"How do you stop thinking about something." Charlie Crowe (Roberts) is a talk show host who's ratings are slipping and he is worried that he may get canceled. When a young man calls in one night and tells him about a nightmare he is having he thinks its a joke and hangs up on him. After receiving a package from him he takes it a little more serious, then after the next time he calls it changes everything. Charlie is now trying to figure out what he saw. This is a very interesting movie but I wouldn't call it a straight horror movie. The movie is interesting enough to keep you watching and interested but I didn't think it was scary in the classic sense. The only movie I can really compare this to is The Fourth Kind in the way that it mixes "real" footage with the movie footage which makes it a little more creepy. It is a hard movie to recommend because it doesn't really fit into a specific genre but I will say that it kept me interested the entire time. Overall, not a bad movie but nothing amazing either. I give it a C+.
38 Reviews
It was better than I expected... Not too bad for a low-key PG-13 Horror film...
lathe-of-heaven28 March 2013
When at the beginning I saw the 'Reality' footage added in, I thought immediately that I was NOT going to like this (I HATE 'Reality Shows' and most 'Found Footage' films) But, I must say, that it was actually used very judiciously throughout the movie.
I don't usually care for Dallas Roberts that much either, but I must admit that he did a decent job in his role. Every time I see the guy, I get this eerie feeling that John Ritter has been resurrected! DAMN! Also, as you actually get to see the real people here involved in the 'True' case, it does have a sneaky way of drawing you into the film.
With such a simple concept, the way it was done was decent and moderately effective. When I saw the REAL guy I truly felt quite sorry for him, especially when they show the credits at the end (not to give anything away) I really just felt bad for him.
I think the thing that I appreciated most was that the way it was put together and the way it was put across, you never get the feeling that the film makers are exploiting the idea like so many other 'True' stories. Especially with the footage of the real guy, you get a strong sense that they are honestly trying to portray events as they actually 'happened'.
A surprisingly interesting and mildly effective film that somewhat surpassed my earlier expectations...
I don't usually care for Dallas Roberts that much either, but I must admit that he did a decent job in his role. Every time I see the guy, I get this eerie feeling that John Ritter has been resurrected! DAMN! Also, as you actually get to see the real people here involved in the 'True' case, it does have a sneaky way of drawing you into the film.
With such a simple concept, the way it was done was decent and moderately effective. When I saw the REAL guy I truly felt quite sorry for him, especially when they show the credits at the end (not to give anything away) I really just felt bad for him.
I think the thing that I appreciated most was that the way it was put together and the way it was put across, you never get the feeling that the film makers are exploiting the idea like so many other 'True' stories. Especially with the footage of the real guy, you get a strong sense that they are honestly trying to portray events as they actually 'happened'.
A surprisingly interesting and mildly effective film that somewhat surpassed my earlier expectations...
Is it worth a rental? Only if you scare Very Easily.
Thrill_KillZ9 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Do you scare easily? If the answer is no and you watch a lot of horror then I'm pretty sure the premise in this film will wear on you fast. The film starts by stating that the film has ties to actual events and then goes on to show a few people describing a feeling with similarities & properties as shown in "The Ring". That's quite a tall order to fill, considering how "The Ring" was one of the most original & effectively creepy films of this century.
The trouble starts when a seventeen year old boy sends a mysterious package to a night time radio talk show host. Later that night the boy calls the show and is raving on about how these "shadow people" are coming to kill him if he falls asleep. The call ends in a gunshot which turned out to be him shooting at the wall. The boy was taken to the hospital for an evaluation, but was found dead the following morning from unknown causes. Thus the talk show host feels compelled to dig deeper into the mystery surrounding the case and starts to investigate on his own to find answers, his first stop was a public library where he copies pages out of books, after he leaves the librarian finds a paper that was jammed inside of the copier & reads it. Thus she inadvertently unleashes the wrath of the mysterious shadow people onto her.
All of this seems to take a long time to get going as it reaches the halfway point without a whole lot of information other than hearing callers accounts of "sleep paralysis" & the feeling of having someone in the room with them.
The further the film gets the less engaged I became, there was a complete lack of empathy for all characters involved and it's plot seemed to get sillier & less believable as the film progressed. It switches from expert to expert blabbering on about a subject that IMO is just wasn't presented in the correct manner. The fact that this film had the ability to shake up any full grown adult is far more disturbing to me than anything. I believe this topic could have had some serious potential if handled properly & there's nothing worse than wasted potential when dealing with a fresh idea
The trouble starts when a seventeen year old boy sends a mysterious package to a night time radio talk show host. Later that night the boy calls the show and is raving on about how these "shadow people" are coming to kill him if he falls asleep. The call ends in a gunshot which turned out to be him shooting at the wall. The boy was taken to the hospital for an evaluation, but was found dead the following morning from unknown causes. Thus the talk show host feels compelled to dig deeper into the mystery surrounding the case and starts to investigate on his own to find answers, his first stop was a public library where he copies pages out of books, after he leaves the librarian finds a paper that was jammed inside of the copier & reads it. Thus she inadvertently unleashes the wrath of the mysterious shadow people onto her.
All of this seems to take a long time to get going as it reaches the halfway point without a whole lot of information other than hearing callers accounts of "sleep paralysis" & the feeling of having someone in the room with them.
