The Awakening (V) (2010) User Reviews

Indie Film at Its Best? No.

[gavin6942 · 5 October 2011]

A group of LA twenty-somethings are lured out of the city and out into the wilderness in search of a rave...

This film has possibly the lowest rating of any film I have seen in a long time. For whatever reason, Netflix suggested it to me with a very high probability of my liking it. But I knew in the first two minutes that it was a bad movie. Thanks, Netflix.

The volume of speech versus music is obnoxious, the plot is terrible until the second half. In fact, the first half spends a good deal of time focusing on a rave that nobody care about. The special effects are nothing to brag about (and the film almost could have been better if they never used any effects at all). I was hoping the old, grainy look would add atmosphere... but it did not.

Failure, failure, failure.

An Indie Thriller That Delivers

[learntolive_productions · 9/10 · 3 March 2011]

This thriller of an independent film has a little bit of everything.

"The Awakening" was well executed on many levels. The first thing that I noticed was the film's look. The cinematography looked good with a good amount of contrast without being overbearing and a wide variety of shots. Most of the film was shot relatively unsaturated which gave it a slightly grey, uneasy color. Juxtaposing the unsaturated look with the more vivid, friendlier moments helped build the desired suspense.

Editing for "The Awakening" was a bit unusual, out of the mainstream, with cutting that I can only describe as a hybrid of Edgar Wright movies ("Hot Fuzz," "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World") and television sitcom "Scrubs." This created almost a throwback film but with a new age feel that was different without being abrupt.

The movie's subject matter will likely affect some people's interest. The film is definitely geared towards a younger audience. It does include swearing and mildly graphic imagery which won't deter most youth. This isn't the kind of film you would want to take your grandmother to, or, in some cases, your mother. It is a strong 17 to 30 film which can reach beyond that age group.

The plot worked around a demon/god possession concept which Rotonda and Schaefer take beyond the cliché exorcism films.

The acting in the film was well executed with the majority of the cast delivering strong, natural performances. The chemistry between Donovan (Brian Schaefer) and Amanda (Emersen Riley) was great as their characters' relationship progressed in an unforced way. Also the character of Roy (Kevin Lowe) played a funny and hapless protagonist throughout the film. Lowe's facial expressions alone could tell a story.

The soundtrack was another highlight of this film; the music fit the story progression with a great alternative rock sound.

Overall the film delivered on all the levels to be expected. Its foundation was strong with plenty of background information. It is good, and if you're a fan of indie films, I suggest you get the chance to see it.

Don't bother

[mezzb · 6 October 2011]

I feel bad slagging this film. It's like badmouthing a grammar school play. This is not a real movie. It's cheap digital video with poor production values and sub-sub-par acting. Somehow this is appearing as a recommended film on netflix. And it has a 4+ star review rating there. It is artificially inflated. I warn you not to bother. Not because it's terrible, but because it's not a movie. It's someone's goofy little project.

As I said, I feel bad slagging it. But I chose to do so because I felt cheated by Netflix for recommending this to me. One might come to the conclusion that there is "fishy business" going on in the over-inflated review scores on netflix.

It's not a bad movie, in fact, it's not a movie at all. Don't bother.

And one more time - don't bother

The filmmakers tried, but this was too bad to finish.

[shawn_381 · 8 October 2011]

Netflix lured me in with the description of a character driven thriller and a 4.5 star rating. Sounded right up my alley, however it turned out to be too low budget for me to watch.

I like indie films just fine, but this one is on the level of a student film, and an average one at that.

I'll give them credit for trying to create hip banter between the protagonists, however there are just too many issues with the quality of the production to get past the first 10 minutes.

Poor acting Clichéd dialog Poor sound (music too loud, dialog too low) Choppy editing

One character in particular that is supposed to be menacing is completely unconvincing and just comes off like an overweight doofus.

I cannot recommend this movie.

