Mr. Jones (2013) User Reviews

Not as good as I hoped it would be

[alain-kapel5 · 5/10 · 30 April 2014]

Mr. Jones is a relatively fresh take on the found footage format, with an intriguing premise which involves the occult and has a Lovecraftian vibe to it.

As a horror fan, I was at least hoping for something interesting, if not scary ('cause I think found footage films lost their touch a while ago). Unfortunately, the film fails to provide any thrills throughout its brief running time, and ends up being very annoying (especially in its second half).

Mr. Jones himself is probably the most interesting aspect of the film, and manages to build up a bit of tension with his appearance, but whenever he goes offscreen we're back to a flat, suspense-free movie. Both of the main characters were okay and acted quite well, but they were given very little backstory, thus ending up being unsympathetic. But hey, at least they weren't screaming all the time...

Another good thing about the movie is its somewhat captivating first half which is presented as a documentary about nature (though switches its main subject to mr. Jones when the main characters become aware of his presence). But the second half betrays its found footage format and turns into a trippy, nightmarish mess. It's an unwelcome change of pace because it tries too hard to scare and fails.

Anyway, if you're planning on watching it, lower your expectations considerably or you will be disappointed. If you don't like found footage horror films, or trippy experiences, then I suggest you skip it.

Mr. Jones, Mr. Jones, Wake Up Now

[tyler-danger · 4/10 · 28 April 2014]

I will start off by saying that I'm a very big fan of found-footage horror. If this is already a genre you like too, then you'll probably enjoy the first half of this film.

If also you enjoy going on crazy acid trips (personally, I don't), then you'll also enjoy the second half.

My biggest criticism of Mr. Jones is that it is a very uneven film. Some of this is standard for the found-footage genre: starts off tame and ordinary and then escalates into something horrifying. Mr. Jones starts out as a story about a couple who move to a remote woodland location to make a nature documentary. When the documentary idea flops, the couple happen to stumble upon "Mr. Jones' workshop." Penny -- half of the aforementioned couple - - is a photographer who is very familiar with the weird "art pieces" associated with Mr. Jones: bizarre totems mailed out to random people over the last few decades. No one knows who Mr. Jones is and Penny and Scott believe they have found him.

Here, the film becomes a documentary again. Scott goes to New York to interview "Mr. Jones experts": art curators, anthropologists, and supposed recipients of his "art pieces." Meanwhile, Penny sets out photographing the totems out in the woods and records Mr. Jones (ceremonially?) setting them up.

If that had been the tone for the rest of the film -- mockumentary of couple profiling a potentially dangerous crazed weirdo engaged in some kind of bizarre folk magic -- that sounds like a pretty good film, right? Maybe half documentary, half couple panicking in the woods?

Alas, no such dream was produced. Instead, it turns out Mr. Jones' "art pieces" are a way to keep the "dream world" and our world separate. Penny and Scott disturb this balance and end up inside a literal nightmare. This ruined the film for me: earlier, the filmmakers took such care to establish a kind of verisimilitude in terms of who had cameras, how they were recording, etc. -- but then, in the "dream world," Penny and Scott are seen from angles without any cameras. Because dreams, I guess? They run around and scream a lot for half an hour and then the film has some kind of vague "full circle" effect ending.

Perhaps as two separate films, they wouldn't be bad. It's the uneven genre and tone that spoils it, though. Clear found-footage / mockumentary for the first half, weird (definitely not found-footage) acid trip for the second.

Intriguing but squanders its potential.

[sean73267326 · 4/10 · 1 January 2015]

Mr. Jones is now streaming on Netflix, and when I came upon it I think I was taken in by the striking cover art (it's not the one listed here on IMDb). It's of one of the "statues" in the movie, silhouetted against a plain background, with some relatively cheery looking writing underneath it. It's a hell of a poster, and a great advertisement for the film.

It's a pity I can't say as many good things about the film, because I really wanted to. Something about the film doesn't quite click, and it's hard to pinpoint exactly what it is. The action is good, the villain is creepy, and there's a good story. All ingredients that a horror movie needs to nail. Even the acting is good, much better than it needs to be.

