Reel Evil

When people say they "don't like found footage movies" this is exactly the kind of movie they're talking about... Bad acting to start, but what's worse is whoever wrote the characters made everyone cringy and gross. They're all poorly written stereotypes for some reason? From the unnecessary sex scene (in like the first 15 minutes) to the unoriginal, not climatic, not scary buildup - You're better off passing on this one.

Who is reviewing these movies??? I rented it based on said reviews and only finished it because I had already paid. The gratuitous female nudity was unnecessary, the plot was non-existent, the effects were laughable, and the acting was atrocious. I know that found footage movies are made on a shoestring budget, but there was nothing here to work with. Save your time and money for something that won't make you regret your life choices.

1. Your idea of horror characters are the lazy, stupid, self-defeating trope of being people the viewer cannot sympathize with. 2. You think some nudity is a band-aid for your crappy script. 3. You pretend your movie is found footage but you can't even be bothered to make it actually look so. 4. Your movie sucks when it doesn't have to.

This film is called Specters on the streaming platform I started to watch it on (maybe an alternate version)--alas, I used "started" because I simply refuse to watch a modern horror movie that has the things I saw in my 15-minute cut off. It looked cheap (didn't have to even with a small budget), it was ridiculously obnoxious for no reason, blatantly stereotyped (no, there were no minorities, at least to the point I watched it, but I mean characters like "responsible, serious girl," "oversexed d-chebro," "arrogant celebrity/boss," etc.). These are not people. These are paper dolls that are moved around on the screen, and since I don't have to, I won't continue to watch. It's to the point where I'm instantly skeptical indie horror movies if they're made in the 2000s/2010s because so many of them are the same: low-effort and awful. Some people might not like the psychological family drama style of horror movies that are popular these days, but at least they know how to create interest and empathy and they are relatable. I can even look at old exploitation, modern "hood" films, etc. and find something to care about. But nothing here.

I don't care who likes it, stop making movies if you're going to be so lazy. It's clearly not your proper field! And, no, money isn't the issue. Look at Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Night of the Living Dead, and the original Star Wars. They had smaller budgets but became films that have stood the test of time and inspired countless other films. Films like this one inspire nothing. It's lazily derivative.

Reel Evil is a found-footage paranormal flick directed by Danny Draven and starring Jessica Morris, Jeffrey Adler, Kaiwi Lyman-Mersereau, Jim Tavare, Galen Howard, Lino Dumont and Spencer John Olson. The movie follows struggling film makers Kennedy, Cory and James who are hired to shoot a 'behind-the-scenes' documentary for a major studio production. The story has the young crew spending down time on the shoot exploring an old hospital facility that seems to be rife with entities. It is a classic case of haunting of malevolence. This film comes from Full Moon, a studio that whether you love them or hate them has a pretty tight systematic approach to horror that has lasted for decades.

The story for Reel Evil is pretty cut and dry. A standard tale of haunting where the spirits are far from friendly. The film uses all the expected tricks of found-footage that has come to define the sub-genre so there is nothing new within that aspect of the movie. The effects are a blend of traditional organic effects combined with the more modern CGI produced material. In this film the director took care not to over use the computer generated effects so that what is used is tolerable. When it came to the gorier organic effects there was just as much care taken and it provides expected realism to those necessary moments. The story is a good story which is entertaining and convincing. It doesn't seem contrived or forced upon us. The actors are pretty tight in their performances and give a believable performance as well which makes the movie watchable.

Reel Evil could have been one of those opportunities for the studio to shine but unfortunately as a horror story the movie fails. The director seems to have forgot the main ingredient-the thrills. There are absolutely no moments in this film that are scary or suspenseful at all. It is a pretty standard ghost story that tells a great tale but beyond the standard cookie cutter pattern of story telling there is nothing that stands out about Reel Evil. Watch knowing it will be a cool ghost story from a staple studio in the horror genre but don't expect to be scared or have those intense moments of suspense because they are just not in this movie.

That was just downright awful.

First of all, this is a 'found footage' genre movie, and already there the movie is on a steep downhill. This whole genre is just so worn out and bad that it is literally painful to witness. Strap a camera to a rodent and let it run free and you will have better camera-work compared to many movies in this genre.

Secondly, "Reel Evil" was all stereotypical stuff that has been seen in so many proper horror movies prior to this one, and even in other equally bad 'found footage' movies. As such, it was just a farce to witness and the movie seemed sort of a spoof on itself.

The story is about a group of three friends (yeah, always three) who venture into a rundown and supposedly long abandoned hospital in order to shoot a documentary. Strange and unexplainable things start to happen around them and escalate into something life-threatening. And the documentary-makers quickly learn that they are not alone in this sinister hospital where something dreadful and foul once took place.

Alright, stop it right there. This storyline is so worn down and used so many times that it is a death sentence to a movie to be using that straight from the 'how to make a horror found footage movie' manual. But yet director Danny Draven had to take that formula and milk it for anything left to milk.

The whole movie was a nuisance to bear witness to. There were absolutely no shock effects or scary moments throughout the entire length the movie was running for. The story was cliché and stereotypical, not to mention so predictable that you could watch the movie with your eyes closed and still know what would be happening.

The only thing the movie had working for it, and the only reason for me rating this a 2 out of 10 rating and not a 1 out of 10, is solely because of the ghosts or apparitions in the movie. Well, they weren't scary, not by a long shot, but at least an effort was put into making them appear scary. And for some odd reason these ghosts always had to approach any camera in the vicinity and then show some kind of strange - supposedly scary - face once they were right in front of the camera.

And what went through the directors head when he opted to put in that cartoonish scene where a guy was running through doorways along a long corridor? He would go into one doorway on one side of the corridor, but would come out of a whole different doorway and not necessarily on the same side of the corridor. That was just so stupid it was laughable. It is something you see in old cartoons and sit-coms from the late seventies or mid-eighties. It was so bad.

As for the acting in this 'found footage' movie, well, they were doing good enough jobs, however they were struggling a losing battle against a script that was poorly written and executed, a storyline that had been bled dry by other movies, and also the fact that this was a 'found footage' movie.

But at least a thumbs up for the people involved in this project for making it see the light of day. I just regret letting it see the light of day through my DVD player.