Opiniones de usuarios

I enjoyed this movie, but. Let me explain: I have been captivated by the intelligent idea, the exquisite acting, the creepy atmosphere. The director was able to raise the tension to the limit, then ... at 2/3 of the movie it came an hasty ending: a totally unbelievable escape and some action (very silly action). Sometimes "the less the better": with a little more care on the script in the final part, I think Living Among Us would have been another milestone in the found-footage genre.

I found the acting to be good to real good, the plot was easy to grasp and gets your interest. I guess this means the direction was done well. The sound was excellent, (something I have come to appreciate in a movie). The interaction between the characters in the openingwere short but kind of believable for me.

Its got the expected gore and nudity, but my problem with this movie was the things that did not match up to the foundation. Under the circumstances the 'ceremony' would never have been made common knowledge. This one scene (ceremony) was the pivot for the movie, so its kind of a big deal, and just not believable due to how the head vamps are manifesting themselves.

And then the scenes that follow after the ceremony make that one scene nonsensical. So I guess they were too anxious to get the gore in at the cost of their well developed first 2/3 of the movie.

Something happens to the 'elder' and this severely affects some but conveniently not others, and how did the found footage make it to the media. large numbers of unnoticed missing people in small area. etc

They really needed a beta testing group, this could of been so much better than it turned out to be, they just did not take the time to make it right.

I really liked a lot of the movie, but the action scenes just kind of sent it to ludicrousness of the realm of unbelievability when a viewer even thinks about it for a littel bit.

It's nothing new as a concept, but it could have been fun. Unfortunately, the acting was wooden and uninspired during pretty much all of the film. In addition, there were so many moments where we thought people in that situation would have acted completely differently that it became a bit wearing.

The last third of the film was a bit of a slog and we watched it mainly just to see how it ends. The last five minutes were a little better, making it a little less painful.

If there's nothing else on and you have a source of good drinks, watch it. Not recommended sober!

I only watched 15 minutes of this but that was enough. The acting was bad, but I don't blame the actors, the director lacked the experience to direct the actors. When the acting is this bad, when the dialogue is this convoluted... it's the director's job to say "CUT!" and then instruct the actors and do another take. I can't watch any more of this.

I've had this movie on my que with Tubi tv for a while now, never got around to watching it till now. I don't understand how a horror fan can actually sit and watch this movie and like it. The last 15 minutes or so we're o.k. but certainly not enough to save it. If you're scrounging around and can't find anything to watch, I suppose you can do worse, but you can also do a lot better.

The premise was intriguing - along the lines of what Taika Waititi did with the infinitely superior What We Do in the Shadows - but the execution here was lackluster. The overall writing, dialogue and plot was terrible. The only saving grace is some of the acting.

Very poorly written, characters are uninteresting, and you can see the plot twists coming a mile away. John Heard is the only redeeming feature. Save your money and time. Watch something else.

This one would benefit from being filmed in a traditional way rather than being a found footage flick, believability is close to zero - cuts masked as "digital interference / glitches", super HD quality from the "hidden" cameras, not to mention very known Hollywood actors being here. TV scenes are done amateureshly in a way that you clearly see it's just someone on the green screen cut out with some additional lines in After Effects, it doesn't feel like real TV footage at all.

But everything else is actually great - the movie is engaging and interesting to watch and it's definitely not a dragging one, actors do a good job (William Salder and John Heard take the cake with their charisma), the visual effects are great. The ending is not on that level though - a lot of very stupid and convenient things happenning, like when some characters demonstrate sudden weakness and stupidity after showing ultrasuperpowers and showing capability to think ahead of your opponent (not to mention they should already know something about the things the crew has, can't go into details because it would be spoiler, but it should be a pretty obvious plot hole).

VERY solid cast. Loved James Russo, John Heard, William Sadler. Those old dogs made this movie and gave it weight! Great story until the third act which went into a typical all-action survival ride.

I loved the premise, I loved the story, I just wish the damn third act had been a little more cleaned up. That said, my friend loved the third act most of all. Maybe I'm just too old, who knows. I will say I didn't get bored.

Not a perfect film, but very entertaining and very watchable. Anyone watching this should agree this is much better than your average horror movie.

So I have such embarrassed feelings about this movie. At the beginning, the film looked quite interesting, but with time, the film became more and more stupid. And when the end of the film was approaching, it started to get quite exciting and interesting, but even so, this film belongs to the weaker ones. On the other hand, I must say that despite many shortcomings, the film did not bore me.

Man.... I don't get the accolades. The acting from Thomas Ian Nicholas and Andrew Keegan was painful. Really painful... I've loved these guys in so many other movies.

It's sad that this was John Heard's last movie. However, the movie had some good points, the concept was interesting and it wasn't unwatchable. I think a remake or reboot could work.

It's a frustrating watch this one, it has effective moments of horror which immediately separates this film from 80% of modern horror...but and this is a huge but...the WHOLE PREMISE IS LUDICROUS.

You'll have to watch it to find out just how risible it is, but rest assured, it's reaching like a dwarf in giant land...it seems like the whole premise was a bit of a reshoot...see what you think.

Some really nice acting in there, especially from the extremely well put together Esmé Bianco.

I do recommend it to horror fans.

So no spoilers here. The films cinematography was really great. Found footage films are kind of despised now but this one wasn't bad in terms of camera shakiness and the overall camera work.

The actors were good. The script was not. I could see the actors trying to do the best they could with what they were giving. Certain characters like Blake and Andrew, were good in bringing creepiness to their respective parts. Then other characters like Mike and Benny, while good were not very good protagonists and I actually caught myself wanting the vampires to come out on top by the end of the film.