As I said though, it just doesn't... click. The format chosen for this film was a really, really bad choice. It's completely overdone, and it doesn't suit many films at all(I can think of 2 films where this choice worked). All it really does here is serve to rip us straight out of the action on screen, made even worse by those obligatory moments where the camera dramatically cuts out and random, documentary-style interviews littered throughout the middle sections.

The closing sections of the film are also strewn with bad choices. It slips into a slinky, Lynchian nightmare for the last half hour, which is good on a purely visceral level (it's well made) but it feels practically unrelated to the rest of the film and offers us no progression on what we've already seen. It's all style and no substance, which is a shame when the film actually sets itself up so well.

This is a film that may be enjoyed by some, but not by most. Some films don't need an ending, and do well by leaving out a definitive one. This is not one of them.

Half baked script meets an editing nightmare

[jfost75 · 3/10 · 10 July 2020]

If you've seen any of the reviews, you already know this movie seems to abandon all reason in the last half so i wont bother but to me the entire plot felt like it was thrown together last-minute like the screenwriter failed to do their homework and threw this together in 10 minutes. A couple moves to the woods to make a nature documentary (because the world doesnt have enough of those?) But almost instantly abandon their entire plan after the male lead loses his car keys and decides to go rummaging through their neighbors basement. There was a very brief suggestion that the male lead has some sort of mental disorder but that led nowhere and had no impact on the script. The female lead somehow recognizes the crap in the basement to be the work of some unknown reclusive artist, so they decide instead to ditch their documentary and go about making a film about "Mr Jones" instead. The husband decides to fly off to interview random ppl about mr jones and leaves his wife alone in the woods for 2 mo with no means of communication. The film initially markets itself as yet another found-footage movie but abandons that format so often it feels almost annoying. Im sure the art dept had fun creating tons of weird and creepy totems but unless you have a thing for scarecrows, you probably wont find this movie entertaining.

Tiresome and annoying

[ersinkdotcom · 2/10 · 9 May 2014]

Rarely do I ever finish watching a movie and truly wish I could regain the ninety or so minutes I spent taking it in. It takes a lot for me to completely write off a film. Unfortunately, Anchor Bay's "Mr. Jones" is one of those rare dead weights which cause me to flip the TV off in despair and regret. The only thing I can compare the experience to is watching paint dry or a form of Chinese water torture.

Scott and Penny move out to the wilderness in order to film a nature documentary. The two soon discover they're not as alone as they thought they were. While exploring the land they live on, the couple stumble upon a mysterious man living in seclusion. Could he be the eccentric artist known to the world as Mr. Jones? "Mr. Jones" is a hodge-podge of found footage and faux-interviews that quickly becomes tiresome and annoying. I really enjoyed Writer/Director Karl Mueller's work on the apocalyptic film "The Divide," but this movie is a true test in patience and endurance. I literally spent the last twenty minutes of the movie wondering where it was going storywise and how it could take sooo long to get there.

I would like to add that Mueller does provide some nice visual work through his influence on Director of Photography Matthew Rudenberg. While the images might shake around like they were shot during an earthquake, there's still a disturbing dynamic to them that could work if utilizing an actual mounted camera.

Jon Foster and Sara Jones play the lead characters of Scott and Penny. They do an admirable job of arguing with each other and running around in a panic from every noise and shadow that falls across their paths. The rest of the supporting cast is made up of actors from different television shows and movies carrying on about the enigmatic Mr. Jones.

A rating of PG-13 is given to "Mr. Jones" for terror, frightening images, a scene of sexuality, and brief language. There's no nudity to be found. Even though it says there's brief language, the "F" word is used at least once or twice.

"Mr. Jones" will no doubt find a cult following who enjoys its trying blend of "The Blair Witch Project," "Jeepers Creepers," and "Jacob's Ladder." I think most fans of the horror genre will be like me. They'll be cursing themselves for not finding a better way to spend the ninety minutes that slipped through your fingers while watching this. I think Director/Writer Karl Mueller has what it takes to put together an entertaining film, but this isn't it.

