Sorgoi Prakov

A real found footage gem that slowly but surely turns absolutely feral. The acting and camera work are excellent, especially for a found footage piece. I will say I was not prepared for just how feral this dude would get so just assume the second half needs pretty much any trigger warning you could think of that would reasonably be in a ff horror. If you enjoy psychological horror and watching the human psyche unravel, this is the movie for you.

If you're into really messed up movies and don't mind low quality, handicam found footage style then this might be 10/10 for you.

If you hate really twisted stuff on screen, agression, brutality or found footage style this might be 1/10 for you.

I respect the length they were willing to go, but for me it was a bit too disturbing and while I respect the art choices to go full mumbling and such at the end - it depicted well the mental state of the lead -, it was less enjoyable as a pure movie experience.

I loved it for a couple reasons but couldn't enjoy it, so gave it a 5/10. It feels less found footage and less horror and more first person documentary for someone with serious mental sickness hitting a rough patch, turning to alcohol and drugs which worsen his condition and goes onto a full episodic agression, rape, torture and killing spree with some gory parts, child torture and probably cannibalism if I decoded correctly.

I watched this by mistake. I saw the movie art and figured it was a comedy. It kinda is, but it soooooooo is not.

I love me some found footage horror films, and I also am fully aware that more of them suck than do not.

This one most certainly does not IMHO. Honestly, it's a crime that it's not on more people's Top 10 lists.

This film is basically Borat but if Borat was an insane, absolutely unhinged, bloodthirsty, cannibalistic serial killer.

This movie is excellent in terms of mixing both psychological scares with gore. There isn't too much gore, but there's enough of it coupled with the implications of what's going on (but smartly not shown) that make the wild things the main character does absolutely brutal. Homie does some absolutely insane things, stuff you would expect to see in a bottom of the horror movie iceberg offering. But the film doesn't actually show it, it just implies it. There's one scene with a bathroom mirror and a flickering light switch that expertly shows what I mean. It doesn't show everything, but just enough to make you go "WHAT THE HECK DID HE JUST DO"

Having typed all that, it could have cut a good 20 minutes of fat off in the first act. I get that we do need some character progression and exposition, and it works well-you are quickly endeared to this guy-but I felt that it was just 20 minutes or so too much.

But once things get rolling? JESUS F CHRIST

This movie is absolutely insane, and incredibly horrific in the third act.

I really enjoyed this. It really stuck with me after it ended. Had me thinking about how easily a string of really bad luck can change a person for the worse.

NGL, this is probably one of the most wild FF horror films I've seen in YEARS.

8/10.

Give this movie time... about 30 minutes in I couldn't look away. Genius and unsettling and legit one of the most effed movies I've ever seen in this genre. Wow. This will one will stick with you for a while.

What worked: What made the movie viewing experience enjoyable was the first half, where it felt like a real interactions with the local people, I think it was improvised. The movie blended well between real and the scripted narrative. It felt real, engaging and thrilling, and his portrayal was entertaining. The makers made sure that it will start slow and then take pace afterwards and that's what happens in the movie. What did not work: The movie somehow lost the touch with the reality and the series of events after the first half went too fast and without any proper reasoning and explaining. As the movie progressed, it became equally difficult to watch and grasp the series of events and the intensity that it happened, making it feel like it's gone too far. The use of camera was done beautifully in the first hour of the movie , making us believe that the narrative is progressing through the actor's camera. But later in the movie, they stole that chance and made it visible the makers used the camera to film the actor using the camera. Some scenes were overly done and making it Ian's disturbing to watch.Also, the conclusion of the movie is not morally and cinematic wrong and is glamorized and glorified to make it possible, but the end isn't what it should have been. Final verdict: recommended