized experience for him that used to give him a spiritual catharsis. Meanwhile, Sara responds calmly and normally, unperturbed by the absurdity of what her new client tells her. Her previous encounters have jaded her to the possibility that any of these conversations could be real, so she takes them as part of a delusion of sorts and just rolls with whatever Aaron says, eventually accepting Aaron’s request to film a documentary on his life to capture the essence of a true serial killer.

It’s a clever set up that solves a lot of the issues from the first movie – namely that Old Aaron had very little character depth by himself and only shined when interacting with Aaron (formerly Josef). Sara is a character that serves as a great foil to Aaron- both are creators, both are struggling to find meaning in their work, and both are hiding the real intentions behind what they’re asking of the other. The movie recognizes this and spends a decent amount of time on just Sara, giving the audience a reason to care about her and her deliberation process to understand her increasingly dangerous decisions. Meanwhile, the movie constantly plays with Aaron’s personality and history, giving him ample opportunity to provide a series of facts that may or may not be true. The name of the movie becomes trying to figure out who Aaron really is. What is his backstory actually about? Why does he do what he does? What is his actual end goal?

This characterization is where the movie shines because the presence of an equally strong agent in the form of Sara means Aaron has to change up his behavior and reveal more about himself. He doesn’t get to dictate every step of the plan because she pushes back and refuses to play his game the way he wants. Akhavan matches Duplass’s energy, move for move, never letting any of his eccentric movements or facial expressions unnerve her. She is a an absolute unit – stoic and unwilling to budge, exhibiting her desire to get the footage with facial expressions that exhibit a calmness to her body language which exudes control. Likewise Duplass turns up his manic energy from the original movie and acts like an absolute madlad , doubling down on his attempts at random jump scares and going so far as to scream maniacally at birds that threaten his frame composition.

Aaron (Mark Duplass) trying to get the perfect composition for his backstory reveal with the water meant to symbolize a Christ like connection. His arms are up to where he wishes the water would be and his frustration only increases as malicious bird screeches interrupt his every word.

Watching the two of them adapt to one another to gain an upper hand is enthralling, but the specter of disaster constantly looms in the background , because we as an audience do know what Aaron is capable of. We know he’s a murderer who’s can slit a throat at the ready. The movie reminds us of as much at the very start of it and then reminds us again with his eerie description of the joys he found in murdering. As a result watching Sara delve deeper into the game provides genuine tension – one, because we don’t know what Aaron is actually after and when he’s going to go for a kill and two, because Sara’s attempts to prod Aaron’s character further for her web show do irritate him and bring out genuine bursts of anger that make you think he’s going to off her on the spot.

In light of what we know about Aaron from the first movie, this second movie does a good job at fleshing out possible motivations and his profile overall. It’s a continuation of his character study and the amount of clues the movie gives about his motivations is present in every single detail. From the way he renames himself to his past victim, to the way he his initial victim in the movie reminds us of his victim in the first movie, to his obsession with framing shots in the documentary to reflect certain themes, the movie constantly gives the audience a treasure trove of clues to flesh out Aaron’s profile. One of my favorite moments happens in his initial job pitch to Sara, where he implies that the two of them need to see each other in the nude to do away with any strange power imbalances between them. As he strips down and she films him, you can see everything (genitals included). However, when she calls his bluff, strips down, and gives him the camera to film, he focuses on moving the camera and zooming in on just her face. It’s a small subtle moment that highlights what he may actually be after, but the movie is packed with moments like these so it’s definitely a fun one to think about.

On the left Sara’s (Desiree Akhavan) framing keeps Aaron’s (Mark Duplass) full body in view. When he drops the towel his entire frame is shown, genitals included. On the right is Aaron’s framing of Sara’s nude body. He zooms in and focuses on her face center frame, highlighting the difference in his motivations and desires. What those are is up to the audience to figure out.