The further the film gets the less engaged I became, there was a complete lack of empathy for all characters involved and it's plot seemed to get sillier & less believable as the film progressed. It switches from expert to expert blabbering on about a subject that IMO is just wasn't presented in the correct manner. The fact that this film had the ability to shake up any full grown adult is far more disturbing to me than anything. I believe this topic could have had some serious potential if handled properly & there's nothing worse than wasted potential when dealing with a fresh idea
A confused listless and direction-less mess
mickr7an12 May 2013
What is this movie really about? I don't think it knows. Is it a horror movie? Is it a suspense thriller, a mockumentary or a based on a true story drama? It's no genre busting masterpiece just a movie that doesn't know what its own genre is.
Is this a movie about the man or about the shadow people? Is it a warning to mankind or an admission of fraudulent behaviour and a portrayal of questionable character? No. it's a move that doesn't even understand it's own message.
Is it a movie that leaves us with questions about what really happened or about the nature of the universe and how we really understand? No, it's a movie that leaves us with the question why? Why did anyone bother to make a film about something they clearly have no understanding of or belief in? I suspect half way through the process the director lost faith in his message so meandered between believer and skeptic.
The 'real' footage of interviews with the original people was weak and completely pointless. None of them had anything to say either way and all seemed to be quite confused as to why there were being interviewed at all.
It's a very weak movie that doesn't deserve your time.
Is this a movie about the man or about the shadow people? Is it a warning to mankind or an admission of fraudulent behaviour and a portrayal of questionable character? No. it's a move that doesn't even understand it's own message.
Is it a movie that leaves us with questions about what really happened or about the nature of the universe and how we really understand? No, it's a movie that leaves us with the question why? Why did anyone bother to make a film about something they clearly have no understanding of or belief in? I suspect half way through the process the director lost faith in his message so meandered between believer and skeptic.
The 'real' footage of interviews with the original people was weak and completely pointless. None of them had anything to say either way and all seemed to be quite confused as to why there were being interviewed at all.
It's a very weak movie that doesn't deserve your time.
Out come the haters
toddg-473-2898186 April 2014
When people who make movies go out of their way to tell the audience that their movie is based on actual events, they set themselves up for criticism from people who want historical accuracy. "Shadow People" is another movie that unnecessarily chooses to go that route. This movie was plenty scary, and could easily have stood on its own merits without having to play the "based on a true story" card.
I am reminded of two other movies that did this: The Fourth Kind, and Phantom. Both went out of their way to tell the audience that their stories came from factual history, and both received a hefty backlash of negative reviews from audience members calling the movie makers out on their claims. Any of these movies would have been better if presented purely as fictional entertainment.
If you can put aside this aspect of "Shadow People", you will be in for a decent flick, both chilling and eerie.
I am reminded of two other movies that did this: The Fourth Kind, and Phantom. Both went out of their way to tell the audience that their stories came from factual history, and both received a hefty backlash of negative reviews from audience members calling the movie makers out on their claims. Any of these movies would have been better if presented purely as fictional entertainment.
If you can put aside this aspect of "Shadow People", you will be in for a decent flick, both chilling and eerie.
Cheaply Made Movie Not Even Slightly Scary
tdbeats21 October 2013
Cons:About One third of the Movie is so dark That you can Barely tell whats going on. Charlie's constant smoking adds nothing to the Movie. The sudden cutaways to Real Footage is confusing and somewhat aggravating. It should be either a documentary or a Movie. I rented it assuming it would be scary(Its in the Horror Category on RedBox) but this yawner couldn't scare a 4-year-old. One main problem is that other than a few Brief glimpses of Moving Shadows, there is no real Monster or Villain. The people just act scared and make noises like they're being choked, and the next thing you know, The reporter is reporting that They're dead. I also don't understand the connection between the Experiment with the Door and Shadow People. Charlie and The Woman act like this is Very Important. Lastly, I'll emphasize that this movie is not scary. There is no Scratching at the door, or Monster under the Bed. I would recommend picking another movie If You're Looking for a Scary Thriller.
Seeded with subliminal word messages!!!
latelatemonstershow28 March 2013
This is a very solid little horror film that does a great job of combining mock-documentary footage and a straight narrative. Also, the filmmakers have seeded the film with subliminal word messages hidden in a few quick cuts and blurry images, which is kind of funny and amusing. It's individual words sprinkled through the film o spell out: NOW YOU WILL SEE THEM TOO!!! I really appreciate this little touch and would love to read or hear about this choice. I watched it on VOD, so now I'll have to pick up a copy of the DVD or blu-ray to see if they talk about this at all.
I am a sucker for a good ghost story, and while this isn't "ghosts", it is creepy and made the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end more than once. It also reminds me of my college days of staying up late and listening to Art Bell on his spooky AM radio talk show.
If you like creepy, slow-burn horror you should defiantly give this a watch.
I am a sucker for a good ghost story, and while this isn't "ghosts", it is creepy and made the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end more than once. It also reminds me of my college days of staying up late and listening to Art Bell on his spooky AM radio talk show.
If you like creepy, slow-burn horror you should defiantly give this a watch.
Disappointing movie..