Found footage starts off interesting but fails in the end

[victoryismineblast · 5/10 · 13 May 2014]

Convoluted tale of a young couple who drop everything to move to a house in the woods for a year while the husband films a documentary starts off sort of interesting but fails miserably in the last 30 minutes.

Scott and Penny notice "totems" or scarecrows around their property and eventually follow an enigmatic man famously known as Mr. Jones, who has been documented since the 70s. As they investigate further they are drawn into a nightmare world from which there seems to be no escape.

Unfortunately none of this continues to be interesting as the director seemingly abandons the found footage format for the last third of the movie and seems to use this ending part to experiment with different filming techniques.

I lost my interest and felt it dragged on and on and even though I barely understood what was going on, I didn't really care anymore. At least the female lead was a lot of fun to look at.

A short review of "Mr. Jones" (2013)

[ericrnolan · 7/10 · 3 July 2017]

Right up until its final act, "Mr. Jones" (2013) amazed me by how good it was. Here was a creative, thoughtful and extremely frightening found-footage horror movie. It was so damned good that I was surprised that I hadn't heard about it before.

The story idea was fresh and interesting — a young couple moves to an isolated forest cabin, only to discover that a mysterious neighbor is "Mr. Jones," a legendary anonymous folk artist. This hermit produces grotesque artworks — "scarecrows," totems and dreamcatchers that he then mails to apparently random recipients around the world. Not all of them are pleased with their macabre gifts, and their benefactor's identity and motivations become the stuff of urban legends. (Try to imagine H.R. Giger with a modus operandi like Banksy.) There is a lot more going on here than a cliché yarn about a supernatural bogeyman.

The script is smart, the story is well developed, and the tension builds slowly and effectively as the tale unfolds for our two protagonists. My only quibble is that the couple does incredibly stupid things, and are cheerfully curious about discoveries that should scare the hell out of them. But that is a failing of so many horror films that I decided not to let it bother me.

Then the movie loses its way. I'm disappointed to share here that this otherwise great film suffers because of its disjointed, meandering and consequently frustrating climax. It's too long, it's too confusing, and it spends far too much time repeating redundant shots and scare-moments.

We see one character, for example, pursued by multiple adversaries … repeatedly. Well, these adversaries stop being scary when the viewer eventually arrives at the conclusion that either A.) they can't catch this person or B.) they can't hurt this person.

At another point, a character must do something urgent, but receives contradictory instructions from different sources. This plot development could have been damned unnerving in the context of our story, but it's nearly lost in a confusing barrage of repetitive images and sounds. Writer-director Karl Mueller strives to immerse the viewer in a kind of surreal "nightmare." But he makes a mistake that is common for surreal horror films — portraying confused and disoriented characters does not always require the viewer to be confused and disoriented. A shorter, sparser, cleaner script would have saved what might have been a classic.

Oh, well. This movie was still fun enough. Again … much of it is quite excellent. And another viewer might not be as turned off by its conclusion as I was. I still recommend "Mr. Jones," if a little reluctantly. I'd rate it a 7 out of 10.

Stamina

[kosmasp · 5/10 · 22 November 2014]

Found footage with a twist? How many times have heard this one? Too many times to count. And not only was I skeptical, the movie kind of showed me that it was as I expected (which means not very good). But if you can stay with it through the end, you might get something of a "reward". By that I mean the really wicked ending, that is kind of psychedelic, even without the use of any enhancing drugs.

The effect is built up during the movie, which takes it sweet old time. Something that is sort of boring. Plus the characters are not really helping, doing what other horror movie stock characters do: wrong decisions, even when faced with consequences. But again, the ending almost makes up for that, if you like weird.

Interesting and entertaining but not quiet a great film

[Michael_Takes · 6/10 · 8 May 2014]

I am writing this after watching Mr Jones. I don't write many reviews, only about a dozen in a few years and only when something really interests me. Mr Jones falls into this category.