Unfortunately, the upgrades to the character dynamics and exploration of their relationship comes at the cost of an ending that feels rushed and unsatisfying. One of the biggest strengths of the first movie is how the ending wrapped everything up succinctly and got under the skin by implying that the whole film had been filmed by Aaron, while confirming that he’s done the same many times. This ending does not feel nearly as neat and leaves the audience with a lot more questions than answers. The last few minutes make it certain that there is going to be a sequel, so I can only hope that a future Creep 3 makes well on the character study done here, but as someone who thinks movies should be as self contained as possible (sequel baiting annoys me on balance) the ending definitely feels like a let down. Does it mar my enjoyment of the amazing character interaction work done for the majority of the movie’s running time? No. But it does feel like a let down given how great everything before it was.

REPORT CARD

TLDRCreep 2 solves most of the issues from the previous installment by giving the titular serial killer a powerful partner to play off against, who simultaneously serves as a foil to him while being a potential victim. The story of a serial killer actively exposing himself to create a documentary to relocate a creative drive sounds funny (and it is), but the movie constantly interrupts these comedic moments with a genuine sense of dread. Though the ending doesn’t quite land as well as I want it too, everything that came before it is exemplary. There’s a lot to chew on here as the movie invites the audience to really try and figure out what makes Aaron tick, without ever revealing its full hand. Taken in consideration with the original movie, this is a great character study into an enigma turned serial killer. I can only hope the next installment in the franchise gives us more to think about and hopefully some actual answers.
Rating8.9/10
GradeB+

Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report

Pages: 1 2
2010s, 2014, B+, found footage, Grade, Horror, psychological, Review, review-movie, Thriller, Year

Review: Creep

Leave a comment
Director(s)Patrick Brice
Principal CastMark Duplass as Josef
Patrick Brice as Aaron
Release Date2014
Language(s)English
Running Time 77 minutes

From it’s handheld feel and picture quality to its mumblecore dialogue, I wouldn’t blame someone for confusing this Netflix found-footage horror flick for one of the streaming services more eccentric documentaries in the vein of Tiger King. The film opens on Aaron, a videographer struggling financially, who’s accepted a project to film a client project whose details are only to be revealed upon meeting. He drives up to the address the client had sent to him previously and knocks on the door, eager to get to the assignment. He gets no response. Red Flag #1.

He waits outside the house, hoping that the entire situation is just one big misunderstanding. As he looks around he sees an axe in the tree stump. Red Flag #2. As he’s just about to call it quits Aaron, the enigmatic client, pops out of nowhere giving both Josef and the audience a jump scare – a sign of things to come. His gregariousness and enthusiasm for the project alleviates both Josef and our own worries. As he brings Josef into his house, he explains that he’s suffering from a terminal illness and wants to record a day in his life for his unborn child- a memento to give his child a way to see him as the “man he was”. A strange request, but one that tugs at our heartstrings and distracts us from the warnings that came before. Aaron agrees to the project and the duo sets off to record the everyday life of Josef.

Given the morbid nature of the assignment- chronicling an dying man’s natural activities for his unborn child- early recordings of Josef feel darkly comedic. Him roleplaying activities he wants to do with his child with nothing but his imagination might seem endearing , but it comes off as nothing more than comical and a bit unsettling. As the day continues, Josef continues to act increasingly unhinged. He goes from asking strange invasive questions under the guise of establishing a kind of rapport with Aaron to revealing an host of unsettling behaviors and truths about himself. However, each of these aberrant actions is justified with some emotional plea for Aaron to stay and continue filming the project and maintain a friendship with Josef. Despite every instinct both he and the audience share about getting out of the situation, Aaron consistently acquiesces to the erratic happenings. For example, Josef reveals early on that he had taken pictures of Aaron as he had driven up to the house. When asked why, he reveals that he was scared and he thought if he got to know Aaron before Aaron had gotten to know Josef then he would be less scared. This twisted attempt by each character to understand the other first is the heart of the movie.

Josef (Mark Duplass) showing Aaron( Patrick Brice) photos he took when the latter arrived at his house.