DBLurker19 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Ignoring the crappy special effects for the "shadows" themselves or the overused "jump scares" (which got old after the first two jumps), they actually end up explaining the whole shadow people bit scientifically.
Well that was frackin fun.
Sitting through an hour to realize that the whole movie is based on boring real life disease. There is no horror in whole movie, instead we get a weird fake documentary mix that just makes you wanna punch the director in the mouth.
4/10 (Four cause the premise would've worked well in a good horror movie)
Well that was frackin fun.
Sitting through an hour to realize that the whole movie is based on boring real life disease. There is no horror in whole movie, instead we get a weird fake documentary mix that just makes you wanna punch the director in the mouth.
4/10 (Four cause the premise would've worked well in a good horror movie)
Nicely made.
mike-gordonm725 September 2014
What was enjoyable about this movie for me was that the (HD?) camera work was clean and nicely composed, the direction and acting was entirely competent and the editing was cool too, in what I imagine was a film with a relatively modest budget. A pleasant change from average Hollywood. It was made by people with a real feeling for film. Mariah Bonner as the librarian was a bonus who definitely did not hurt the eyes. Shame she was an early victim.
The story wasn't great, though it exploited common enough fears of things that are half-seen (or were they there at all?), and move in the night (as opposed to go bump in the night). And the placebo effect is undoubtedly real, though whether it's killed anyone is questionable, I'd say, certainly in Western cultures.
I did once see a shadow person in bright daylight (or did I?). I was about three at the time, and lying in bed. The shadow of a figure ran across the wall, flowed into a shallow recess, slid behind a wardrobe, came out the other side, and vanished. It was more scary than Shadow People, and as you can tell, I haven't forgotten it. However, the good news (for anyone who's worried) is that it hasn't reappeared since, and 70+ years later I'm still here.
The story wasn't great, though it exploited common enough fears of things that are half-seen (or were they there at all?), and move in the night (as opposed to go bump in the night). And the placebo effect is undoubtedly real, though whether it's killed anyone is questionable, I'd say, certainly in Western cultures.
I did once see a shadow person in bright daylight (or did I?). I was about three at the time, and lying in bed. The shadow of a figure ran across the wall, flowed into a shallow recess, slid behind a wardrobe, came out the other side, and vanished. It was more scary than Shadow People, and as you can tell, I haven't forgotten it. However, the good news (for anyone who's worried) is that it hasn't reappeared since, and 70+ years later I'm still here.
Could Have Been Good
NotAnotherMovieCritic7 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I have heard the scary stories of shadow people for quite a while now, so when I saw this movie I was very excited to delve right in. Unfortunately, I pretty disappointed.
The film started out pretty well, giving us little glimpses of what was to come. However, the outcome wasn't presented well. The scares are far and few in between and only one is memorable.
The writing and directing was good, even with the hidden messages throughout the film (the main reason I gave it a 4 instead of a 3). The acting, not so much. Sometimes it felt rehearsed and even in a few moments it was overacted, and to me this was a problem with the film. There were some interesting moments, but not enough to really keep my attention.
My biggest problem with this film was a plot hole, and a pretty obvious one. I clicked on the "Contains Spoilers" box just in case, but I don't want to reveal anything if I can help it. All I will say is that the plot hole is with the film that they find, and the theory the doctor gives and how that it doesn't fit. To me that was the biggest downfall of this film.
I didn't really enjoy it and probably wouldn't recommend it either.
The film started out pretty well, giving us little glimpses of what was to come. However, the outcome wasn't presented well. The scares are far and few in between and only one is memorable.
The writing and directing was good, even with the hidden messages throughout the film (the main reason I gave it a 4 instead of a 3). The acting, not so much. Sometimes it felt rehearsed and even in a few moments it was overacted, and to me this was a problem with the film. There were some interesting moments, but not enough to really keep my attention.
My biggest problem with this film was a plot hole, and a pretty obvious one. I clicked on the "Contains Spoilers" box just in case, but I don't want to reveal anything if I can help it. All I will say is that the plot hole is with the film that they find, and the theory the doctor gives and how that it doesn't fit. To me that was the biggest downfall of this film.
I didn't really enjoy it and probably wouldn't recommend it either.
"Shadow People" is that rare horror movie that leaves a lasting impression of fear upon you as you lay in bed at night
ersinkdotcom15 March 2013
Rarely do I come across anything in my viewing of horror movies that makes me jumpy or paranoid after turning the TV off. Most times I enjoy the film and then go on about my business with no worries. However, every once in a while a true gem of fear comes along and leaves its imprint on me as I shut off all the lights in the house and head to bed. Matthew Arnold's "Shadow People" had me searching the walls and windows for ghastly spots of unexplained darkness after watching it.
Participants in an experimental sleep study in the 1970s report seeing strange shadowy figures. They and several hundred other individuals die in their sleep soon after. The phenomenon was given the name SUNDS, which stands for "Sudden Unexplained Nocturnal Death Syndrome." Doctors wouldn't talk about the shadows.
In the present, failing radio talk show host Charlie Crowe begins receiving calls from a teenager claiming shadowy intruders are coming for him. At first, Charlie believes the kid is mentally ill. His theory is challenged when the boy dies in his sleep. Things get even weirder when listeners of his talk show and people he tells about the mysterious shadowy figures begin dying in their sleep. Are these clusters of deaths a coincidence or are there sinister nocturnal forces at work?
