उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

I'm frequently antagonized by found footage films that tend to follow no logic and interrupt any significant action with electronic video interference. Leaving D.C. doesn't fall into any of those traps and presents a straightforward but interesting narrative about an average guy who moves out to the woods, where he's beset by what just may be supernatural phenomena. The film's mystery builds slowly and much of the interest involves simply observing star/director/writer Josh Criss doing his logical best to rise to the occasion of confronting a wave of spookiness. It's entirely watchable and Criss does a creditable job carrying the film as its primary on-camera presence, explaining the reasonable steps he's taking to identify and deflect the bizarre intrusions. While the conclusion could have used a little more oomph, the film is a good ride and an excellent example of what can be achieved with limited resources.

The actor gives a good, solid performance of someone who, you (a little too quickly) realize was not wound all that tight to begin with, then thrusts himself into an unfamiliar territory thinking it will be good for him. His possible issues come more and more to the forefront in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Unfortunately the lack of a budget means the ending will make you think the time spent wasn't worth it ( the end of the original Paranormal Activity was a showstopping extravaganza by contrast) but then you think, maybe it was--just to see one guy pull something like this off all by himself.

Really creepy and well done. Kept me entertained throughout the whole film. Definitely give it a shot if you are into found footage films.

I don't like "found footage" movies. This is one of the rare exceptions that isn't formulaic and uninspired like so many. There is no action, no impressive special effects, no jump scares, or any of the usual trappings these offerings tend to produce. There is just a man, a camera and a good, creepy story. The first 10 minutes or so does not feel like a horror movie at all, I actually had to check the title to make sure I was watching what I thought I was watching. It also bucked tradition by avoiding the big typical "hollywood-esque" ending. I found this all to be really refreshing. Granted he probably didn't have the budget for these things, but showed they aren't essential components for a good movie.

Right after watching Leaving D.C., which was strangely entertaining I have to admit, I told my wife this looked like a movie that was homemade by a guy that has some knowledge of modern technology, filming, and sound editing. After looking it up on IMDb I see that's exactly what happened. The writer, director and amateur actor is Josh Criss, he basically did everything by himself, probably got bored one day and thought it would be a great idea to make a movie by himself. Handycam movies are normally really not my thing, they always look so amateuristic but in this case it wasn't that bad. Josh Criss, the main and almost only character, acts pretty good, even though is role was to act as normal as possible, but that's also acting if you ask me. There is some mystery, that makes you keep watching, maybe a bit too repetitive at times, but entertaining enough to stay interesting. I would have scored it with a seven if it was not for the ending that I found a bit disappointing. Overall it wasn't a bad job for a man alone, better than some big budget productions.

I tend to focus on Found Footage horror movies quite a bit. I enjoy them, by and large, and look forward to seeing what each story can bring to the genre.

The lead actor was earnest, but awkward. In one part I completely agreed with the other character, and yet I don't feel that was the intent of the scene.

Minimalist is good, and the film accomplishes some good creep with a bare minimum of FX or quick cuts, and I respect that.

Having said that, I felt that at the end things were left incomplete and while that can be an effective way to end/not end the story, I felt the story was unsatisfying. The back story had far more room to work than it was given a chance to. At the end I felt I'd had a 'non-experience'.

I do appreciate amateur filmmakers. I just feel that more could have been done with a good location and a non-standard lead character.

It was not an easy task to acquire this movie, let alone learning about it (IIRC I found it on someone's "best found footage horror" list here on IMDb).

This is probably the best found footage horror movie I watched made by one guy with little to no budget. It's extremely realistic and things happening during the movie are really scary and authentic. The movie consumes you fully, I needed to eat at some point and didn't even wanted to do that because I was too absorbed by it.

No typical tropes and no clichés, I watched hundreds of horror movies and never seen a story like this. No, the premise itself is nothing really original, but the details and the way they're presented makes the story unique.

The movie doesn't have a single freakin' jumpscare or all that stupid "noisy glitches" on the footage. Not even a "super dark" soundtrack. It just doesn't need that. Just pure, smart horror.

Solid found-footage horror. A man who desires to leave the hustle and bustle of city life for a peaceful life in an isolated house in the woods finds that life is not as peaceful as he'd hoped.

Pretty well-executed for what it is, but also hits the typical tropes of the genre. As things escalate, the principal character refuses to accept the apparent danger he's in, leaving this viewer rolling his eyes. It's necessary for the character to stick around in order for the film to continue, but his unrealistic naivete and stubbornness takes you out of the film a bit.

The creepy parts are tantalising enough to keep you interested, and at a runtime of only 75 minutes it's not a huge investment of time and the scenario does not get overplayed. Keeps things mysterious enough to form your own theories. Worth a watch if you enjoy this sub-genre of horror.

Not the worst found footage film I've seen and it did hold my attention but ultimately as stated in the title of this review there just wasn't enough to the plot to make this a satisfying film.