To begin with I found the introduction a little thin. A guy wants to create a nature documentary so uproots his life and with his girlfriend they go into some rural wilderness. So lets assume that they have the money to do this.... then what? There is no mention of a pending deal with a film distributer, and from what I can tell the 'wilderness' is not really wild; there is hardly anything that warrants a nature doco. And his girlfriend Penny is really going to put of her photography dreams for this!? As I said, thin.

We learn that the Scott is on 'meds' which he decides he doesn't want to take while out there, which causes him to become sullen and lazy, and his documentary falters.... until one day whilst filming some one dressed in what looks like black robes takes his bag and runs off. Does Scott chase him? Sure, but he has to get his girlfriend first! Together they break into the house of this person who after looking at some of his 'art' Penny identifies (without a doubt) that the person is the infamous and illusive Mr Jones, an mysterious artist from the 70's who created dozens of pieces and mails them to different people around the world.

Of course Scott believes her and takes off for NYC to interview a number of people with some knowledge of Mr Jones. Must be great being rich! Of course he leaves Penny there alone. I know I would knowing there is a strange man wondering around who makes strange 'art' and has already stolen from them, and knows they were in his basement.

From here the movie turns. The best way to describe it would be to possess the body of some one having an acid trip. Though experiences and those of others it is expressed that the art are Totems or Talismans and for some reason the characters who are sent the art start experiencing bizarre images and dreams. Wont say more as it would give away to much. The best comparison would be yellowbrickroad.

Premise aside the movie is quiet decent. The character of Penny is much easier to watch and care for then Scott who comes across as a pretentious selfish prat. The tone and atmosphere presented is very successful and I was brought into the movie. The overall direction is convoluted and a straight out film may have worked better then the handycam nonsense that hasn't worked for me since the The Last Exorcist (though Paranormal Activity 5 is a guilty pleasure).

Overall I give this film a 6.

Do not be fooled by the cover

[hallso · 2/10 · 23 May 2014]

I don't even know where to begin. What was this movie about? What the hell just happened?

This movie is shot in a way that will both confuse and anger you. Every 5 minutes the camera fades out and initiates a new scene. The characters voices dub over shots where they clearly are not talking. About an hour in, the director says "fuck it" and basically dumps the found footage aspect of the movie for 10 solid minutes.

This was yet another example of being duped by the movie artwork and description, which hit all of my bullet points when I saw it at Wal Mart. The only thing that even comes close to redeeming this shitshow are the huge tits on Penny - and you don't even get to see them.

Avoid this one.

2/10.

Look at this movie like it's an urban legend

[chrisrcbp · 8/10 · 8 January 2015]

(Warning: some spoilers in second half. Read the first half for a quick look). I feel like this movie is very underrated. I read the many bad (and some good) reviews, became unsure, but gave this movie a shot and I do not regret my decision. You can't look at this movie realistically. I looked at this movie as a myth/urban legend put together as a film and ended up loving it. I will admit it got confusing at times and it had it's moments of "Why would you do that?" but if you pay attention everything makes sense. Truly. In short, this movie is about nightmares and what we do to keep them at bay. It takes a look at the consequences that happen to those who mess with nightmares. Look at the movie like that and you will enjoy it a lot more.

More in depth: Mr. Jones is just the nickname given to an unknown man who protects the real world from the dream world. He does so by using these scarecrows, something used often to scare away spirits. It has been used in many cultures throughout history. It's really not hard to understand that. You mess with these wards and you pay the price. That's exactly what happens to the protagonists Penny and Scott. It does get trippy and confusing a little past halfway through but the way I saw it is that as a result of their meddling both of them started to live in their own nightmare, being constantly deceived and tricked by these monsters. They don't know what's real and what's not. That's what a nightmare is like. That's what the two main characters fight through.