A real stinker not worth your time

[rwagn · 19 October 2011]

Do not waste your time on this film for one good special effect (and even that is milked for all it is worth). Who would put their name on this film or even want to be remotely connected with it? It really is that bad. Pish poor in all departments, especially scripting and acting. It looks like one of those films where friends fill in for extras. The problem is the friends stick out like sore thumbs as soon as they realize the camera is running. I also gave this one a look based upon the 4 star rating on Netfilx. It took about 3 minutes to realize I had been misled. I stayed with the film for the duration but it only got worse and worse. And how about that "shock" ending?? Hee hee, who didn't see that one coming? Jeesh!

Who wrote that first review on IMDb?

[dking4-1 · 16 October 2011]

I just watched this on Netflix and probably would not be so critical but someone rated this one '5 and 1/2 stars'. Who rates these movies? This was so incredibly awful that you were compelled to watch just to see how bad it would continue to evolve. Surprisingly this was shot in and around LA and you would think that talent both in front and behind the camera would have been more experienced. Over acting, editing was painful, story was way too long and weak. For that reason I should give the actors a bit more of a break considering just how bad the direction and how cliché the dialog was, "That trinket can't help you now"...The soundtrack amateur and found it distracting. I did however love to see the guy in the end (with beard) get it in the jugular, (nice special effects on that one, REALLY cool how the cut pulsated on the close up)But does one bleed for that long and still remain conscious never mind alive? Well, you wish you were left unconscious along with "Do not 'Awaken' to watch"...

If you like student films, this is on par with one.

[skifly · 7 October 2011]

Like others, I found this film through Netflix, with an exceptional rating for a horror movie. Honestly, I suppose it could be worse, but right from the get-go it has that "student film" quality about it. The actors appeared untrained, the special effects were terrible, and the entire movie looked like it could have been made on a budget of $500 or less.

As someone who has acted in a number of student films, I found it entertaining, but it doesn't deserve credit as a professional movie, and it definitely doesn't deserve four stars on Netflix. As an amateur film, it's not bad. It might even be worth watching for a couple chuckles, but if you're looking for a good movie that actually scares you, this is not the movie for you.

As an amateur film, I give it 7.5/10, but as a professional film I give it 1/10.

Newflash: Netflix rate-hike not due to an improved rating algorithm

[jackarute · 16 October 2011]

I don't believe this merits another mass apology via mail, but I would be curious to read the mass detailed explanation email. I guess I am just echoing the other similar sentiments about being roped in by a "slightly"(when the example sentence in a spelling bee for the word would be "Chernobyl was slightly affected by a slightly under maintained nuclear reactor.") overrated horror flick. When you've exhausted Netflixs' international catalog down to at least 2.5 stars, it raises hopes, or it certainly did mine. The most interesting moment for me came during the credits when it was revealed one of the actors only looked like a high school classmate (barring a name change, which would have been highly presumptuous by any of this movie's cast members).

Bad - Just plain bad

[misty-broughton · 14 October 2011]

What can be said about this movie that hasn't already been stated? It really is badly done. The main villain in the film is laughably oafish. I wouldn't fear him in the scariest of situations!

There just isn't much going for this film. Bad dialogue, horrible editing, and worse acting; this film contained all the necessities of a qualifying to be a feature presentation on Mystery Science Theater 3000. I wanted to make a little cut-out version of Joel, Crow, and Tom Servo to attach to the bottom of my screen to feel like I justified sitting through 34 whole minutes of this wreckage!

I get that it's quite possibly a student film, so I couldn't give it the 1 star that it truly deserves. I give them a 3 star for their effort.

The Netflix review lured me in...

[jtwhite2 · 15 October 2011]

I, like several others, decided to watch this movie because on Netflix it has a 4 star (or almost 4 star) rating. I must have gotten this movie confused with another movie for which I saw commercials a few years back that looked interesting. This movie has a weak plot, sub-standard acting and chintzy special effects. It's not that bad if it's a student film, but if this film is considered to be "professional" then these guys should be out of work right about now. It's very difficult to actually get connected to or care about the fate of the characters because there is no character development. There are no explanations and it appears that the "God" or "Demon" antagonist of the film only wants to kill and kill and kill for no reason. This film ALMOST has a zombie-like flavor to it in that the malevolent entity is passed from one person to another and then it turns around and kills as many people as possible.