This is an incoherent mess of a video, worse than most amateur videos on YouTube.
The plot, such as it is, involves a group of young people visiting an abandoned building which is being converted into a "haunted house". During this visit, one of the youths tell the others a story of a group of paranormal investigators who went missing the previous year when filming an investigation of this site. And of course, they find that the story/myth is real.
In an attempt to be somewhat objective, I've rated this movie based on three categories: a) Story/Plot/Characters, b) Acting, and c) Production Values (Editing, Sound Quality, Visual Appeal). Each category was ranked by the following scores: 0 = Abysmal 1 = Below Average 2 = Average 3 = Above Average
On top of the above total possible of 9, I have a wild-card point given if some facet of the film made me go WOW, or made me wish to see it again very soon because I enjoyed it so much.
a) Story/Plot/Characters - 0 points. The plot was a mess. This movie couldn't decide if it was a ghost story or a slasher flick, and thus failed at both. If was hard to follow if a segment being shown was from the past or the present. The "storyteller" said that the entire investigative crew disappeared without a trace, yet in the "flashback" it appeared that there were two survivors - so what happened to them? In all fairness, it may be a matter of my brain having shut down by then. As for the characters, they were ALL annoying, with the exception of a single character, with the most charisma and who showed the most emotion, and he was a stoned-faced American Indian.
b) Acting - 0 points. I normally give a lot of latitude in this category, for I have a fondness for B movies, and can enjoy the most amateur performances. The problem with this film is I cannot separate the performances from the characters - it's hard to enjoy a performance when I'm spending the time wishing the character would just die (in the film). One of the biggest surprises was finding one of the actors to be the (in my opinion) great Michael Rooker - and even his performance was phoned in - it was as if it was an audition of his before he had any acting lessons.
c) Production Values (Editing, Sound Quality, Visual Appeal) - 0 points. As bad as the rankings for the other two categories were, this one was the worst! The editing was sloppy - it seemed like they used rehearsal takes that were quickly setup with no attention to framing, and the cuts from the present to the past were confusing. There was nothing scary about the location since it all took place during the daytime, which by highlighting all the graffiti on the walls, simply emphasized all the people who have visited this location. But the bottom of the barrel is the sound quality - it was as if someone was sitting on the microphone, or it was pointed opposite of the actors. There was even a moment about 2/3's through where a sound blurb was inserted - like a clip from another movie was accidentally spliced in. Of course, with all the F-bombs having a muddled sound track could be considered a positive thing.
One of the biggest surprises was to find who directed this mess (and this was the first time I had to look outside of IMDb to find details about a movie): none other than Michael Rooker! I can't believe that someone with his experience could create such an abysmal piece of excrement. Once I found this out, I couldn't help but think of the difference between this movie and Josh Stewart's directorial debut: The Hunted. I guess having a lot of experience of being in front of the camera counts for nothing towards being behind the camera.
If it was possible, I would have ranked this movie as 0, but am settling with 1 (the lowest possible).
You have been warned......
The plot, such as it is, involves a group of young people visiting an abandoned building which is being converted into a "haunted house". During this visit, one of the youths tell the others a story of a group of paranormal investigators who went missing the previous year when filming an investigation of this site. And of course, they find that the story/myth is real.
In an attempt to be somewhat objective, I've rated this movie based on three categories: a) Story/Plot/Characters, b) Acting, and c) Production Values (Editing, Sound Quality, Visual Appeal). Each category was ranked by the following scores: 0 = Abysmal 1 = Below Average 2 = Average 3 = Above Average
On top of the above total possible of 9, I have a wild-card point given if some facet of the film made me go WOW, or made me wish to see it again very soon because I enjoyed it so much.
a) Story/Plot/Characters - 0 points. The plot was a mess. This movie couldn't decide if it was a ghost story or a slasher flick, and thus failed at both. If was hard to follow if a segment being shown was from the past or the present. The "storyteller" said that the entire investigative crew disappeared without a trace, yet in the "flashback" it appeared that there were two survivors - so what happened to them? In all fairness, it may be a matter of my brain having shut down by then. As for the characters, they were ALL annoying, with the exception of a single character, with the most charisma and who showed the most emotion, and he was a stoned-faced American Indian.
b) Acting - 0 points. I normally give a lot of latitude in this category, for I have a fondness for B movies, and can enjoy the most amateur performances. The problem with this film is I cannot separate the performances from the characters - it's hard to enjoy a performance when I'm spending the time wishing the character would just die (in the film). One of the biggest surprises was finding one of the actors to be the (in my opinion) great Michael Rooker - and even his performance was phoned in - it was as if it was an audition of his before he had any acting lessons.
c) Production Values (Editing, Sound Quality, Visual Appeal) - 0 points. As bad as the rankings for the other two categories were, this one was the worst! The editing was sloppy - it seemed like they used rehearsal takes that were quickly setup with no attention to framing, and the cuts from the present to the past were confusing. There was nothing scary about the location since it all took place during the daytime, which by highlighting all the graffiti on the walls, simply emphasized all the people who have visited this location. But the bottom of the barrel is the sound quality - it was as if someone was sitting on the microphone, or it was pointed opposite of the actors. There was even a moment about 2/3's through where a sound blurb was inserted - like a clip from another movie was accidentally spliced in. Of course, with all the F-bombs having a muddled sound track could be considered a positive thing.
One of the biggest surprises was to find who directed this mess (and this was the first time I had to look outside of IMDb to find details about a movie): none other than Michael Rooker! I can't believe that someone with his experience could create such an abysmal piece of excrement. Once I found this out, I couldn't help but think of the difference between this movie and Josh Stewart's directorial debut: The Hunted. I guess having a lot of experience of being in front of the camera counts for nothing towards being behind the camera.
If it was possible, I would have ranked this movie as 0, but am settling with 1 (the lowest possible).
You have been warned......