The audience is constantly left to question what exactly Josef’s game is and why Aaron refuses to ever leave the situation despite the constant red flags. The former is obviously scheming towards something, but the spontaneity of his actions make that something impossible to gauge. You know he’s going to do the unexpected, but precisely because it’s the unexpected each of these moments manages to shock and surprise. On the other hand, Aaron constantly gives his client the benefit of the doubt, extending a kindness that seems almost foolhardy given how little background information he has on him. As a result, the movie is best viewed as a character study, of two separate kinds of alienated individuals coming into a comedically nefarious entanglement. The question becomes why are each of them doing what they’re doing? Why is Josef inconsistent with his stories? Why does Aaron keep forgiving him? Getting to the bottom of these questions is what keeps you intrigued in the ever evolving game of cat-and-mouse.

For the most part, the experiment works. The movie does a good job establishing the practical reasons Aaron is involved with the project- his desperate need for money. Every strange action Josef engages in is immediately explained away in a harmless, albeit strange sort of justification. The extemporaneous and impromptu dialogue between the two makes every interaction feel natural. Both Duplass and Brice play incredibly well off one another, with the former channeling all the weirdest energy he can find and the latter mustering as much patience as possible for the antics he experiences. You know that the actors are delivering, when one of the best scenes takes place in complete darkness with Duplass narrating some genuinely disturbing events with such candor that it’s hard not to tremble in fear, even if for just a moment. Needless to say , all these over-the-top eccentricities become grounded in the story as opposed to feeling hackneyed which keeps a certain suspension of disbelief.

Unfortunately, the movie becomes a lot weaker once the story tapers off and focuses on just Aaron thinking about the situation by himself. The movie’s magic comes from the character’s interactions with one another, so the isolation of one of the two characters in the story removes the dynamic that makes everything up till that point cohesive and tense. This problem might have been resolved if the story delved deeper into Aaron’s psyche during these points, but even these moments do more at characterizing the enigma that Josef is than doing anything for Aaron. Josef doesn’t even need to be in the room to steal the screen. Given the ending of the movie, maybe that’s the point. Maybe we were never supposed to get either of the characters and were meant to just go along with certain statements of facts regarding them. The idea that it’s impossible to really understand them has a certain kind of charm in end of itself, even if it’s the one I wanted.

Speaking of charm, the structure of the movie invites a lot of interesting questions. How are certain events/moments recorded? Why are certain scenes put together in the way they are? Are the eccentricities of the movie staged or are they just detours on the path to the final conclusion? Each of these questions is answered and put together in a succinct and neat explanation at the end of the movie. I was someone who was going to write the film off as just a neat and effective flick, but the culmination of all the absurdities pays off in a way that ties together all the loose ends, even if its not the way I wanted or expected. If anything this is proof that a smart idea and tight execution is all that’s necessary to induce some chills.

REPORT CARD

TLDRCreep is found-footage done right. It focuses on its characters and their respective interactions to develop an engrossing tale that’ll have you asking just what each character is playing at in what seems to be an increasingly demented game of cat-and-mouse. If nothing else, it’ll leave you with even more of a reluctance to answer any shoddy looking Craigslist advertisements for ad-hoc work.
Rating8.7/10
GradeB+

Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report

Pages: 1 2
2000s, 2007, A, found footage, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, supernatural, Thriller, Year

Review: Paranormal Activity

Leave a comment
Director(s)Oren Peli
Principal CastKatie Featherston as Katie
Micah Sloat as Micah
Mark Fredrichs as Dr. Fredrichs
Release Date2007
Language(s)English
Running Time 86 minutes

The original Paranormal Activity is so well put together and concise as a found footage horror movie that it boggles me how bad the franchise has been afterwards. This first movie, I think, is the best found footage movie since the Blair Witch Project because it manages to capture a lot of the same feelings while presenting the material in way that takes into account suburbia as opposed to some creepy woods. The acting is more than adequate, the scares are punctuated by amounts of silence that make every creak and bump that much louder, and the special effects are surprisingly effective. Most importantly, the dynamic between the lead characters makes the underlying haunting interesting and the way the movie intertwines their relationship with the supernatural unfolding is what gives this movie staying strength as opposed to the awful sequels it spawned.