Highly pretentious but somewhat out of the genre's mainstream lines

[EddieRade · 6/10 · 27 April 2014]

I have mixed feelings about this found-footage-esque experimental drama-horror film. On the down side, it often blurs the lines between a nightmare and real happening horror, which is disturbing at times. I didn't get really tense in the moments I should've because It kept me asking whether it's just in their minds or really occurring and it got worse towards the end. Also the fact that it has a very ridiculous beginning with soundtrack and all..very unappealing. On the up side, there are some decently creepy moments and it does get more sinister as it progresses. It doesn't follow the general lines of other same category movies, and does a good job on the overall level. The couple, when together, is sometimes idiotic and unconvincing, but separately they make pretty satisfying performances. Still, it has some flaws regarding the title's mysteriously sinister character and about the origins and aspect of the entities that manifest through out the whole film. The main issue,for me I guess, remains that it tries too hard to be stylish and artistic, also making the movie too deep for what it really wants. The surreal manages to scare away the horror. The last part of the movie is messy and very little frightening. Disappointment is the major mood this film induces. Still, I give it a 6 for the effort..

Mess of a Movie Pretending to be Artistic Genius

[TheRedDeath30 · 4/10 · 11 November 2014]

A young man convinces his wife to give up everything so that they can move to a shack in the middle of nowhere that will enable him to film the best nature documentary ever. They discover that their neighbor may be an enigmatic artist named Mr. Jones who creates creepy scarecrows. As they dive deeper into the mystery than they should, they discover that Mr. Jones may be creating totems to protect them from the dream world and they may have just ruined that protection and unleashed nightmare forces upon them.

What a great concept, right? I was drawn into what could have been a great movie, but ultimately doesn't have the creative forces behind it to bring that idea to any sort of reasonable fruition. It does start off pretty good. The acting from the only two real characters in the movie is pretty good for a low budget horror film, though we are not really given any background or development that truly makes us learn anything about these people so that we'll care about them down the road. They are just an anonymous couple who seem to have given up life to be artists. They discover Mr. Jones cabin fairly early on in the film and there's some promise there as the scarecrows are pretty effectively made and lend some atmosphere to things, though let's not pretend these are original in any way. They're essentially more twisted versions of the policeman scarecrow in CHILDREN OF THE CORN.

The first big problem in the movie is the found footage style. I'm not a hate of found footage, like so many others seem to be and I do not think it makes a movie garbage right off the bat, but you have to be using it for a reason, and you have to be consistent with it to give it the right feel. There's no reason for this to exist as found footage. Nothing is gained by the pretense of this being filmed by the characters, rather than just admitting it's a movie. Worse, it's really inconsistently shot. There are voice-overs, text overlays to introduce characters in interviews and shots that just plain could not have been created by the characters' filming at all. It breaks up the illusion of "found footage" even more and destroys it pretty much. They would have been much better off just telling this as a straightforward narrative.

The biggest problems with the movie come once things start getting strange. Basically, things are just getting strange for the sake of being strange featuring a lot of random imagery and sounds, quick cuts from shot to shot and scene to scene and nonsense storytelling. It quickly becomes very hard to tell what's going on, or for that matter to even see what's going on in a lot of shots. It's all done under the pretense of being "dreamlike", but the reality is that it's a convenient excuse to not have to actually tell much of a story, to not have to create an actual narrative that makes sense, to not have to back up your plot with any events that would support what happens. You can just fill your fun time with anything you want to and say "it's a dream". A 4-year old's scribbling may be images in their mind, but few of us know what the picture is supposed to be and that's basically what this movie is.

It all leads to a climax that I'm sure the director thinks is very clever and people who want to feel artsy will tell you has some grand meaning to be discussed in length. It means nothing because nothing that happened in the movie proceeding it has any real value. Random images leading to a random conclusion. That is all.

Decent little movie.

[Patient444 · 5/10 · 7 May 2014]

This one would have been rated so much higher by many users if it tried to be more coherent and not rely so much on the state of confusion/dream/hallucination. I'm not gonna tell them how to do their job, but I will state my opinion about it.

It has a little touch of "In the mouth of madness", don't get me wrong, I am not comparing them, the first one is truly a masterpiece, I mean, Carpenter, come on, but you can see some familiar drops here and there. The premise is good, the execution is good, the tension builds up nicely, Mr. Jones has quite the mystery air on him the only bad part, well, the really bad part, is that as time passes, this movie loses itself. I never fancied plots that needed too much thinking after it was over, sure, some brainstorming with friends is enjoyable, but when nobody can't put their finger on it, or there are just so many supposed meanings, it makes you not care at all in the end.