"Shadow People" takes the sort of ideas our nightmares are made of and puts them in a visual package. Everything you've ever thought about someone or something watching you in your sleep is brought to life in this creepy little indie film.
Director Matthew Arnold shows great promise through his mastery of timing. He has a knack for setting up what you would expect to be your typical jump scare and somehow delivering it in an off-tempo manner that leaves the viewer surprised and shuddering.
I can't say I completely agree with every choice of filmmaking he used for "Shadow People." The movie is presented in the manner of many true crime TV shows are. It's a re-enactment of "true events" with the actual people involved giving their commentary along the way. The concept is interesting but gets a bit distracting as the terror unfolds.
Many religious individuals would express their belief that shadow people are demons or evil spirits. Much like in "The Possession" or "The Exorcist," the person has brought something into their house that allowed the entity access. I am of that mindset more so than any other concept brought up in this.
If I were to compare "Shadow People" to other movies out there just as a way to spark people's interest, "The Ring" and "The Apparition" immediately come to mind. By no means is this a carbon copy of either of those films. They just came to mind as I sat watching it.
"Shadow People" is that rare horror movie that leaves a lasting impression on its audience. The fear might wear off over time, but you'll never completely stop thinking about it. We all wake up in the middle of the night gasping for air, feeling like something is sitting on us, or thinking we're being watched. Is it just our imagination or could it be the shadow people?
Participants in an experimental sleep study in the 1970s report seeing strange shadowy figures. They and several hundred other individuals die in their sleep soon after. The phenomenon was given the name SUNDS, which stands for "Sudden Unexplained Nocturnal Death Syndrome." Doctors wouldn't talk about the shadows.
In the present, failing radio talk show host Charlie Crowe begins receiving calls from a teenager claiming shadowy intruders are coming for him. At first, Charlie believes the kid is mentally ill. His theory is challenged when the boy dies in his sleep. Things get even weirder when listeners of his talk show and people he tells about the mysterious shadowy figures begin dying in their sleep. Are these clusters of deaths a coincidence or are there sinister nocturnal forces at work?
"Shadow People" takes the sort of ideas our nightmares are made of and puts them in a visual package. Everything you've ever thought about someone or something watching you in your sleep is brought to life in this creepy little indie film.
Director Matthew Arnold shows great promise through his mastery of timing. He has a knack for setting up what you would expect to be your typical jump scare and somehow delivering it in an off-tempo manner that leaves the viewer surprised and shuddering.
I can't say I completely agree with every choice of filmmaking he used for "Shadow People." The movie is presented in the manner of many true crime TV shows are. It's a re-enactment of "true events" with the actual people involved giving their commentary along the way. The concept is interesting but gets a bit distracting as the terror unfolds.
Many religious individuals would express their belief that shadow people are demons or evil spirits. Much like in "The Possession" or "The Exorcist," the person has brought something into their house that allowed the entity access. I am of that mindset more so than any other concept brought up in this.
If I were to compare "Shadow People" to other movies out there just as a way to spark people's interest, "The Ring" and "The Apparition" immediately come to mind. By no means is this a carbon copy of either of those films. They just came to mind as I sat watching it.
"Shadow People" is that rare horror movie that leaves a lasting impression on its audience. The fear might wear off over time, but you'll never completely stop thinking about it. We all wake up in the middle of the night gasping for air, feeling like something is sitting on us, or thinking we're being watched. Is it just our imagination or could it be the shadow people?
Shadow People?
gavin694223 March 2013
A radio talk show host (Dallas Roberts) unravels a conspiracy about encounters with mysterious beings known as the Shadow People and their role in the unexplained deaths of several hundred victims in the 1980s.
I had never heard of shadow people before this film, but a little search turns up two things: they were featured in "John Dies at the End" and on the radio program Coast to Coast AM. Now, I will have to assume that the "John Dies" is a coincidence, but there is obviously a Coast to Coast connection since this film focuses on a late night talk host... nicely done, folks. And thank you for not making him as wacky as Art Bell.
This is a fine effort from Matt Arnold, who has not really made a name for himself in film just yet. Could this be his big break? Perhaps. I missed an opportunity to chat with Arnold, and that is unfortunate... I would love to know about his work on "Jackie Brown".
I had never heard of shadow people before this film, but a little search turns up two things: they were featured in "John Dies at the End" and on the radio program Coast to Coast AM. Now, I will have to assume that the "John Dies" is a coincidence, but there is obviously a Coast to Coast connection since this film focuses on a late night talk host... nicely done, folks. And thank you for not making him as wacky as Art Bell.
This is a fine effort from Matt Arnold, who has not really made a name for himself in film just yet. Could this be his big break? Perhaps. I missed an opportunity to chat with Arnold, and that is unfortunate... I would love to know about his work on "Jackie Brown".
Derivative
purrlgurrl15 January 2014
Well the plot device of the film (recreations by actors of "actual events" counterpointed with video/audio tape/film of the "real life" people who allegedly experienced them) is lifted whole cloth from The Fourth Kind.
