The Atticus Institute (2015) User Reviews

Spoilers follow ...

[parry_na · 6/10 · 4 January 2017]

Much of this documentary-style horror is filmed in flashback. The recreation of the world in 1976 is supremely handled, from the grainy filmic imagery to the fashions of the day to the laboratory equipment being used.

This is as near as what would actually happen should someone be tested for some kind of demonic possession. When someone becomes too uncontrollable and is seen to exhibit such power, governments would have to gain authority over events. And with human beings what they are, corruption is never far away.

Attempting to harness her power for political gain, Judith is told to reveal secrets held by rival governments, especially the Russians, who had previously exploited a telekinetic sensitive of their own.

Beneath all the testing, the electro-convulsive therapy, the bullying, the attempts at control, is the possessed person. Judith was of no concern to her 'captors', and for that, the demon inside her gains a kind of empathy with the audience. You want it to emerge and punish the narrow-minded officials. Only a handful of the original scientists (mainly head man Henry West played by William Mapother) exhibit any kind of sympathy, understanding – even acknowledgement – of the punishment being meted out. And yet as the story reveals, the creature is in control the whole time, influencing what her captors say and do.

The acting throughout is excellent. Although 'The Atticus Institute is as convincing a depiction of supernatural events in the hands of officials as I've ever seen, this results in a lack of pace and spectacle – but that's fine when the results are this good. The ending is low-key, the subtle, enigmatic nature of events in-keeping with the rest of the film. I found this thoroughly enjoyable from start to finish, although the excellent Rya Kihlstedt (as Judith) was reduced to convulsing and shrieking throughout the dramatic middle portions of the story, which robbed us of her meticulous attention to shuddering and twitching detail which made the earlier elements of her possession so effective.

Some good ideas hampered by an underwhelming execution

[Red-Barracuda · 6/10 · 27 February 2015]

The premise of The Atticus Institute is a very promising one. In fact, going into it, I was not sure if it was going to be a documentary or a fictional movie. In the event, it turned out to be a pseudo-documentary. Set in the mid 70's, it's about a group of scientists who perform a series of paranormal experiments on a woman with extreme extrasensory abilities. Before long the government get involved and things go increasingly badly wrong.

The film-makers have taken some care to present this in a manner that replicates an actual documentary. To this end we have lots of talking heads footage involving people who were connected to the story and there is also retro looking filmed material as well as stills. It would only be fair to say that the execution of the whole thing is less than the actual ideas. It's pretty low budget and this accounts for some mediocre acting, while the script was a little clunky in places. The biggest problem though is that it all gets a bit samey and one-note after a while with little variation in events. On the whole, however, it gets points for trying to do something interesting and having an intriguing central idea. It could surely have been better but it has some good things about it.

Quirky little horror film

[jtindahouse · 6/10 · 1 November 2016]

'The Atticus Institute' is quite a strange and unique film. It's a "found footage" film in a way, yet it's also presented as a documentary. Now, about the least scary thing I can possibly think of watching is a documentary, and that stands true here. Having the documentary style did take away a lot of the horror element to me. It meant that any character we were shown talking in the future obviously survived the past experiences shown in the tapes at the institute. On the other hand, it was quite an interesting way to have the story told to us. It let us get inside the mind of the characters and hear stories and insight we wouldn't otherwise have gotten. I suppose it's like having a narrator, but of course a narrator in a horror film is a big no-no, so this was a way around it. I don't think we'll ever see any big-budget horror films adapt this documentary style, but it was an interesting concept to see done here in a lesser-known film.

There are one or two moments of quality horror to be found, where suspense was drawn out of the scene. They weren't quite as regular as you may have liked though. The ending was quite quirky and a bit of fun that requires the viewer to think back on what they thought they knew. Altogether though it's unfortunately pretty forgettable. Those who watch it won't be disappointed, it's above average as far as some of the garbage horror films Hollywood is putting out these days, but ultimately they won't be blown away by it either.

Good pacing at first, then down hill.