The movie follows Micah and Katie, a couple that’s recently moved to a new house . The latter is being followed by a supernatural presence so her boyfriend decides to tape their everyday life in hope of acquiring some evidence. Things start off slowly with long stretches of the movie just being time lapse shots of nothing happening in the background or dialogue scenes between the main couple. However, once the movie hits a certain point things start getting less tame. Things starts off with creaks and objects being dropped. The sound design is on point so every one of these little moment feels pungent. The supernatural phenomenon becomes more severe as time goes on and follows a logic; the malevolent presence feeds and grows off negative energy. When do things get worse in the house? You guessed it. Whenever tensions flare up between Micah and Katie.

That brings us to the most important aspect of the movie- Micah and Katie’s relationship. From the first moment the audience is introduced to the couple it’s clear to notice the power dynamic is Micah favored. He makes the big bucks. He owns the house. He can buy a high quality digital camera with no second worries. Katie’s immediate response to seeing the camera and realizing the extents to which her boyfriend wants to go to record the supernatural reveals that she wasn’t expecting it. It’s implied that Micah probably described the recording situation as being smaller than he intended on making . It’s an early enough sign of how he views their relationship but the movie slowly brings those imbalances to the light.

Micah starts off a skeptic and counterbalance to Katie’s fervent belief that she’s being haunted. He constantly challenges and undermines her belief in her own scenario . For example, during Dr. Friedrich’s visit he acts in a mocking and derisive manner. However, when he comes to the realization something is afoot his immediate response is to get more excited. He’s happy that the supernatural exists because it means he can record it and get recognition for it. The narcissism and selfishness that seemed a minor issue at the beginning of the movie transforms into something more sinister as he takes delight in the supernatural as opposed to sympathetic for his girlfriend’s plight. There’s one moment in particular where he researches demons to give Katie advice while in the same breath chastising Friedrich, a psychic consultant Katie called in earlier, for not knowing enough. Reading a book doesn’t give more authority than an expert in the field because presumably the book was written by someone similar. Prioritizing one form of knowledge over another is nonsensical absent an non arbitrary reason. But for a narcissist, the fact that the discovery of the situation came from “him” as opposed to another source is reason enough. Friedrich wasn’t picked by Micah so obviously his advice isn’t adequate.

Katie starts off being more accommodating of Micah’s behavior because she’s used to it. There’s a level of autonomy she knows shes going to lose but the safety she feels matters more to her given how terrified she is of her haunting. As Micah prods the supernatural he prods her which makes the supernatural more intense because it’s all predicated on her emotions. In this way the supernatural just becomes a representation for the state of Katie’s emotional vulnerability and sense of self. The external conflict (supernatural occurrences) is tied to the internal conflict (Katie’s fight for respect) and watching the way those planes inform one another definitely made me appreciate the ending a lot more.

However, there are a lot of moving parts and random bits of exposition that are dumped throughout that feel a bit hastily put together. I think the movie would have benefited from giving the audience more information on Micah and Katie’s dynamic before moving in together. For as much as I enjoy Micah’s characters and portrayal, the way his character behaves near latter portions of the movie gets a bit absurd. He feels too one-note asshole. If the movie had developed one of its earlier mentioned threads about how Katie never let him know about her demonic issues before moving in and the audience could see his character become more controlling as a result, then the subsequent unraveling of the relationship dynamic would become more complex. Micah would certainly come off as more as sympathetic and the relationship more interesting.

Furthermore, the way the haunting unravels is pretty arbitrary. As Katie sets up early on she’s had bouts with this presence since a young age. It just comes whenever it wants. That’s movie speak for whenever the story needs a convenient spook or doesn’t want to explain a dynamic it can go with “the demon decided now was the time to strike” as reason enough. The idea isn’t abused maliciously in the movie, but I think tying it down to Katie’s emotional state and personal history would have given the story more of a meaningful kick.

In terms of being scary, this movie is quite effective if viewed in the right frame of mind. The low budget nature of the camera matches well with the visual scares. Nothing feels out of place and some of the visual effects are quite impressive. There’s one scene involving fire near the midway point of the movie that freaked me out when the movie first came out because I couldn’t conceive of how it could look so real. This is a movie that understands that scares have to be built up to and blowing the load on some lame jump scare would only make the eventual finale that much less interesting. The slow burn approach gives the movie a level of intensity that’s rare in mainstream horror. Sound is used quite well. In particular, there’s a droning noise that comes on during night sequences that’s tied to the presence of the supernatural. It’s just loud enough to make you aware that something has changed but not so loud as to take away from the scene. It’s used to create an uncomfortable atmosphere and prime you to be uneasy. This way the loud scares that follow after feel far more terrifying. Both the visual and audio elements always build off one another and the way the final sequence unravels is satisfying from a narrative and visceral perspective. It’s loud, poetic, and definitely deserved.