There's a scribbled sketch of a shadow person in a notebook that looks a lot like the sketches John Klein's wife made of the Mothman before she died in The Mothman Prophecies.
The CDC researcher is named Lacombe, the same name as the UFO researcher in Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
The darting shadows, electronic noise, and images in the static on the television screen are taken from White Noise.
The notion of terrifying death as the result of watching a film is taken from The Ring.
I could list more, but this should be enough to demonstrate there isn't a single original idea in the film. What a waste.
There's a scribbled sketch of a shadow person in a notebook that looks a lot like the sketches John Klein's wife made of the Mothman before she died in The Mothman Prophecies.
The CDC researcher is named Lacombe, the same name as the UFO researcher in Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
The darting shadows, electronic noise, and images in the static on the television screen are taken from White Noise.
The notion of terrifying death as the result of watching a film is taken from The Ring.
I could list more, but this should be enough to demonstrate there isn't a single original idea in the film. What a waste.
Dumb as hell and more concerned with trying to appear real than doing anything interesting
phenomynouss13 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I accidentally lost my whole review as a result of touching a wrong button so I'll have to rewrite it.
This dumb movie tries to appear based on true events, and does so by mugging us constantly with "Actual footage" alongside the movie footage, in some cases showing us side-by-sides, in other cases just showing us random snippets of interviews with absolutely no context. I realized too late that this was similar to what "The Fourth Kind" did, but at the very least "The Fourth Kind" gave us some fun "actual footage" stuff, whereas all the "actual footage" presented in this film consists of out of context news snippets, apparent interviews, and a deposition with the actual radio host guy Charlie, who looks absolutely nothing like the actor they have portraying him in the movie.
The paranormal cause they've latched onto is... "Shadow People", the idea that there are spooky ghostly boogins that sit on you while you sleep and suffocate you to death. Right away this is nonsense, as this describes an actual medical condition known as sleep paralysis which is not at all paranormal or supernatural. This is like the film devoting itself to "proving" that the first crop circles were actually alien when the actual people who made the crop circles have long since admitted that they did it on their own and it wasn't aliens.
The film initially manages to hook me with its anomalous events, in which Charlie at his radio show gets a call from a seemingly disturbed person, Jeff, who claims he cannot sleep because shadow people or something will get him. He's hung up on, but tracks down Charlie's house and leaves him a package full of photographs of a supposed experiment done by a Dr Ravenscroft, the most horrifically cliché horror-movie-scientist name ever, in which he attempts to have people open a door while asleep, and inexplicably all the test subjects die. Next day he calls Charlie's station again, apparently threatens to kill himself, and apparently does as we hear a gunshot. But it turns out he only shot at a wall, and when the station called the cops to check on him, they hospitalized him.
The surprise twist is, when Charlie comes to try to interview him at the hospital, they discover he died in the hospital inexplicably.
From there, the movie abandons whatever it may have been building up with the Jeff case by outright showing us "Shadow people" attacks on random people who have all heard the radio broadcast. Charlie teams up with a detective woman whose name I forgot (sorry) and they try to track down more information on Dr Ebonyravenhartcroft and his experiments.
All throughout this we are treated to more snippets of Charlie talking about shadow people on his radio show, and out of context interviews with random people who either knew the victims or work at the radio station.
Eventually they dig up his supposed body, only to find in his coffin a reel of footage of the experiment they were looking for! They watch the video and it consists of the experiment, where we see one subject sleeping while the big metal door behind him has its knob slowly turn, before the subject goes into convulsions.
This... isn't proof of anything, yet Charlie and the detective woman treat it as though it were ABSOLUTE CONCLUSIVE PROOF of the existence of Shadow People. Charlie is so convinced he is going to show the footage on a local news broadcast.
But then as Detective Woman nearly goes into a condescending explanation to a gas station attendant on the placebo effect, she has a dumb "eureka" moment and decides that all 3-4 of the Shadow People occurrences in town have been the result of the placebo effect, in that everyone listening to Charlie on the radio talk about Shadow People are somehow accidentally killing themselves when they sleep. She rushes to the news station to warn Charlie not to show the footage, or else even more people will end up dying.
First off, this is insanely stupid in so many directions at once it made me genuinely angry. Second off, if this were even remotely true, they would probably have to ban the internet and most movies or else thousands of people would end up suddenly dying or getting sick after spooking themselves with whatever trash video they see online.
Somehow Charlie gets the idea that she's right, and at the last moment live on the air stammers and says he has no footage, it was all an elaborate hoax, and runs off. Inexplicably they decide to show us the "actual footage" of Charlie doing this alongside the movie version, which shows us they apparently didn't even remotely care about emulating the "actual" events, as the "actual footage" shows Charlie being interviewed by a black reporter at a big round table, while the movie version shows Charlie seated between a white male and female reporter at a regular news desk.
Despite the footage not at all coming close to proving the existence of "shadow people", everyone decides this is something shocking and worthy of a cover-up, so Charlie gets fired by the radio station and the radio station people in interview refuse to answer why he got fired, and in the remaining "actual footage" deposition with Charlie, in which the actual Charlie is being questioned by the police for no clear reason, he is inexplicably told by his lawyer not to comment at all on the footage or the shadow people any further.