I liked the actor though. Unsure what happened at the end (I was on the verge of sleep) and what's with all the references to Venlafaxine (Effexor)? Did he include that so that we might think it was the cause of his suspicions? By the way, I was on that for years and at higher doses even. Also drank like a fish on it with my liver still intact. Hey that's just me.

Terrible movie that didn't go anywhere. Nothing really happened and the ending was about as dull as could be. Was nothing scary or creepy about the movie.

This was basically just some guys video diary. None of the so called supernatural stuff that was happening was interesting.

One of those micro budget, one man movies that actually works as a found footage and its spooky from beginning to end. Shows that if you have a good idea, you can make a fun little movie that overall its better and more enjoyable than some bigger budget flops.

It keeps your attention even if it's a bit repetitive. The lead actor does a great job portraying mental illness. Just being so far out there and secluded, it gives the film a creepy vibe. Ending is a bit abrupt.

OK, enough with the fake reviews people. This is NOT even a movie! One man talking to a camera for 76 minutes is not a movie, especially when it's tagged as a HORROR and the most frightening thing that happens is a knock on a tree at night. ?? Who are the fools making these movies...better yet the fools who will watch it after this REAL review of this crap.

What a GREAT surprise! Found footage with a reason for being--no shaking camera, no shrieking and running with the camera which is suddenly dropped at the end.

Best of an, a non-annoying lead who says his lines so well, there are not constant fade edits. This means he's talking to the camera like a real person, makes his points, and then hits stop. There are no dull spots, just a gradually building sense of tension and unease.

I thought it was terrific but couldn't find Josh anywhere on social media to thank him!

This is by far one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It was boring and the actor was incredibly annoying and whiny. No wonder no one wanted to be around him. He gives this epic rant over a friend that wasn't interested in him, reads emails from whackos and pretty much goes crazy. Yep, that is what you wasted your time to see. Nice the film makers were able to get fake reviewers to fool people to watch this garbage.

This little film plays to nearly all my favorite traits of a horror/mystery type film --- there's very little in the way of a monster or boogin, and the telltale signs of potentially spoopy ghost in the form of weird sounds is not so blazingly obvious as random demonic growls, or soft voices, but in the seemingly random form of knocking or chopping on trees, and flute music.

As well, the film doesn't outright explain or tell us a whole lot, and we're meant to catch up along the way, such as why he's out in the woods on his own, who Claire is, and what the "group" is he is documenting his life for.

the film is about a guy who moves out to a house in the middle of the woods somewhere outside of Washington D.C., part of a support group apparently, and video logging his experiences. Along the way, he starts experiencing odd events, which he begins to document via sound recordings and cameras, including the aforementioned flute music and tree chopping.



This is one of those types of horrors that rely a lot on very subtle technical details rather than big broad frights. For example, rather than having something obvious like a video camera playing without power or battery, or images of hell showing up in a memory card, we get at one point a series of seemingly innocuous shots of the protagonist's hallway taken from 3 different angles on both ends of the hall. The horror comes from the fact that, according to the timestamps, the 3 photographs, taken from one end of the hall to the other, were taken entirely in the span of 1.5 seconds, meaning what ever was using the camera was zipping around at inhuman speed.

A lot of these elements of the horror appear to be thrown out at random, but never bear the sign of being "random" for the sake of randomness. There genuinely seems to be some manner of backstory to the "supernatural" presence which is never fully revealed or explained, and it only makes the film creepier and more unsettling.

The most obvious inexplicable and creepy element is the cat skull nailed to a tree, with the letter "B" carved over it. This is a recurring element which keeps showing up, and is made even creepier by a photo left behind on one of the cameras, apparently taken by the "ghost", without a timestamp, of a dead cat in the daylight and a typed letter next to it that simply reads

"** Bunny by Vandal **

Most beautiful tart.

Killed her"

there's no explanation to this or how it ties in to the "ghost"'s story or if it's the same cat as the skull nailed to the tree, and it's utterly terrifying as is; unexplained, yet tangentially related to what's happening.

With the backstory of the previous owners, the protagonist tries to piece together just what is happening and what is causing it, sometimes resorting to simply yelling out the window at the apparent ghost as it plays the flute. Long, lingering moments tend to follow as you wait, expecting some hackneyed jump scare, maybe a face appears in the window, or a chair inside goes sliding across the room. Instead, the flute playing resumes.

The film doesn't leave the viewers completely in the dark, relying on a sort of exposition dump in the form of an e-mail exchange between him and a woman in Minnesota. But even that expo dump is full of suppositions, as the woman makes clear that she is only guessing based on what he told her.

The film has a rather abrupt ending which I feel could be enough to turn off some viewers, or cause them to outright hate the movie altogether. To me, I felt some visceral disappointment that this genuinely unsettling and fascinating experience was ending, while simultaneously grateful that it doesn't try to go for one absolute explanation over another, inevitably disappointing one group or another.

In a sense, the ending is the logical culmination of the movie's style of mystery; no clear-cut resolution or explanation. No way to comprehend something truly supernatural; only experience it.