[Finfrosk86 · 5/10 · 2 June 2015]

The subject matter is interesting. The movie is very well paced. This (the pacing) is the absolute best thing about this movie. Since it is about research on telekinesis and stuff, it is very smart to pace it slow, so that the viewer gets time to adapt. We don't want to be thrown straight into a fantastical universe, at least not if it is to be realistic. So for that I applaud this movie.

The acting is pretty decent for the most part, too.

And it being found footage, isn't such a drag as it could have been. It's rather realistically made, some of the time.

But then it just never gets really cool. It is a little boring at times, and there is this one CG-blood scene in there that is just horrible. And it is such a short scene, why could they not make sure it looked better!? I will never understand stuff like that.

So to sum up, the pacing is good at first, then it gets a little boring, and then it goes down hill. At the end I was kind of happy it was over. Even though it was the opening movie on Frightfest 2015. Bummer.

Hard to believe what you are watching is not Real....

[dkanungoe · 7/10 · 30 March 2015]

Frankly I am very fond of horror movies especially those involving demonic possessions based on true stories. Well 'The Atticus Institute' certainly falls in that genre. The best thing that I liked about this movie was the way in which the story was told, shot more like a documentary, depicting events using recorded footage's. In addition there were certain events in the movie which are based on true stories.

The movie starts at a slow pace but in a unique way uses some of the characters to narrate the incidents that occurred in 1976 at a paranormal institute. This film takes its time to build the tension and suspense but it does so masterfully that in the end you are left wandering what you are watching is not really happening.

A film is only as good as the cast, which made me wonder how difficult it was to play the Judith Winstead's character. But hats off to Rya Kihlstedt (Judith Winstead), she was absolutely marvelous from the beginning to the end. The movie is written and directed by Chris Sparling who also directed movies like Buried. The Atticus Institute also has some really scary scenes with the demonic possession display shot to perfection.

Overall I can say 'The Atticus Institute' is a movie that in a unique way provides a lot of suspense. Initially one can find the movie a bit slow but I can assure you as the movie moves forward it will captivate your imagination making it hard to believe that what you are watching is not real. I really enjoyed watching this movie so will rate it 7/10.

Good ideas, but movie fails

[trnkafilmstudios · 3/10 · 15 February 2015]

I like mocumentary style more than founded footage, but movie absolutely fails in realization. I would like to have movie with similar plot and style, but this was cheap with terrible CGI and actors. A lot of clichés and mistakes. Some footage from 70s doesn't looks like footage from 70s because it is shot in FullHD, 16:9 with just computer effect. Even VHS films was more believable.

It have some interesting ideas, but didn't use them too much (security system automatically skips camera after few seconds, first kinetic people in lab was just a hoax), movie keeps staying in stereotypical loud music scares and clichés (dogs are barking, because something evil is happening). I would prefer it in style of real documentaries - not too many quick cuts and no jumpscares. I would prefer more practical effects or at least good CGI effect. Death of main test subject looks like something you could make in After Effect in few minutes. It was almost laughable.

I liked movie "The Box" by this director, it is a much better movie.

A found footage/POV horror that takes a different approach, and puts effort into it.

[tiailds · 6/10 · 13 January 2016]

I was not sure what to expect before watching this. I now understand why this is shown on cable more than most POV horror out these days.

"Was it interesting?" For the most part. Framing it as a legitimate documentary helped it. The dated setting, lack of technology, and inability to see the characters away from the action hurt it some. 2 out of 3

"Was it entertaining?" That is it's biggest problem. Little drama beyond emotional storytelling and only a few real good paranormal scenes. 1 out of 3

"Was it memorable?" The form of the movie was, but otherwise didn't make too much of an impact. It mostly just trys to stand out among it's sub-genre. 1.5 out of 3

Start with 1, 1+2+1+1.5=5.5 I'm rounding up for just using decent actors and good editing. A 6 with these type of movies is definitely above average.

Apparently they still had 'found footage' back in the seventies

[bowmanblue · 4/10 · 2 May 2015]

'The Atticus Institute' is a documentary. Only it isn't. It's one of those films that is shot like one, yet scripted – I think they call them a 'mockumentary.' I've seen the genre before and they can be pretty entertaining; normally they're quite funny and this one is supposed to be scary. It's about the first 'government sponsored' institute which studies the paranormal. The story is about the facility's first 'genuine' patient with paranormal abilities.