It’s a shame the franchise never made use of these elements effectively again. I can only hope the soon to be 7th entry in the franchise returns back to the series roots – great atmosphere, contextual scares, and interesting character dynamics. All the elements are there. Just put them back together again. Until then, I’ll continue sticking to this first entry. It’s one of the better horrors of the 2000’s for a reason.

REPORT CARD

TLDRParanormal Activity is a horror movie that takes it all back to the basics of making the audience scares. It’s low budget camera and effects work is more than effective and the way the haunting builds and develops is satisfying and most importantly, frightening. If you’re someone who’s only seen the sequels do yourself a favor and watch the original.
Rating9.0/10
GradeA

Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report

Pages: 1 2
2010s, 2019, B, found footage, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, supernatural, Year

Review: Hell House LLC III: Lake of Fire

Leave a comment
Director(s)Stephen Cognetti
Principal CastGabriel Chytry as Russell Wynn
Elizabeth Vermilyea as Vanessa
Sam Kazzi as Jeff Stone
Scott Richey as Harvey
Jordan Kaplan as Max
Bridgid Abrams as Jane
Leo DeFriend as Gregory
Brian David Tracy as Andrew Tully
Release Date2019
Language(s)English
Running Time85 minutes

If you’ve read my review of Hell House LLC II: The Abaddon Hotel, you already know that I’m a big fan of Cognetti’s conclusion to the Hell House franchise. It’s not perfect. It doesn’t right the wrongs of the second movie nor does it replicate the magic of the first movie. What it does do is present an interesting connective tissue between the two while never forgetting that it’s supposed to be entertaining in its own rite. There are some ideas that feel like they would’ve been better served being the focal point(s) of the second movie, but the developed ideas that the story goes with give the series a more elegant and meaningful feeling.

The story picks up a year after the end of Hell House II, with the Abaddon Hotel set to be destroyed after the disappearance of the crew from the last movie. Just before demolition, the property ends up getting purchased by billionaire Russell Wynn who intends on using the hotel to stage his famous play, Insomnia, a retelling of the tale of Faust. We’re told at the beginning of the movie that the “documentary’s” purpose is to conclusively prove what happened on the night of Wynn’s grand re-opening of the hotel. In this way, the movie’s set-up is fairly similar to the first Hell House in that it’s chronicling some event after the fact, but it’s different in that the audience isn’t told what the event is or whether it was good or bad. What adds to the mystery is the fact this Russell is the same Russell who made the second movie, as in he’s the person who made the second “documentary” in-universe. Given the way that ends, with Tully talking about how the tapes made then would be sent to someone else who would continue the chain of getting people into the premises , it’s even more intriguing thinking about why Russell would buy such a property. Is he in on Tully’s plan to bring more souls into the lake of fire? Was he shown doctored footage to come to a different conclusion? What is his end goal?

This layered approach to the mystery rewards attentive fans of the franchise and utilizes the self-referential nature of the movies to its fullest. Taken along with the story of Faust and suddenly you have some interesting sub-text to go along with the mystery and meta-questions. Once the ball starts rolling and things start getting revealed you’ll be shocked at where all the threads end up converging. That being said, the way that clues are scattered and set up does make me sad that some of this work wasn’t done in the second movie. The way everything concludes is satisfying but there are aspects that feel like they could’ve been better set up to make some of the thematic questions/ideas more salient.

To go along with the documentary approach the movie, like the previous two installments, cuts together footage from multiple different sources including: interviews with older members from the franchise, clips of supernatural events from the first and second movie, unseen clips of interactions not previously seen, and the “main” connective news footage from the initial documentary footage shot by Vanessa, a reporter who was sent to document Insomnia before its grand opening at the Abaddon. Most of the footage is taken from this last source and is comprised both of Vanessa’s personal interview footage and self-recorded footage off of personal camcorders given to Insomnia staff members.

