Reviews

I will try it once again. Apparently, my previous attempt was declined.

I am quite puzzled.

Regardless, this is a lame film, with bad acting, and a ridiculous ending.

Obviously, most of these people are not actually high school aged, but that is to be expected. Filming "rules" for teenagers, and such.

I find it interesting, that the lead actor does not have a credit in here. He's not even listed? (He is, in the film.)

The plot involves quite a bit of obnoxious behavior - more than can be imagined at any high school. Quite a bit of blatant bullying.

The last shot confuses everything. Did the lead kill himself, or not?

Low-budget (not really horror) flick with a ridiculous plot, poor acting, and nothing really making it worth your time.

Films like this are made by the thousands, and have now become streamer/cable "filler." Obviously, the general public has become a lot less demanding.

So...eight years previously, "Eric" kills his girlfriend "Ellen," and buries her in a remote area. For some reason, her "spirit" doesn't leave her body until she's been dead for a while. And as it floats skyward, IT HITS AN ELECTRICAL WIRE (and then becomes...I have no idea). It initially travels through phone lines/power lines, but suddenly can manifest itself somewhat (at first) physically. "Ellen" later gets all "Exorcist"-y.

.

This thing is a hoot, unintentionally. I dropped out with forty minutes left. Actually, I zipped ahead, and saw just how cringe-worthy it becomes.

For most of the film you watch the five people making up repetitive, pointless dialogue, as they travel and reach the destination. Ad-libbed improv. These are not really actors, obviously.

If you think that you are being followed by some crazy person in a van, and he pulls up to the local general market as you walk out...you walk BACK into the store, and ask the clerk to call the police. You DON'T get back on the dark road, and go to a remote cabin. (Well, they did stop by a diner. And the van appears there, as well. They discuss calling the police, don't, and one of the guys approaches the van, which drives away.)

So, what do you do next? Go to the remote cabin, of course! Don't bother, yet once again, to talk to the staff where you stopped.

THEN, the aunt who owns the cabin shows up and scares them, and they don't tell HER anything, because "she's so protective," and might make them leave. NO, maybe SHE would call the police.

Scene after scene, cackling/babbling/immaturity. What script? They say whatever they're thinking, mindlessly.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. No surprises.

Oh, and if you DO finally reach 911 on your cell, don't cry/scream into the phone. First thing, GIVE YOUR ADDRESS.

Some tense final moments. Then a senseless ending.

This could be so much more...

Listen, I have watched DOZENS of "found footage" films.

There is a "formula." There are expectations.

This THING is ludicrous. What the ___ is going on?

I expect this to make sense. At the two-thirds point, this is just meandering.

Numerous pointless scenes. Poor performances.

Listen, you have to plow through a LOT of garbage films in this genre. THIS is not a good example.

OK, at the "hour" point, I am laughing. No, it's fifteen minutes later, and I am cracking up. (A friend is watching this with me.)

About 80% of "found footage" is awful - this falls into that category.

Bad movie, bad bad movie.

I thought, at one point, the filmmaker is attempting to make a comment about vlogging and social media. Nope.

I thought, maybe this will be an interesting found footage addition, with some unexpected developments. Nope.

This flick is idiotic. Three people doing incredibly stupid things, time and time again. And constantly screeching.

And the film LOVES to throw "red herrings" into the mix, for NO discernible reason.

It is extremely difficult to have ANY sympathy for these characters. Yeah, come to America, pick up strangers, bring them home. Post online, EVERYTHING that you're doing.

I don't mind an ambiguous ending, but this is just POINTLESS.

I remember this being better than it is.

The acting is awful.

There is some decent production value here, but within the first thirty minutes? This is just really inept.

"Shush"? WHO says that?

It's really easy to despise the father figure. He comes across as a complete DB.

"It's a COP car!"

The tunnel scene should have worked, but I just started laughing.

WAIT! It gets even better - the birds falling on the car. Am I supposed to find this hilarious?

"You all trespassin', and I got a gun." "I think I might have winged it."

WHO wrote this?

"I got a cell phone, like you'all got"

WOW, this is cringe-worthy. Not finishing it, this time.

The final third of this film makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't help that many of the scenes were filmed in complete darkness.

Why do these people keep running away from each other?