Therefore you get a load of 'talking head' interviews shoved in every few scenes. It's set in the seventies, so all the scenes 'recorded' back then are nice and grainy, while the 'interviews' are supposed to be filmed with modern cameras, therefore being clearer in picture quality. Yes, both sorts are well-filmed. The overall effect is certainly one of watching a documentary on past times. Only the interviews totally take you out of what little scary mood has been created (and there's not much of that to begin with). Whoever's being interviewed basically tells you a bit about what happened back in the past and then we see what they've already said in grainy 'stock' footage.

So, everything that's going to happen is first told to us by an interviewee. And you can probably guess what's going to happen anyway. Once the institute gets its first 'real' person with psychic abilities then you know it's going to go wrong for them. And it does. Only it doesn't really crank up the mood to anything because it's being told to us in retrospect and you sort of already know what's happened because it's all taken place already (that's assuming you couldn't guess what happened anyway).

And, what few scares are in here aren't that scary. The lynchpin of any 'found footage' film is that it doesn't have much of a budget. And it shows here. Basically, if you like horror films, there are better. And, if you like 'found footage' films then you'll probably have seen better also.

Plus there's a British actress who plays one of the doctors who completely overacts every time she's interviewed. She wound me up.

A Worthy 'Found Footage' Horror

[kdavies-69347 · 6/10 · 24 March 2016]

I rarely, if ever, enjoy the 'found footage/ faux documentary' genre of films. The majority of these films feel contrite and fake at best. Some filmmakers have based their entire career on these types of movies, most notably the 'Paranormal Activity' or 'REC' series. The Atticus Institute is perhaps the same type of film, but it does have a remarkably intriguing plot that separates it from the majority of these films.

The film deals with a group of scientists running a small psychology laboratory during the 1970's. The focus of their research is on those individuals who have extra-behavioural abilities; ESP, psychokinetic powers, and things that are considered mostly in the realm of parapsychology. The lead scientist, Dr. West, and his group of researchers run an underfunded observation department, focusing on the documentation of paranormal abilities. After years of research, the institutes credibility falls into jeopardy, and what little funding there was, begins to dissipate. Enter Judith Winstead (arguably the main character of the film and very well portrayed by Rya Kihlstedt) is a withdrawn and a somewhat vacant woman capable of truly remarkable things. The story unfolds as a series of interviews between various individuals of interest in centered around Judith's life and her time at the Atticus Institute.

What makes this movie more interesting that most is an excellent blend of plot devices. They vary from act to act, and allow the viewer to delve deeper into this unusual story. There are a range of ideas that the film covers, outside of just the strange tests they put before her, her exceptional 'Godlike' performance level. As the movie progresses, the scientist find the source of Judith's remarkable power, and it becomes a slightly different kind of film. I really enjoyed this subtle switch in direction, and was surprised at how well they were blended together. It's a slight shift in theme, but what begins as a research into the abnormal, becomes a movie about possession and the occult. I really enjoyed that, and it's done in such a way that it doesn't seem so ridiculous. By the second act the military becomes involved, although it seems like such a preposterous plot twist, it is so smoothly done that it feels like a natural progression of the documentary.

There are some rather silly effects throughout the film, a couple of rather predictable jump scares, and several other things that perhaps with a little more effort from post-production could have been avoided. Most notably for me was the clarity of the video footage from the 70's, and how it doesn't quite fit with the technology of the time. The digital post production to age the film was a bit too clean for me, but it works. The focus of the 'declassified files' was far too quick to skim over for the viewer, within the allotted time given to read them. However, I actually paused the film at these moments and thought they were fairly interesting, and they lend a lot into the story line. They certainly contain key information never discussed by any of the interviewees, and they are worth checking out.

Overall, this film was much better than I anticipated, and I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys the thriller/ horror genre. It is an interesting interpretation of what might happen if the Military were to investigate a confirmed case of possession.