Now because the movie’s purpose is to explain what happened on the opening night of Insomnia it treats the audience like they haven’t seen either of the previous movies. That means if you were tired of seeing cuts to the same random events, get ready to relive some events again. This can feel grating but it makes sense given the context by which its being shown in-universe. For example, a character from the main timeline will mention a disappearance and the movie will cut to said disappearance from a previous movie to prove said event happened and to give it context. Unfortunately, cuts to previously seen footage/events also happens when they doesn’t need to. For example, Max, an actor in Insomnia, talks about how he’s watched the previous release of the in-universe Hell House and knows where all the exits in the Abaddon are and the documentary then cuts to a cut of all the exits not working from the first movie. Is the point that Max is stupid because if he saw the first movie he’d know that knowing where the exits are doesn’t help? Or is this supposed to be evidence that the first movie was actually doctored and the truth of the exits not working was covered up? But that doesn’t make sense given that the first movie is presented as a “true” documentary meant for mass consumption. Confusion aside, these moments happen a bit too often for my liking and bog the pacing of the movie down. Not all of them make me think this hard/introduce unnecessary questions, but all of them do feel like they’re their to pad out the runtime.

One of my biggest gripes with the previous two movies has been the use of this awful glitching effect when something supernatural comes onto the screen. Unfortunately, this movie not only continues the trend but uses a similarly frustrating glitch like effect to transition between clips from different sources. The effect in transition is less jarring than the supernatural effect but it’s definitely something to take notice of if you’ve been annoyed by the effects use in the past installments. There’s also some questionable CGI in the third act, but it’s used so sparingly and with such a specific purpose that I can’t fault the movie too much for it.

Thankfully, bad camera effects aren’t the only thing this entry inherits from its predecessors. Like the cast from the first movie, all the principal characters here feel grounded and real . Vermilyea is great as Vanessa and makes her characters decisions feel logical and grounded. There’s some maneuvering and posturing she has to do in latter portions of the movie and her facial reactions to these moments always feel spot on. I love Richey’s performance as Harvey, Russell’s assistant of sorts with an eccentric personality to boot. He adds a fun festive energy to the otherwise serious feeling piece and never comes off feeling forced. All the actors for Insomnia, feel like like a genuine cast of friends who have done a play over and over and are just doing it again in a creepier place. No character’s decision feels especially out of place and they all have distinct enough personalities so you can tell them apart. The only real issue I have character wise is an awful rendered scar on Russell’s face. No amount of acting from Chytry could save that damage. That being said, his performance is a highlight and the mystery of the movie only works because of how well he plays the nuances of his role.

All in all, this is a fitting end to the trilogy that neatly bookmarks all the loose threads into one resounding conclusion. Some ideas feel a bit under-cooked and underdeveloped – one of them being a pivotal part of the climax’s reveal, but I respect and appreciate the ingenuity of what was being attempted. Just because it doesn’t fully succeed doesn’t mean it fails and if anything I think Cognetti has proven that found footage can and should be taken seriously as a way of telling meaningful horror stories. There’s so much more that can be done with the mechanisms of the sub-genre and I appreciate this trilogy, this movie in particular, for opening my eyes up to them.

REPORT CARD

TLDRIf you’ve seen the previous two Hell House movies you owe it to watch this one. I’m of the opinion that if you’ve seen the first you should just grit your teeth through the second to watch this one. The movie doesn’t hit all the marks it wants to (someone please ban the glitch effect) but it’s innovative use of previous entries and the found footage style is something that fans of the sub-genre need to check out. It’s not a masterpiece, but for a found footage movie Hell House LLC III:Lake of Fire packs a lot more of a punch than expected.
Rating8.0/10
GradeB

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3
2010s, 2018, F, found footage, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, supernatural, Year

Review: Hell House LLC II: The Abaddon Hotel

2 Comments
Director(s)Stephen Cognetti
Principal CastVasile Flutur as Mitchell
Jillian Geurts as Jessica
Joy Shatz as Molly
Dustin Austen as David
Kyle Ingleman as Brock
Brian David Tracy as Arnold
Release Date2018
Language(s)English
Running Time89 minutes