Exactly WHO is holding the shaky cameras when the two people are left on the military base? Often, they are completely separated (a distance apart), yet each of them has a "third party" camera pointed at them. That makes absolutely no sense.

So, basically the aliens were infecting (some - not birds, apparently) life on earth with something causing "spikes" to grow out of bodies? That's it??

The film just meanders into a pointless conclusion.

NOTE: The accents are had to understand at times, and the streamer I was using - XUMO - was not subtitling all of the dialogue.

OK, first of all, the lead actor just doesn't work here.

As usual, this is obnoxious people doing very stupid things. Time and again, you just yell at the screen, "What the ____ are you DOING?!!"

Yes, let's wander through the "dark" countryside (heavily fake lit, by the way) towards a guy whose truck we hit and ran from earlier. Let's continually creep into dark bushes because we see or hear "something." Let's open a "cage" (wait, there's no TOP), and step in with some crazy, monster woman inside. (Of course she escapes, and then somebody follows her into a strange house/cabin.)

Let' me go back to the "dark woods," where they're constantly using "night vision" on the camera...it's lighted like a football field. OOOOOOOOH, scary!!!

The ending is a hot mess.

Listen, my family once had a cabin in the remote woods, and I guarantee you, I would never have wandered around after dark. D'OH!!

Give me a horror movie, where everyone does the most logical thing - it can be done.

I'll admit, that I lasted only thirty minutes. I normally slog through this stuff, but in this case, it is pointless.

This is really a sloppy "found footage" entry.

The "real people" actors are terrible. The lead performances are equally bad. "I've got it, Feldman." "I would not put my good name on the line." HUH? Cringe-worthy.

This comes across as a rehash of "The Blair Witch Project," at least as a "distant cousin."

I love found footage as a genre, but apparently, FAR too many people believe that they have mastered the formula. 75% of these films are garbage. If all else fails, copy "Blair."

Give it a rest.

UPDATE: I actually sat through the whole THING. Terrible. Probably the WORST "found footage" film that I've seen. SKIP IT.

FINALLY, one of these films has leads that are normal, intelligent, and yes, attractive. None of the usual smarmy jerks.

Yes, the film is basically watching a couple on a road trip, but with a persistent undercurrent that kept me watching. This is what many would call a "slow burn," I suppose. I wasn't bored at all.

Great found footage flick.

Now, being that several people have made the same comment, I will say something. Folks, when you mention a "twist ending," guess what??? IT IS NO LONGER A TWIST ENDING. D'oh! Granted, if you put a spoiler alert and hide the review, it's fair game. However, it's a ridiculous habit that MANY users slip into. Just stop.

I am a HUGE fan of "The Blair Witch Project." I have seen it well over fifty times.

This film is ten years old. I have NO idea why I didn't know about it. Sanchez directed both, of course.

I almost cut this off within the first ten minutes. The characters are total jerks. WHY? Wouldn't it be great, to have likable, intelligent people?

There are some really tense moments in this film, but they are undercut by the performances.

Idiots doing stupid things.

And Sanchez rips off his own "Blair," several times. Matt yelling in the distance? Josh in "Blair."

The Bigfoot cave? The house at the end of "Blair."

And if I heard the word "bro" one more time, I was going to punch the screen.

I am just amazed, that I never knew about this flick. It must have not received much attention.

This film pleasantly surprised me. Fortunately, I didn't read these other reviews, prior to watching.

The performances are honest, and much better than the usual graduate thesis film (UCLA, in this case).

Paul Marius as "Ethan" is a truly effective lead. In many ways, beyond the plot revolving around him, he is also standing in for the film audience, closely observing what is going on with a group of gay men around him. He is also coming to terms with his past.

Victims of child abuse can often suffer an inability to become emotionally involved in relationships as an adult. I do not believe that this film is implying that the sexual molestation by his father, when he was quite young, is the "cause" of him being gay.

The other performers feel quite natural. As a former film school student myself, I can definitely say that director Bravo crafted a professional independent feature.

I love the black and white photography, and the often Brian Eno-esque score.

I am surprised that Marius does not have many acting credits. I really love his performance here.

I recommend this film.