6/10

This topic is widely used

[peterp-450-298716 · 5/10 · 27 March 2015]

"We don't control this, it's not just us who will be at risk. And if you do control it, then who will be at risk?"

You like to watch documentaries about the supernatural, alien sightings or other unexplained phenomena on "National Geographic", then you should see "The Atticus institute" since this is a documentary-style film about a scientific study in an institute led by Dr. Henry West. The research is focused on paranormal activities such as ESP and psychokinesis (using the power of the mind to cause the movement of matter at a distance). The film is described as a mockumentary found footage horror. It's certainly not based on true facts, but I wouldn't look at it as a parody or satire, because even though it looks like a documentary, it's reasonably successful. Fortunately, the found footage was reduced to the minimum, and the whole movie is a collage of interviews, eyewitness reports and video recordings (both fixed cameras that capture the experiment and in a limited extent some home recording).

You can compare it a bit with "The Quiet Ones". Only the latter is not really a documentary that's made of videotaping, but just an ordinary horror film. Both films are set in the 70's which can be clearly seen in the decoration and the overall appearance. Especially the VHS look is typical for that period. But both films excel especially in the total absence of tension or frightening scenes. Or it should be you are easily scared and shake like a leaf after witnessing a curving card, a tray opening suddenly or a chair sliding away by itself. Anyway, it looks less creepy than implied by the previous testimonies which they always show.

The eventual story isn't that original. Today you're overwhelmed with horror films with possession as a central theme. The starting point is an institution in Pennsylvania where Dr. West (William Mapother) and his team of researchers test certain persons to investigate and capture psychokinetic activity. Unfortunately they also get fraudsters between the study objects until Judith Winstead shows up (Rya Kihlstedt). At first sight it seems like an ordinary woman who probably needs some psychological counseling, but gradually they come to the conclusion that she has inexplicable powers. When the official authorities are called for help after they've noticed that the phenomenal forces aren't controllable, those authorities see an opportunity to use this to their advantage and they try to isolate the supernatural power that resides in Judith.

In addition to the total lack of tension, there's also the fact that the surprise effect is totally negated by the testimonies. One can already predict which direction it's going and what the outcome will be. Even the warning to the filmmakers and those who watch this film is a little bland. Isn't this already been used somewhere else ? Saying that by watching a video or movie, this will invite evil ? The moments we witness the demonic events, are quite sparse. But those sporadic moments are still thrilling in a certain way. I'm not really a fan of this type movies (I mean the documentary part) and yet I was fascinated by it. There wasn't a single moment that I felt the urge to turn off the film. Rya Kihlstedt doesn't look as if she is possessed and eventually she suffers more because of the human intervention than by the demonic force that has her in its grip. Don't expect a woman who's spitting green slime, swearing, screaming,spouting profane language all the time and staring with a devilish glance. But I thought that Kihlstedt was convincing enough and acted with the right look and feel : that of a desperate woman who's physically and psychologically tormented. The only weak point and still far-fetched item was the final plan of the US government. But to know what their intentions were, you have go and see the film for yourself. Although this topic is widely used, Chris Sparling manages nevertheless to turn it into an original movie.

More reviews here : http://opinion-as-a-moviefreak.blogspot.be

How can you hate this movie?

[nancy666 · 9/10 · 21 February 2017]

Seriously how can you hate this movie?

Clever, interesting and original The Atticus Insititute gets a thumbs up from me, hats off to writer and director Chris Sparling.

Filmed as a mockumentary, it initially revolves around telekinesis and one particularly gifted woman, Judith Winstead. Rya Kihlstedt who plays Judith gives a brilliant and totally believable performance.

I really don't want to say much and spoil any of it, I'd just say give it a go.

How many noses does a monkey have?

With intriguing concept and clever style, it almost overcomes the genre familiarities, but ultimately the production isn't adequate enough to fully convey the suspense.

[quincytheodore · 6/10 · 29 March 2015]

It presents an interesting direction for possession subgenre with authentic documentary flair. The film portrayal of titular institution goes beyond average found footage gimmick, its understanding of the presentation makes it as though audience is watching real documentary from science channel. However, parts of the film aren't as consistently polished and these issues stutter the pace and occasionally derail the tension it has built.