As someone who genuinely enjoyed the first Hell House I was surprised when a sequel was coming out by the same director. I was curious at how Cognetti would manage to expand on his found footage universe. Would the series take a dive and become a repetitive snore fest like the Paranormal Activity franchise or would it try and innovate and be something new? Unfortunately, by the halfway mark I knew I was in store for the former. Hell House II feels like an attempt to capture the same lightning in a bottle that it’s predecessor managed to but doesn’t have nearly the same polish or sense of intrigue. There are a few nice moments scattered throughout but by and large the movie feels uninspired and pales in comparison to what came before.

The movie picks up 8 years after the tragedy of Hell House and follows investigative journalist, Jessica, and a ragtag team of assistants as they try and discover the secrets of the Abaddon Hotel and the tragedies associated with it. Just as you’d assume creepy stuff happens, random specters are sighted, and things get eerie quick. Unfortunately, most of the scares don’t land because there’s no reason to care for any of the characters.

The first movie works because it gives the audience time to know and understand the characters and their relationships with/among each other. I got their personalities and formed a bond with them, so watching the horrifying events happen to them evoked a level of sympathy. This is mainly due to how authentic and natural the cast comes off. I genuinely felt like I was watching a group of friends get entangled with something beyond them and not some actors trying to emulate that.

The main cast in this movie doesn’t manage to evoke those or similar feelings. The story splits Jessica’s group into two near the very beginning and never brings them back together so a large swath of potentials interactions are forgone. The people we do follow barely get anytime to to mingle before things start going bump in the night so they immediately rush into survival mode. As a result, they all just come off feeling like tropes as opposed to fleshed out characters worth caring for. Interactions between them come off like throwaway moments meant to pad the run-time and/or exposition dumps that are supposed to serve a stand-in for real characterization and storytelling. Everyone’s motivations feel forced and/or undeveloped and it makes sympathizing for their circumstances that much harder. For example, the movie needs Jessica to come off as feverish in her aspirations and willing to do whatever it takes to get the information she needs. This would help make sense of her refusals to back down in spite of the circumstances understandable as opposed to inconceivable. The story never gives Geurt the chance to convey this trait. Instead of feeling realized with intention and drive, she comes off like an NPC in a detective game who’s pre-programmed to make awful decisions because that’s what “real” journalism ,aka the story, requires. This displacement between what the character needs to emote to feel real versus their apparent motivation is present in most of the main cast outside of Ingleman. No one feels grounded or relatable.

I think the movie would have benefited immensely from more time to breathe with all the characters. Getting to know them more intimately would have helped understand their driving factors and would’ve helped me get over their incredibly, inconceivable, stupid decisions. Context changes the way decisions are perceived and this movie lacks that for its characters. It’s a shame because I think the few good scares in the movie suffer a lot as a result. In theory and partly in practice they work. It’s just their execution in relation to the characters feels detached and doesn’t stick in the mind after initial watch. That’s arguably the most important part of a scare. It’s ability to haunt you after having seen it.

Furthermore, while the purpose of the first movie is clear – a “real” documentary of a tragedy – this movie never makes it clear who is presenting the story of the Abaddon Hotel and why the audience should care. Video clips from the beginning of the movie recount the stories of individuals who entered the hotel and disappeared, but they just feel like disconnected scares that tell the audience very little new information. By the end of the movie the purpose of the documentary is no less clear. The story makes sense in a narrative context, but it doesn’t fit the style by which it’s told. I feel like the movie would’ve been more interesting as a straight up supernatural horror film as opposed to a found-footage style film. Granted, that would mess up the whole found-footage trilogy Cognetti was going for , but I think the franchise would’ve been better off as a result. It certainly wouldn’t feel as jarring. I just couldn’t stop thinking about why someone would cut and edit a piece like this and who they would show it to , so I could never get into the movie’s “purpose” as a documentary.