What ever this movie was trying to go for by obsessing over the "real actual events" they are describing, they not only forgot to make an entertaining movie, but seemingly forgot what their own movie was even about, as the whole elements of the "Shadow People" and the "Spooky Telepathic Experiments" are not even remotely connected in any way, yet they are explicitly said to be connected in the film. It's like a film about the Manson Family murders telling us that Charles Manson was an alien, and this clue is somehow the key to solving the mystery of an entirely unrelated series of murders, and then providing no explanation and no clue as to how those two pieces of information even interact, much less how they are in any way connected.
This dumb movie tries to appear based on true events, and does so by mugging us constantly with "Actual footage" alongside the movie footage, in some cases showing us side-by-sides, in other cases just showing us random snippets of interviews with absolutely no context. I realized too late that this was similar to what "The Fourth Kind" did, but at the very least "The Fourth Kind" gave us some fun "actual footage" stuff, whereas all the "actual footage" presented in this film consists of out of context news snippets, apparent interviews, and a deposition with the actual radio host guy Charlie, who looks absolutely nothing like the actor they have portraying him in the movie.
The paranormal cause they've latched onto is... "Shadow People", the idea that there are spooky ghostly boogins that sit on you while you sleep and suffocate you to death. Right away this is nonsense, as this describes an actual medical condition known as sleep paralysis which is not at all paranormal or supernatural. This is like the film devoting itself to "proving" that the first crop circles were actually alien when the actual people who made the crop circles have long since admitted that they did it on their own and it wasn't aliens.
The film initially manages to hook me with its anomalous events, in which Charlie at his radio show gets a call from a seemingly disturbed person, Jeff, who claims he cannot sleep because shadow people or something will get him. He's hung up on, but tracks down Charlie's house and leaves him a package full of photographs of a supposed experiment done by a Dr Ravenscroft, the most horrifically cliché horror-movie-scientist name ever, in which he attempts to have people open a door while asleep, and inexplicably all the test subjects die. Next day he calls Charlie's station again, apparently threatens to kill himself, and apparently does as we hear a gunshot. But it turns out he only shot at a wall, and when the station called the cops to check on him, they hospitalized him.
The surprise twist is, when Charlie comes to try to interview him at the hospital, they discover he died in the hospital inexplicably.
From there, the movie abandons whatever it may have been building up with the Jeff case by outright showing us "Shadow people" attacks on random people who have all heard the radio broadcast. Charlie teams up with a detective woman whose name I forgot (sorry) and they try to track down more information on Dr Ebonyravenhartcroft and his experiments.
All throughout this we are treated to more snippets of Charlie talking about shadow people on his radio show, and out of context interviews with random people who either knew the victims or work at the radio station.
Eventually they dig up his supposed body, only to find in his coffin a reel of footage of the experiment they were looking for! They watch the video and it consists of the experiment, where we see one subject sleeping while the big metal door behind him has its knob slowly turn, before the subject goes into convulsions.
This... isn't proof of anything, yet Charlie and the detective woman treat it as though it were ABSOLUTE CONCLUSIVE PROOF of the existence of Shadow People. Charlie is so convinced he is going to show the footage on a local news broadcast.
But then as Detective Woman nearly goes into a condescending explanation to a gas station attendant on the placebo effect, she has a dumb "eureka" moment and decides that all 3-4 of the Shadow People occurrences in town have been the result of the placebo effect, in that everyone listening to Charlie on the radio talk about Shadow People are somehow accidentally killing themselves when they sleep. She rushes to the news station to warn Charlie not to show the footage, or else even more people will end up dying.
First off, this is insanely stupid in so many directions at once it made me genuinely angry. Second off, if this were even remotely true, they would probably have to ban the internet and most movies or else thousands of people would end up suddenly dying or getting sick after spooking themselves with whatever trash video they see online.
Somehow Charlie gets the idea that she's right, and at the last moment live on the air stammers and says he has no footage, it was all an elaborate hoax, and runs off. Inexplicably they decide to show us the "actual footage" of Charlie doing this alongside the movie version, which shows us they apparently didn't even remotely care about emulating the "actual" events, as the "actual footage" shows Charlie being interviewed by a black reporter at a big round table, while the movie version shows Charlie seated between a white male and female reporter at a regular news desk.
Despite the footage not at all coming close to proving the existence of "shadow people", everyone decides this is something shocking and worthy of a cover-up, so Charlie gets fired by the radio station and the radio station people in interview refuse to answer why he got fired, and in the remaining "actual footage" deposition with Charlie, in which the actual Charlie is being questioned by the police for no clear reason, he is inexplicably told by his lawyer not to comment at all on the footage or the shadow people any further.
What ever this movie was trying to go for by obsessing over the "real actual events" they are describing, they not only forgot to make an entertaining movie, but seemingly forgot what their own movie was even about, as the whole elements of the "Shadow People" and the "Spooky Telepathic Experiments" are not even remotely connected in any way, yet they are explicitly said to be connected in the film. It's like a film about the Manson Family murders telling us that Charles Manson was an alien, and this clue is somehow the key to solving the mystery of an entirely unrelated series of murders, and then providing no explanation and no clue as to how those two pieces of information even interact, much less how they are in any way connected.
shocking as based on real events
yamahapic4 January 2019
Good idea that falls flat
SSJAWSUM28 April 2024
Not a bad idea for a movie, but once the central plot is revealed about 1/3 through the movie, you can basically turn it off. Nothing else happens that you haven't seen before. I just could not get attached to any part of this movie, but watched it to the end. The characters are bland and have no growth and border on the annoying side.