Dr. Henry West (William Mapother) runs a small lab to research individuals said to have paranormal abilities. After a few failed endeavors, a woman named Judith Winstead (Rya Kihlstedt) is admitted to his lab. He and his colleagues have seen anything and anything like her, and the tests progress so sinisterly that eventually military is involved. Characters are pretty convincing at their roles, the use of exclusive camera footages without first hand interaction create credible effect.

The Atticus Institute offers several unnerving thrills, although the production has few technical flaws. Half of the movie is witnesses' interviews, which sets up more psychological and scientific approach. At its best the film delivers timely bizarre occurrences that are effectively chilling. However, it doesn't pay off every time. These interviews can be tedious and predictable, especially since their testimonies alone aren't sufficient to produce tension.

At midway point it feels that characters are overly narrating, especially since the scenes they mention are only partially captured. The film also describes events with clips and still images, they are short and some even look like slideshows. While this enhances its pseudo-documentary feel, its production is shabby. Furthermore, there are fumbles on editing as well as audio clarity. These issues could've been just minor hiccups, yet they are persistent enough to hamper the movie.

The Atticus Institute has intriguing concepts, its clever style almost overcomes the genre familiarities, but ultimately the production isn't adequate enough to fully convey the suspense.

Dull faux documentary

[Seth_Rogue_One · 2/10 · 9 September 2015]

I don't really know what the point of this movie was.

It's not scary at all and it's made as a faux documentary style but all the footage of course is fake and all the people interviewed are actors, William Mapother off 'Lost' fame with a very recognisable face plays one of the psychologists maybe if they would have gone with people who weren't as famous it would have worked a little better.

But on the other hand there are plenty of faux documentaries that does work so it's not all just that, it's just really boring.

I don't really know what more to say about this movie cause there's really nothing to say, a real big bore of a movie.

Failed attempt to make a horror movie

[d-koskinas-359-596062 · 2/10 · 11 June 2015]

This could have been a good movie. They have the cast, they have adequate budget from what I see, HOWEVER, they had a poorly structured script, attempting to create a scary "documentary". The result was a boring, "flat", emotionless and BORING movie. Me, as a viewer, did not manage to feel any sympathy for any of the protagonists, since they were only been interviewed like it was "the news at 10". So, when they start falling like flies it is more likely that you'll be cheering for the demon (who seems quite cool) than the boring humans... Like I said, the general idea of the movie was not bad. The typical possession followed by many killings. It was something we have seen many times in other movies, and it is always great to see a good possession movie as long as it is scary and well made ! But this wan not one of the good ones...

MEN WHO STARE AT JUDITH

[nogodnomasters · 6/10 · 29 November 2018]

The Atticus institute was founded by Dr. Henry West (William Mapother) to study parapsychology and to test possible candidates with mental abilities. Things seem normal until they find Judith (Rya Kihlstedt) who tests very well. The group discovers that instead of just having abilities she may be possessed. The military gets involved.

The film is done as a mockumentary with numerous interviews spaced between the action. It was done fairly well and I expect this to be on the History or Discovery Channel someday following "They Saved Hilter's Brain." I was mildly entertained by the film, but not scared or excited. With half the film being interviews, it is hard to say anything bad about the acting. It had the feel of the hand held genre and might do well with fans of that kind of film. Would work as a Redbox rental.

Guide: No f-bombs that I recall. No sex or nudity.

Good story gone wrong by the way its made

[ektasharma · 5/10 · 10 May 2020]

Movie story is nice and could keep you involved in the movie at certain points. However its made like a documentary which just don't fit in. If it would have been made like a storyline instead of documentary, it would be much more appreciated.

Interview With A Difference

[jhmoondance · 7/10 · 12 December 2021]

Well.....this was a different kind of movie! The whole story took place in one location via a series of interviews n hand held video cameras. It was ok n the plot was good. It was not what I would class as a horror but rather more of a documentary style film.

The acting or rather interviewees were really good n believable n the characters were good too.

The ending was a bit abrupt but not predictable.

I recommend this movie especially if you like documentary style hand held video films.