***************************Spoiler******************** What happened to Carrie???

LIVING AMONG US shows a documentary film crew which has been invited to interview a vampire family in their home during a time in which vampirism has been reframed as a medical condition, albeit one with a heavy burden of stigma. The purpose of the interviews is to show that vampires have been "domesticated" and are no longer a danger to humans, thanks to voluntary blood donations, but things don't go as planned.

There are two main criticisms that can be leveled against this movie:

First, it does bear some thematic similarity to WHAT WE DO IN THE SHADOWS (2014), another found footage vampire movie. I tend to be forgiving of this because to me, this similarity stands out largely because of how good SHADOWS is and how few vampire found footage movies there are (in fact, the only other one I can think of is THE MONSTER PROJECT (2017)). There are countless found footage movies featuring ghosts, demons, aliens and Bigfoot, so I am willing to cut the movie some slack on this one.

Second, the movie does have some flaws in the plot. I can rationalize the vampires letting the crew witness their ceremony because they wanted to gauge human reactions, but if they really never intended to let the crew go, how did they plan on dealing with the fallout of a disappearing crew? The female crew member's wounds and how the public did not seem to notice so many disappearances are left unexplained but could have been easily addressed in the plot. Also, there is an apparent vampire love triangle plus incestuous relationship which go nowhere.

While I am not as forgiving of these issues, I must admit that I found the movie nonetheless entertaining from beginning to end. Unlike most found footage movies, this one had good production values, the acting and cinematography was good and I enjoyed the black humor. So, overall I think this is still a good movie, definitely one of the better found footage movies.

I stumbled across this flick on Amazon Prime Video, and it wasn't terrible - it's actually a pretty fun entry in the found footage genre. Very briefly, it's about a news crew sent to interview a self-proclaimed "vampire family" who want the world to know that vampires are real, that their "ailment" is effectively a medical condition, that while they do drink blood, they have it sent to them via various blood banks versus obtaining it by hunting humans, and that they wish for the world to understand them and see things through their eyes. Said news crew head to the vampires' abode for a series of interviews with the family, and when the truth about the "family" starts presenting itself, shenanigans ensue.

It's definitely a flawed film - there are a lot of little inconsistencies all over the place (some of the explanations and happenings in the film feel either forced or very nonsensical, the dialogue between the characters feels sloppy at points, and these elements combined make the film feel rather uneven overall), but the premise alone makes the film worth the watch, most of the performances are very good, and the horror elements, along with the growing dread the hapless crew has to endure amidst the growing chaos keeps a decent tension going up to the end.

Overall, I did enjoy it. Definitely not a great film, but a pretty decent slice of horror.

This movie horrible lol from the cast to the story it's just bad.

Not perfect 100% but a good 90%. It was better than the average found footage film. After reading all the reviews about it, I decided to get this film on VOD. I noticed one major thing - all the horror reviewers seemed to like it and the ones that don't specialize in horror hated it. So me being not just a horror lover but a film lover decided it was worth the try. Okay, the trailer got me interested because I love the Crystal Castles song used. I came to some interesting conclusions.

No, this was not another What We Do In the Shadows. I did also see that this was shot before that film ever came out to all the people who keep saying this film copied it. I did my own research and you can see a DOZEN press releases dating back to 2013. That's 2 years before WWDITS ever came out!! But if this had been a ghost found footage film, nobody would be saying crap because every other found footage is about a ghost. The two films were nothing alike in any way, shape or manner. They don't have vampire teeth, the premise is nothing alike between the two. And this uses more traditional filmmaking techniques.

I really loved William Sadler's performance as the Vampire lead. He was so perfect in this with a very diabolical side to him but also so politically correct. Writer/director/producer Brian Metcaf took a tired genre and gave it some new blood, so to speak. You can tell he knows film. It almost has an oldschool sensibility to it with a modern spin. Why didn't I give this a perfect 10? I thought some of the acting was a little off. I thought the cuts got annoying a little at times but now I'm just getting picky. I don't think it will be everyone's cup of tea but definitely the horror fans will love it. My girlfriend loved it and she doesn't even like horror. Well that's probably her old school crush Andrew Keegan was in it as an overly obnoxious vampire.

My score:

Acting - 9 Directing - 9 Writing - 9 Entertainment - 10 Premise - 10 Originality - 10 Visuals - 10

Poor story line terrible camera work. Can't believe I sat through this b rated movie.

Seriously would have been better if they didn't so the whole move as first party filming.

It's hard to find a half decent horror movie. You've either seen all the major good ones, or have to plow through endless, lame looking, low budget titles on stream channels like Tubi or Netflix. But with this title, you get a surprisingly enjoyable horror flick. A bit cliche at times, but seeing John Heard was an unexpected boost. Finally, a decent newer vampire film.

Living Among Us is one of those films, with an interesting concept but a somewhat poor to execution.

John Heard, William Sadler and the other cast members did a good job playing vampires but the script itself, I don't know, it felt like something else was missing, but I guess you can't expect much with found footage films.

I've seen a few of these found footage films, personally I'm not a huge fan of them but I can watch them.

I think a the tone, atmosphere, lighting, style were all fine, and again the cast did a good job but still something was missing. Anyway the ending I felt was okay, but that may rub some people the wrong way but I still felt it was satisfying.

Overall I give it a 3/10. It's not the best film I've seen, and depending on your mood, it's one of those films you can see every now and then. If you're curious give it a look, but don't expect too much.