Mr. Jones

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.