So, now that you know what's wrong with this one, it's up to you to decide if you'll give it a chance or pass it. I would definitely recommend it to most, cause I did enjoy it, sad it didn't end quicker.

Cheers!

Complete and utter rubbish

[mjemail · 1/10 · 23 May 2014]

I can honestly say that this is quite possibly the worst film I've ever seen. It's just complete and utter nonsense from start to finish. Don't watch it if you have epilepsy because there are just constant annoying dazzling flashes interspersed with predictable fade to blacks every few seconds throughout the entire film.

The plot is dull and the stupid first-person camera work is irritating beyond belief. I fast-forwarded the last 30 mins and actually stopped it before the end because I couldn't take any more. Believe me I have watched some naff films, but this really is awful. Don't waste your time.

Nail-biting terror becomes nail-filing boredom.

[waterman_harry · 5/10 · 1 September 2015]

I was inspired to watch Mr Jones simply because of my love and fascination for the found-footage genre that has become so popular in the past decade, however this is no REC or Blair Witch Project.

Mr Jones is a horror flick that begins with prophesying beauty and an artsy introduction that would probably throw off a mainstream audience from the get go, which is kindly of the director to do really, because Mr Jones doesn't pretend to be normal and I respect that. Unfortunately, it does seem to take itself too seriously to be considered serious at all, in its attempts at being a memorably scary film.

It has its moments for sure, there were times watching Mr Jones that I was genuinely shook and in fear, which makes it even sadder when it declines to a scramble from idea to idea. Mr Jones just cant find its footing. Is it a found- footage story of survival? Is it a mind- bending Lynchian dreamscape? Is it a slasher film? Who the hell knows, but what we do know is that the director, cast and everyone else involved really don't seem to know either, this is obvious.

The acting is good and the idea behind the story could've been brilliant as it is original and creepy, but its smothered under lashings of a scrambled script and frantic meandering of the plot. At the end, Mr Jones is unfortunately nothing but a pile of twigs and dirt.

Not recommended.

A found footage films I actually liked.

[sstetsko · 6/10 · 22 June 2014]

As you can tell by my opening line I am NOT a fan of found footage films. To me it is a gimmick, not a genre as people keep asserting it to be, and more often than not used to pass talentless schlock which can't get any funding off to the public. Despite this I HAVE seen many, and I always watch whatever I start to the very end, even if I find the experience painful.

With that said I will admit that Mr. Jones pulled it off for me. The plot is a little off beat, the acting is decent even if not brilliant, and the setting and atmosphere move solidly into the realm of creepy quite successfully. It uses found footage in a plausible way... the protagonists making a movie for a legitimate reason just as Mr. Jones does what he does for a legitimate reason. What started as a simple documentary turns surreal also for a legitimate reason. People who, as a rule, really enjoy the majority of found footage films, might not like it, and judging by the mixed reviews I would say this is so, but I think it is because it does defy conventional found footage stereotypes. There is not a lot of running around and screaming, and people frantically looking into the camera and blubbering. There are no scenes of what is happening in their rooms while the people sleep, which I think is the allure this gimmick offers to the fans of it. The 'watch what happens when no one is looking' appeal... 'it could also be happening to YOU!!!' It actually offers a surreal Hollywood ready story, with all its narrative elements boldly displayed on the surface, in a found footage format... and while I don't always love Hollywood either, in this case it was a relief to get a half decently crafted tale instead of the... you know... usual.

Awful!! Dafuq did I just watched??

[Satisfaction_2003 · 1/10 · 1 May 2014]

What a waste of time! Hoped that this film could tell a story about a possible urban legend as Slender-Man or The Blair Witch Project but instead the movie just shows a crazy trip into the head of a couple with serious psychological problems.

If you're the type who likes a movie while stoned or drunk maybe, this is for you. But if you are a normal person who simply waiting for a plausible and coherent plot, AVOID THIS MOVIE! There is no continuity in the story, the viewer feels cheated and bored during the hallucinations of characters. It is boring! Could have been a great movie if it had been written right.

