Dead of the Nite

I must say I had been looking forward to watching this for quite some time, and it wasn't just because of Tony Todd (CANDYMAN) having a somewhat sufficient role in it. No. I was intrigued by the plot. A found footage film about the paranormal with a slasher element added in for good measure. Take that and surround it all with an ongoing detective investigation and you have DEAD OF THE NITE.

I really wanted to like this film, and I tried, but it just couldn't deliver. The acting was nothing spectacular, but better than one would expect coming from a film with a $20k budget. The kills were a major let down, very unimpressive and practically bloodless. I really had a big problem with the filming/editing. As we are watching the found footage from multiple cameras, it is edited to look like a normal film instead of what actual found footage would look like. It was also quite predictable. Several things were apparent before they happened. I knew the "twist" ending long before it was revealed.

Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway), I was very disappointed. DEAD OF THE NITE had the potential to be a really decent film, but ultimately it failed. Not even the presence of the great Tony Todd could save it. What a shame.

Sometimes it is a good idea to take heed and observe the low rating of a movie on IMDb as a clear indicator of not to watch this movie. However, I figured that I would still give "Dead of the Nite" a chance, especially since Tony Todd was in it.

I shouldn't have taken the warning serious...

This was one of the more boring, uneventful and pitiful horror movies that I have had the misfortune to bear witness to in a long, long time. And it didn't help the movie one inch that it was presented in a sort of 'found footage' way, you know with the questionable and shaky camera that is all over the place.

Furthermore, it didn't really help the movie either that it had no proper and solid storyline to sell the movie. "Dead of the Nite" was a shallow husk of a movie trying to pass off as being a horror movie.

The acting in this abysmal movie was questionable. Sure, some people were doing fair enough jobs, but they had next to nothing to work with. While others were just appalling to witness on the screen. And even Tony Todd seemed to have lost his mojo in this movie. He was there physically, but mentally he seemed a million miles away.

I didn't even make it to the halfway point of the movie before I had to give up out of pure frustration, sheer boredom and complete disbelief that movie like this still find a way into production and more scarily so onto the market.

There was nothing interesting about "Dead of the Nite", aside from the title. But even there they managed to mess it up; "Nite", seriously? They couldn't even be bothered to spell the word properly? If you enjoy a good horror movie, then "Dead of the Nite" is definitely not the movie for you. However, if you enjoy a movie with no purpose and no entertainment value, then by all means do check out "Dead of the Nite".

I am forced to rate this movie a mere one out of ten stars. Stay well clear of this one, folks.

An important reason for me, to get the movie and watch it was Tony Todd. He is always so magnificent and when he is in a movie even in a small part, you always talk about his role. I really love some actors like him, Robert England etc and I really want to see them again, having an appearance in a movie that is more than a few minutes.

So back to this movie: a film crew goes to a haunted house for their internet show. The caretaker (Tony Todd) warns them about the house and that the doors during the night will be locked. The film team doesn't listen and they want to stay in the house during the night. Alone… in the dark... In the night … no one can hear them…

Lucky for us, the footage was retrieve and so we can watch what happened to them. I am really tired of the 'found footage' type of movies. When it was done for the first time you had fun watching something completely different. Now so many movies are done like this. Some are good like Rec (2007), but most of them

This movie was a waste of time. Acting horrible, fighting scenes were fake and looked fake, actors were over dramatic and the scenes were just out of place. It was a waste of time and I will definitely not be recommending this to anyone even my worst enemy. This movie was portrayed to be scary and wasn't. The camera setting wasn't interesting it set right to make it interesting and for the lighting it was obvious that the killers would have seen it but it was just awful. The people who were in the movie were just over actors who have gotten recognized. Some of the scenes were so fake. For example the female that feel down the stairs. She fell in a certain way where she definitely should not have died but she did. I mean how did she die with falling like that?? Also with the other deaths, it just made no sense and I'm done scenes you can see the feet of the people that were recording it. Just horrible!!

I'm glad I didn't check the ratings on here before deciding to watch this. 2.7/10 and a few terrible reviews. Geez. The only movies I really ever watch are horror. Seen hundreds and hundreds. I know a piece of trash when I see it. This isn't trash and is far from a 2.7. 20k budget? Would have had no idea by watching it. The plot in itself is awesome. Ghost hunt that doesn't involve a ghost but instead a killer on the inside. Pretty cool idea. A legit company and a decent budget could make a hell of a movie off that premise.

Bottom line- It is certainly no GRAVE ENCOUNTERS or SESSION 9. It isn't even in the same stratosphere. However......if you dig that sort of movie then you MIGHT really enjoy this. I'd give it a 5, but I'll toss it a 6 just to somewhat offset the crazy low rating.