Except....the main character Charlie Crowe played by Dallas Roberts. He is the absolute worst part of this movie. His miserable attempt at acting is insulting and repugnant. Just ugly inside and out. I have seen him before, and it's rare to find talent diminish to the point of 0. This movie has inspired me to check for the name DALLAS ROBERTS going forward among the credits. If I see DALAS ROBERTS is in a movie, count me out. From his ex-husband status, to the crazy obsessed attempt at the usual trope, he is among the top 5 worst actors I have ever seen. STAY. AWAY. This movie isn't really worth your time, and DALLAS ROBERTS will cost you seconds off of your life span.
Except....the main character Charlie Crowe played by Dallas Roberts. He is the absolute worst part of this movie. His miserable attempt at acting is insulting and repugnant. Just ugly inside and out. I have seen him before, and it's rare to find talent diminish to the point of 0. This movie has inspired me to check for the name DALLAS ROBERTS going forward among the credits. If I see DALAS ROBERTS is in a movie, count me out. From his ex-husband status, to the crazy obsessed attempt at the usual trope, he is among the top 5 worst actors I have ever seen. STAY. AWAY. This movie isn't really worth your time, and DALLAS ROBERTS will cost you seconds off of your life span.
Interesting to watch despite bad acting.
margotsaites27 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This was an interesting little movie.
The acting was pretty B grade, and that's probably putting it nicely, and I'm not sure why they added the sub plot of the separated family, but the subject matter was interesting enough that I kept watching despite all that.
And yes, I did get the shivers more than once and hope that I won't be thinking about this movie when I go to sleep tonight!!!
It's also making me want to research it more, to see if this really did happen...
Although I notice at the end they say the radio guy died in 2010, and the question arises, well why didn't the shadow men come for him seeing as he was thinking about them oh so much???
But nevertheless, interesting to watch despite it's flaws...
The acting was pretty B grade, and that's probably putting it nicely, and I'm not sure why they added the sub plot of the separated family, but the subject matter was interesting enough that I kept watching despite all that.
And yes, I did get the shivers more than once and hope that I won't be thinking about this movie when I go to sleep tonight!!!
It's also making me want to research it more, to see if this really did happen...
Although I notice at the end they say the radio guy died in 2010, and the question arises, well why didn't the shadow men come for him seeing as he was thinking about them oh so much???
But nevertheless, interesting to watch despite it's flaws...
So much potential. Horrible movie.
andrewmcl83-170-76441615 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
How can you label something a horror movie when there is nothing horrifying about it? Basically three people woke up with sleep paralysis and then just died. It was another one of those movies that just suddenly ended when you think you're only about halfway through. Most of the time you're just listening to a radio host whisper into a microphone. I agree with the person who said that this movie doesn't know what it wants to be, is it a horror movie, a thriller, a mockumentary? Just a bad movie. By the way those of you looking for a found-footage movie, this is not a found-footage movie in anyway. I am a very big fan of the found-footage genre and there are so many bad found-footage movies now. If you want to watch a movie that you keep waiting for it to be scary, this is it.... the worst part is I paid $5 to rent it on Amazon Prime.
Good stuff.
parry_na31 January 2019
Warning: Spoilers
When we first meet night-time radio host, the permanently dishevelled Charlie Crowe, he comes across as a boor. When we subsequently meet his gold-digging ex-wife, his foul estranged son and arrogant replacement husband, we sympathise with him a little. He has no time for time wasters on his radio show, and ridicules and dismisses a caller who claims to ... 'see' things. You might successfully identify that as a mistake.
This is a surprisingly effective horror. I'm not sure why I am surprised by this, but I found the attention to detail and expertly handled, often subtle chills employed by director/writer Matthew Arnold immersive. The casting is very good, with a range of idiosyncratic, convincing performances. And the story does its best to convince us that events actually took place (not that I have reason to doubt it) by some actual footage from news items at the time, and features some actual radio callers to Crowe's show.
The idea of 'shadow people' is an intriguing one, and makes great horror. Since film production began all those many decades ago, shadows have played a huge part in sinister visuals - so the notion they may have a life-force of their own is very attractive. 'Shadow People' is certainly not faultless however - sometimes the interspersed real-life footage slows things down too much, and this is a slow-burning story anyway. Also, it should be mentioned that ultimately, this is quite an intimate tale, focussing on what Crowe would do - or wouldn't do - to make his life more satisfactory, rather than any major wider-spread scares, which never dominate proceedings for very long.
This is a surprisingly effective horror. I'm not sure why I am surprised by this, but I found the attention to detail and expertly handled, often subtle chills employed by director/writer Matthew Arnold immersive. The casting is very good, with a range of idiosyncratic, convincing performances. And the story does its best to convince us that events actually took place (not that I have reason to doubt it) by some actual footage from news items at the time, and features some actual radio callers to Crowe's show.