Not nearly as bad as some would have you believe.

[agondocs · 7/10 · 27 November 2015]

This film is getting quite a bit of hate, and some of it is warranted... but some of it is not.

As others have stated, the film centers around a young couple who move into "the woods" for a year. The film offers up both the creation of a nature documentary as well as "working on your relationship" as reasons for the move, and although this might not be a popular opinion, I don't find it to be that absurd. I know people who have decided to live in the wilderness and "find themselves" ... I can't personally afford to do so, but the characters in this film don't seem to be lacking money. It doesn't ring that hollow to me.

I thought the found footage was done quite well. Contrary to another review who found the voiceovers to be annoying, I found them to be interesting. They often allude to a character's true feelings rather than what they're telling their SO, for example, and grant more insight into what's going on in the character's head. The documentary approach actually works well for the beginning of the film, and it grabbed my interest.

The film does seemingly change perspectives in the last third of the movie, however I don't think it's the director deciding to go with fixed shots rather than found footage. It's a bit hard to say for certain, but I believe the last bit of the film is shot by the "other" Scott. There are a number of scenes leading up to the switch that hint towards this happening, and I find it to be a logical extrapolation. I mean, we're even shown footage of Other Scott filming the couple without being noticed. The end of the movie isn't the director just deciding to change things up for the hell of it - the footage is still "found", it's just not being filmed by the original Scott.

Finally, I found this film to be interesting. It's not a movie of the year contender, but it's well worth a watch if you like found footage films that show weird/inexplicable happenings with the supernatural and/or occult in the woods. Mr. Jones is intriguing, and I enjoyed attempting to figure out what was going on throughout the movie.

With all of that said, the ending does leave something to be desired. It's a bit of a mess - all sorts of timelines and different actions overlap, and reality kind of breaks down. It did leave me feeling rather unsatisfied. I would still recommend giving this a shot, however, because I really enjoyed it for the most part.

Mr. Jones is definitely one of the worst found-footage films I've ever seen.

[guillermobosque · 1/10 · 24 November 2014]

Summary: Mr. Jones is definitely one of the worst found-footage films I've ever seen. 10/100 (F+)

I don't want to waste more of my time reviewing this "movie", so I'll go straight to the point. The first minutes of Mr. Jones are quite well done and the main leads are likable. Unfortunately, it falls flat after the second half because it becomes very confusing, the whole plot is difficult to follow, the film turns out dull and uninteresting. This is one of the worst found-footage films I have seen, and I have seen a lot. Seriously, the last 30 minutes are a torture but I gave it a chance because I love found-footage movies, I saw it until the end credits. Sadly I didn't find a payoff.

Mr. Jones (the dude, not the film) is terrifying, he is creepy and in some scenes he gave me the creeps, but the worst thing about this flick is how that is the best thing about it. Another issue is that the characters became atrociously stupid in the second half and they started to make brainless decisions. I just read the plot line on IMDb, it's so freaking awesome!, maybe with another director it would have been great. Moving on, the final act is very strange, these dumb characters begin to hallucinate, then they leave the found-footage style and after several minutes of boredom, it finally ends.

Mr. Jones ends up being confusing, boring and a disappointment. There are only a couple scenes that I liked, but they don't make any sense. One of these scenes is when the guy goes down to a weird place underground and he finds a dead baby. Anyway, Mr. Jones had potential but it was so boring, tedious and it lacks of character development. I really like the camera work but the characters are dumb and the plot is confusingly strange. In conclusion, Mr. Jones has a few scary moments and good acting, however the film wastes its creepy villain in a confusing, uninteresting tale. (F+)

Beautiful, really.

[sarinabit · 10/10 · 8 August 2015]

I'm really not entirely sure why this film has gotten such awful reviews. I personally thought this was beautifully captured and written. It's definitely one of those films that you really have to pay attention to understand it. Because there wasn't much dialogue aside from the dialogue between Penny and Scott, it leaves a lot of the film up to the imagination.