All this being said, I do enjoy the way the movie ends. Key revelations are made that connect the mythos of the first and second movie in a way that excuses some of story issues I’ve outlined. There’s a connective tissue that’s given life which fully gets to breathe in the final part of the trilogy. Without the foundation of the ending here, the third part of the franchise wouldn’t work as well , and that’s a movie I really enjoy. Does that mean I give Hell House LLC II a pass? No. Not even close. Just because it works in the context of a trilogy doesn’t give it an excuse for being boring and mostly uneventful in end of itself. It’s not a movie I would watch as a solo billing and even when I find myself in the mood for a franchise re-watch, I usually skip all the way to the end for this one.

REPORT CARD

TLDRHell House LLC II: The Abaddon Hotel leaves a lot to be desired and oftentimes comes off like a sad attempt at recreating the much better Hell House. The scares don’t hit, the characters are unrelatable, and the plot feels underdeveloped. I’d only recommend to this to fans of the first because the ending does add to the mythos of the latter and set up for a much better sequel .
Rating4.2/10
GradeF

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3
2010s, 2015, B, found footage, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, supernatural, Year

Review: Hell House LLC

Leave a comment
Director(s)Stephen Cognetti
Principal CastRyan Jennifer as Sara
Danny Bellini as Alex
Gore Abrams as Paul
Jared Hacker as Tony
Adam Schneider as Andrew “Mac” McNamara
Alice Bahlke as Diane
Release Date2015
Language(s)English
Running Time83 minutes

When I decided I had to do a bonus movie to meet my 31 “horrors” in 31 days, I thought might as well kill two birds with one stone and review this. Stephen Cognetti’s found footage flick, Hell House LLC, is a well acted, tense, and genuinely eerie story that manages to provoke and scare in spite of its low budget. While it doesn’t change up the game, it’s more than competent in all the places that matter and should entertain any horror fan looking for a quick, easy, and effective scare.

The film , which is shot and edited like a documentary, chronicles the creation and subsequent tragedy of Hell House, a haunted house attraction. Clips are taken from found footage the staff that renovated the dilapidated hotel into Hell House took while they were working, faux YouTube videos about the subsequent tragedy at the location which ended up killing fifteen people, and interviews referencing the same. Earlier portions of the movie which contain news clips and YouTube videos of the tragedy grounds the mystery and makes it feel like something that might have actually happened. There’s a gravity to the carnage that elevates the movie about the standard camp you would expect. Cuts (especially from certain interviews) foreshadows events in a way that creates tension without explicitly telling the audience how things will play out. It’s a unique use of the documentary style to set up scares that gives the movie an elevated feeling compared to other found footage contemporaries.

Every member of the main cast feels real and well grounded. Their decisions make sense and their skepticism to the supernatural is justified given the way key events play out. You can feel the tension between the group members grow as things in the hotel get more intense. Schisms and party lines break naturally and feel like power dynamics many of us encounter in our own social groups. In particular Gore Abrams performance as Paul creates moments of levity which simultaneously makes the descent and fracturing of the group more pronounced.

I enjoyed that the film presents a lot of subtle clues about certain character motivations and the nature of the supernatural elements of the movie. These looser “rules” and general associations with satanism are more than enough to engender a creepy aesthetic I loved that there were not many , if at all, stupid jump scares. We see scary things from the corner of our eyes and that in end of itself is the scare. Character reactions to the unseen spooks do more than enough at provoking audience imagination to think about the severity of the events that are transpiring.

Unfortunately, the end of the movie leaves some critical questions unanswered which stands out more than normal because of the sense of realism in editing and decision making had made a lot of sense before. Some of these decisions create cool scares, but I think they ruin some narrative integrity and make the movie feel less intelligent than it had been up till that point. The movie also makes constant usage of a “glitch” (random glitchy bars show up in random places on the screen to indicate that something is messing with the cameras waves) effect which felt like unnecessary visual flair that distracted from what was actually going on.

REPORT CARD

TLDRHell House LLC is a deceptively fun found footage horror film, that stays believable and creepy for the majority of it’s run time. The characters are relatable and the scares feel natural and well-earned. Despite the bumpy ending, I was left satisfied at the end of the movie.
Rating8.2/10
GradeB

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3