The idea of 'shadow people' is an intriguing one, and makes great horror. Since film production began all those many decades ago, shadows have played a huge part in sinister visuals - so the notion they may have a life-force of their own is very attractive. 'Shadow People' is certainly not faultless however - sometimes the interspersed real-life footage slows things down too much, and this is a slow-burning story anyway. Also, it should be mentioned that ultimately, this is quite an intimate tale, focussing on what Crowe would do - or wouldn't do - to make his life more satisfactory, rather than any major wider-spread scares, which never dominate proceedings for very long.
That's more of a documentary-film
funnycommentor1 April 2022
The plot of the movie was interesting, it was more of a supernatural-documentary type of film. The characters weren't developed a lot and they weren't very interesting. The storyline was just ok. Actually, it was an average movie, that I don't think I'm gonna watch it ever again. It wasn't very scary, it was kinda creepy sometimes, especially when they were showing us the real footage. The ending was expected, and I was so pissed. Anyway.
A great creepy movie
cbcburns328 March 2013
I really liked this, first thing is its not a gore/blood fest ( which is a good thing) its more a creep/freak you out movie, I watched it about 2am on my own in the dark and it freaked me out, I thought it was a cool original quite scary idea, with some great writing and ideas and some great acting, it would of been easy to make this feel cheesy and cheap but it doesn't the main character does a superb job of portraying the sceptic to believer, its a shame it has a low score which will instantly put people off this movie as recently especially in this genre it's rare to find something original and so well done, I hate to admit after watching it I actually turned the light on to go to sleep lol I can't remember the last time a movie had that effect, well worth watching just don't expect a slasher or make you jump movie it's more one that freaks you out when thinking about it, which you will do
IF YOU THINK IT, THEY WILL COME
nogodnomasters1 June 2019
Warning: Spoilers
This is an interesting film about SUNDS, Sudden Unexplained Death Syndrome. A Baton Rogue (or there about) night time talk show host, Charlie Crow (Dallas Roberts) has a call-in guest who dies from SUNDS having predicted his death on air. He blames the "Shadow People" who come for him. Alison Eastwood (Clint's daughter) is called in from the CDC to investigate.
The film incorporates "actual footage" of the real host "Charlie Camfield" and various news feeds. The people in these "actual films" are different than the actors portraying them in order to give the film a sense of realism. I believe they are uncredited actors as the film also includes police interrogation films as well as people/news casters who do not exist in the world of Google.
Dallas Roberts did a good job, but the script was bland. Your villain is "shadow people" who only come if you imagine them. This is not a documentary about the syndrome. The scare factor doesn't exist... until you go to sleep. A well done interesting film that goes nowhere.
Actual studies are interesting as it appears people suffer heart fibrillation while sleeping. Younger males are most susceptible with epilepsy, stress (from relocation) and perhaps diet prior to bedtime (carbs) being linked as contributing factors.
Parental Guide: 1 f-bomb, brief rear nudity
The film incorporates "actual footage" of the real host "Charlie Camfield" and various news feeds. The people in these "actual films" are different than the actors portraying them in order to give the film a sense of realism. I believe they are uncredited actors as the film also includes police interrogation films as well as people/news casters who do not exist in the world of Google.
Dallas Roberts did a good job, but the script was bland. Your villain is "shadow people" who only come if you imagine them. This is not a documentary about the syndrome. The scare factor doesn't exist... until you go to sleep. A well done interesting film that goes nowhere.
Actual studies are interesting as it appears people suffer heart fibrillation while sleeping. Younger males are most susceptible with epilepsy, stress (from relocation) and perhaps diet prior to bedtime (carbs) being linked as contributing factors.
Parental Guide: 1 f-bomb, brief rear nudity
Well done and genuinely creepy
nobonesl29 October 2015
This film chills with ideas and suggestions more than with visuals and gore or straight action.
The director, IMO, does a great job with a modest budget and pulls out a bag full of skillful director's tricks (lighting, camera angles, shadows, color variations, etc) to achieve his ends. When there is an effect, it happens in shadowy spots of the screen image, reinforcing a spooky ambiance in the film.
One of the best low-budget/minimal-FX films I've seen in years.
It worked for me.
My hat is off to the director/writers and actors for a job well done.
The director, IMO, does a great job with a modest budget and pulls out a bag full of skillful director's tricks (lighting, camera angles, shadows, color variations, etc) to achieve his ends. When there is an effect, it happens in shadowy spots of the screen image, reinforcing a spooky ambiance in the film.
One of the best low-budget/minimal-FX films I've seen in years.
It worked for me.
My hat is off to the director/writers and actors for a job well done.
Didn't sleep to well after this
antoinek214 November 2013
All I'm gonna say is don't listen to all the negative reviews about this movie, From the trailer i wasn't too amused about watching this, but i love horror movies ill give any a chance until it make me cut it off. But back to this movie, WATCH IT and enjoy scary, informational, just a good movie all around in my opinion. The acting was good, the jump scares were on point. I started searching around on google also after watching this trying to see how true it actually is because i myself do at times seem to see little shadows in the corner of my eye at times. Really had me freaked out but i love it hahahahah. Hope you all enjoy this film when you watch.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