The ending of the film ties up everything perfectly and pulls all the information gathered from the rest of the film and makes complete sense. Every single question that you would have about Mr.Jones has already been answered. Where did Mr.Jones come from? From the last "Mr.Jones". What was Mr.Jones doing? Warding off the dream world from the real word. Why didn't Mr.Jones want to talk to Penny/why didn't he talk to her? Because he's literally battling his own reality where the real world and the dream world are colliding and he has probably learnt to ignore anything that talks to him. Everything makes perfect sense, you just have to piece it all together in your head.

In terms of the cinematography, it was shot wonderfully. In the beginning, there is a featured "shot montage" just like the series of shots featured in Scott's colliding world's. The way this movie was filmed ties perfectly well with what is happening. It's quite obvious that the choppy and confusing shots were put in there for a reason - because the character's in the film were confused about what was going on and also trying to put everything together. The shots mimic the plot and it is wonderful in all honesty.

If you're in search of a film that is terrifying, seemingly realistic and extremely suspenseful, this is the film for you.

I dislike Found Footage but enjoyed this.

[Jester222 · 6/10 · 27 September 2019]

Found footage was never my thing. Blair Witch bores me to tears and made me feel travel sick when watching.

This film at least does something a little different with it. Not as shaky and the story attached is kinda interesting. The scarecrows were great and I wanted one myself.

Good acting from the two leads.

The ending seemed to just rely on edits, flashing lights and confusion to try to create the chaos but it was all left a little too confusing. I like the subtle Evil Dead camera shots in places also.

Better than most Found Footage films which have become a lazy cheap way to make a film and been done to death. But this was just different enough to keep my interest. Not a masterpiece but not nearly as bad as some drama queens on here are making it out to be. "Worst movie ever" really!?!? Shut up. Ha ha.

Hmmm

[benmankin · 5/10 · 5 July 2020]

Straight the point.... If its found footage, who put the music or the sound effects over the footage?

The movie is ok I guess tho

Horrible cinematography

[layofthelastsurvivor · 2/10 · 27 February 2021]

I love this genre and can usually forgive alot when it comes to it, I totally thought this would be better than it really is. Hell, I even thought Red Woods was a 6 and the storyline is all over the place, but the camera work is amazing so it's way more watchable.

Its really visually just dark and not scary in the slightest. It's just a mix of As Above, So Below and Blair Witch. Super mediocre. The acting is good though and the sound design is nicely done, I know it's found footage, but it wasn't enough to really distract me from the movie. You can tell that there was care and effort put into the movie, which sucks that the cinematography is horrible.

The self cam thing is unnecessary and annoying overall, why would you even need that for a nature doc. It's the super amateur-ish cinematography that drags this movie down. Oooo scary dutch angles and creepy quick cuts. You don't have to switch angles every second. It's alot of unnecessary shots for the sake of trying to be artsy but it drags everything down. It's not increasing tension or helping to portray an emotion or feeling. I has no reasoning. let your audience see the cool visuals and prop design for a moment. Stop showing me the dudes face every two seconds when nothing has really happened for him to react to, its not adding anything to the scene, its just breaking any tiny bits of tension your trying to set up.

Go watch Afflicted, Hell House llc, Rec, Last Broadcast, Be My Cat, The Conspiracy, Creep, The Good Neighbor, even The Poughkeepsie Tapes, all of em are better than this. They're Watching was even a more fun experience overall, even with its super cheesy effects ending.

Is it a movie or just a bunch of stupidity?

[jerromjones · 1/10 · 5 July 2014]

I'm a hard adventure and thriller fan. It might sound a bit iffy but it never happened before that I watched an adventure movie and didn't like it. I thought all the adventure movies were cool. But this one has definitely changed my viewpoint.

I'm sorry but I must say that this movie is a total waste of 90 or so minutes. The biggest problem I found is the camera setup. The other active footage movies are not so creepy as this one. I watched a lot of movies of this type, but this is the first time I'm writing a serious review against a movie on the internet.

Just wondering what interesting things I could do in this 90 minutes of time. How did they consider this thing as a movie and release it in theaters? Don't watch this if you don't want to regret wasting your time.