Nice mockumentary-styled effort but not a great horror effort

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 5/10 · 18 March 2016]

Trying to recreate a famous encounter, a filmmaker interviews the participants involved in a research facility designed to study paranormal powers when the government got involved in one case where they wanted to turn one's powers into a military weapon.

While this one was indeed quite enjoyable there's some rather prominent flaws on display. Among the biggest issues here is the actual method of filming this one which presents the film with several immediate problems. There's the main issue of this one cutting away from the story continuously in order to get the talking head interviews and their own personal accounts of what happened that doing so in this manner causes the film to be so start/stop in terms of its pace that it really can't generate much in terms of atmosphere or suspense when it has to cut away when something's interesting to come back to these. It' gives this a pretty disjointed feel when everything turns back into the interviews rather than letting the story play out as it normally would, which is another problem here. This one goes for brief inserts recreating what happened that are quite hard to make out the point of when they just spend the entire time going nowhere with the storyline as they don't lead up to anything except the next talking-head interview, and there's little to be gleaned from that type of structure. The other issue here is that it's highlighting how uneventful the first half of this one is where they go into the research institute's background and history with its' patients before getting her there as none of this is really all that involved in getting this one going along at an inviting pace with the main purpose of the film appearing so late into here since all of the lead-up time is taken on setting the stage here with not just the interviews but the footage shot documenting the very same thing we just heard them talk about. It lastly has the small problem of highlighting the fact that it spends the first half not knowing whether she's just gifted psychically or possessed, as if it can't make up it's mind what the actual cause is which makes for a slightly disappointing effort when it's not all that clear what's going on. Still, this one isn't all that bad as there's some good stuff involved here with the surprising feat of it not being all that boring at all, keeping this one moving along at a nice enough pace that there's not a whole lot really worth skipping over or just ignoring, blazing through here with a rather impressive pace that keeps this one going along rather nicely. That's due to the nice action at times here with some rather fun times showcasing not just her powers but also getting rather fun with the military intervention that comes along with all the different tortures they inflict on her and the powers they coax out of her which gradually leads into a rather fun time with what it's all leading to. Enhanced by all the off-stage accidents and testimony given earlier, it's all quite a bit of fun and leads to a great finish here that's quite chilling and enjoyable. These here make this good enough to matter, but it's still rather flawed.

Rated R: Violence and Language.

Well Done But Anti-Climactic

[isantistao · 6/10 · 16 June 2022]

This film is a very well done film of its kind (which is documentary/found footage). The big drawback is that it is anticlimactic, and not very scary. So if you are watching mainly just to appreciate the art of film you will like it more, but if you are looking for scares, you will like it less.

5 reasons to consider watching this movie

[lamborghinito · 4/10 · 7 February 2015]

As most people i was surprised by the trailer, very fascinated that this movie was from the director of the conjuring, yet disappointed. And now i will write you 5 reasons to consider watching it 1. Don't be too highly expecting something. 2. Don't be too excited about from the trailer. 3. You wont expect anything to happen because the ending is actually pretty obvious after the first 15 minutes. 4. Its nothing like the conjuring, more like Annabel - if you have seen it, you would know what i mean. 5. Don't waste your time watching movies which are just overrated.However people usually decided on their own opinion before watching a movie, but let me say this once - this better than most horror movies, yet i felt let down because i was really having highest expectations. One good director and one good movie could sell anything, but you should really not trust trailers.

This one surprised me. Pretty good mockumentary.

[frankblack-79961 · 8/10 · 16 September 2020]

Personally, I though this film was one of the better demon possession films that I've come across. Most are pretty lame and I am very critical of most of them. This one was rather unique. The mockumentary style is something I enjoy if it is done well and isn't boring until the last 10 min. Good pacing in this and the effects are practical for the most part and not over or under used. I would recommend this one.

Great Possession flick!

[syphongb · 7/10 · 7 February 2015]

I think the promo for this film spoiled it a little in telling you upfront that this is about possession and the military's attempts to use the powers that are released. That aside, the build up to the shocks is great. We see what the researchers think is the world's first real case of telekinetic powers then the realisation that dark forces are at work...by then it's too late.