Frankly, every time one of the episodes of this series is set in a small town, most of the actors speak with a ridiculously fake, twangy hillbilly accent. It is distracting, and pointless. Couldn't they find actors with natural accents? Plus, it is so unnecessary to the plot. I'm surprised that they aren't playing banjos, with stalks of straw in their teeth.

Loggia's performance is weak. Basically yelling a large percentage of his lines.

He threw the button on the ground for somebody else to find? With his FINGERPRINTS on it?

Why would "Driver's" wife put herself in danger with questions, if she really believes he killed Bette Rose? Especially with his temper. Also, why didn't she scream LOUDLY when she had the chance?

I'm not convinced that the mute character was essential.

Another one to skip.

John Cassavetes is far too over the top in this episode. He's annoying whenever he's on screen. Scene after scene...he's just yelling sometimes.

Rowland fares much better.

What is surprising, is that actor Murray Matheson, who plays Rowland's "older" husband, was just 51 at the time!! He could pass for 75+.

The plot is dull. Many minutes pass without much happening.

The set design for the "play" is quite ugly - it should be presented as more than some "community theater" production.

I lasted about half-way, and turned it off. The first "Hitchcock Hour" that I have stopped watching.

Just skip it.

I wonder what viewers thought, seeing the exterior and interior sets of "Leave It to Beaver" in this episode, only six months after that series ended. Somewhat iconic at the time. Kind of like seeing the studio interior set from "The Brady Bunch" torched in the awful horror film "Bug" (1975), just a year after the series ended.

I thoroughly enjoy both Newhart and Withers, but this episode is a bit shrill and tedious.

The soundtrack is odd - a bit 'breezy"/jaunty/light jazzy, and distracting.

The rat poison plot is ridiculous, as is the conclusion.

Thirty years ago, I had the please of speaking with Withers on the phone, when attempting to set up a screening of one of her early films. She was charming, and she wanted to attend. Unfortunately #@*% Twentieth Century Fox (at the time) wouldn't allow us to obtain a copy of the film.

I do not recommend this episode. You won't be missing much if you skip it.

Well, at least they didn't present the small town residents as a bunch of hillbillies. Only a few short scenes of townspeople with a slight accent.

I found it odd, that when the first two murders were discovered, a bunch of rubber-necking town folks show up. It appeared to be an isolated location.

"Darrin Stephens" doesn't make for the most forceful sheriff.

I found the whole "I had to kill everyone who owned the car, because there wasn't a date of death" conclusion to be quite lame.

I have not read the Ellery Queen short story, "Terror Town," on which this episode is based. Another review states that it doesn't involve a car.

Without a doubt, one of the most bland entries in the series. The plot, what there is of one, is a total bore.

However, the most negative aspect is Anne Baxter's performance - a major ham fest. This is nothing new, of course. Of her work, the only thing I've ever enjoyed is "All About Eve."

Segal doesn't fare much better. James Farentino plays a somewhat similar character in Season 3, and nails it.

Her fawning over "Larry Duke" is ludicrous, especially after the initial scenes with her character being strong and assured. We are to believe that she immediately turns into a simpering fool?

"Hitchcock Hour" often presents intelligent women doing incredibly stupid things (murder, usually), all in the name of "love." I would expect that from 1950s TV, but not in the mid-60s. Of course, Hitchcock and women - to be expected. (Although the episodes are based on the works of writers., of course.)

Even the conclusion is insipid.

Skip it.

Hitchcock Hour consistently presents Southerners as drawling idiots.

The accents in this episode are horrendous, particularly Kathie Browne's, portraying her "Mavis" character as an excruciating (yet murdering) dimwit.

And George Lindsey has a natural, pleasant accent, yet he is directed to speak in an exaggerated manner. Just annoying, as is his stereotypical performance as "Sam." (It does tone down a bit, as the episode progresses.)

"Bed of Roses" is padded with several pointless, or drawn out, scenes. The timeline makes no sense. George finds his dead "girlfriend" in the middle of the night, and leaves without reporting it to the police, yet the newspapers have a detailed story a few hours later.

The first three-quarters of the episode takes place within 24 hours??

The conclusion is an out-of-the-blue contrivance. And of course, Hitchcock makes the standard "criminals always get captured" wrap-up. Meh.

The three stars are for Patrick O/Neal - always a pleasure to watch.