Very believable documentary footage, all the government people were brilliantly cast...if you'd stumbled across this half way through you'd think it was a real doc for a while! The only thing that I had reservations about was the treatment of Judith. OK, once the military are involved in something then that's it...they can do what they like and nobody is held accountable...but the doctor claims to care about her and treats her like an animal...it just didn't sit right with me.

Bad movie - don't even bother

[851222 · 3/10 · 18 July 2015]

Greetings from Lithuania.

"The Atticus Institute" (2015) is a very bad movie. It's not a horror (there isn't a single scare scene), it some kind of thriller told in mostly in old footage and pictures. Nothing works here to create some interesting story or mood. Acting is bad, especially by lead actress. It's surprising that this picture was created by Chris Sparling, who once wrote a near masterpiece "Buried".

Overall, "The Atticus Institute" is so bad it's not even funny. Although there is one hilarious scene with priest in gas mask - truly funny moment. It's not scary, not interesting, and at running time 1 h 19 min this movie drags beyond believe. Skip this stuff, it's not worth of your time.

found-footage/faux-documentary in the vein of Lake Mungo that falls short

[znegative · 5/10 · 19 July 2016]

Before anything else, I would like to say for the record, that 'The Atticus Institute' is an entertaining movie, and for what it's worth, I at no point felt tempted to turn it off, like I do with so many of these types of films.

Like Lake Mungo, The Atticus Institute is a faux-documentary including 'found-footage' from a supposed government cover-up over the investigation into military attempts at harnessing paranormal abilities found in a middle age woman who, as it turns out, is probably possessed by some type of malevolent spiritual entity. Asides from the similar film, 'The Quiet Ones', the premise is rather unique, and the documentary interviews are very well acted. Unfortunately, it's the 'found-footage' segments that start to fall flat over the course of the movie, bringing my rating down by a few points.

For the most part 'The Atticus Institute' is convincing in it's attempt at the mockumentary angle. Like I said earlier, the acting during the interviewed sessions is rather good. I also liked the use of still pictures, and some of the earlier found-footage is rather captivating. Unlike most movies of this ilk, 'The Atticus Institute' is rather pleasing to the eye, another quality it shares with it's superior counterpart, 'Lake Mungo'.

The real problem with the film in it's final 30 minutes or so is that it diverges from it's rather interesting and captivating story and takes a turn towards the cliché. If you've seen The Exorcist, and the millions of rip-offs that came afterwards (The Devil Inside, The Rite, The Taking of Deborah Logan etc..), you'll know what I mean. It's really quite a shame because it started off so interesting and then became completely predictable.

Anyway, I don't want to sound too harsh. If I hadn't enjoyed the movie I wouldn't have given it a five start (out of ten) rating. The Atticus Institute is entertaining, and the first half of the film is really quite good. I would overall recommend it as a fun watch, but if you're looking to get your mind blown, look elsewhere or watch Lake Mungo

High-handed DoD personnel fail versus the supernatural.

[suite92 · 6/10 · 18 September 2016]

The initial tableau: The (fictional) Atticus Institute was founded in the early 1970s to study exceptional persons who might have ESP abilities: telepathy, clairvoyance, telekinesis, for instance. They find hundreds of subjects, find a few weak espers, and get conned at least once. Then they meet Judith Winstead.

Delineation of conflicts: West's children still care about their distant father, and are discouraged when the Institute clearly has a bad effect on him. The Institute staff have great talent, but dealing with an incredibly bad-tempered test subject is quite a challenge. As they continue to observe Judith, it becomes clear that they are dealing with something besides ESP. Just what is it? They call in an expert from the DIA (defence intelligence agency), Robert Koepp. His presence seems to make it much worse. Will Judith's ability be diagnosed correctly? If so, what will the DIA (and DOD) decide to do with it during the Cold War?

Resolution: The attempts of 1970s science to deal with the supernatural were worth a watch.

Proceeded in reportorial style. The motivations were reasonably well mapped out, except for the starting points. How things would proceed once the military took control made sense, but how Judith came to the early state (when she first entered the Institute) was still murky to me at the end.