Scrawl

This film is a well-intentioned horror movie that suffers from the budget not matching the ambition.

I am a big fan of Daisy Ridley, so like many, I wanted to see this. She does NOT disappoint in this movie. It's interesting seeing her playing a cold and merciless personification of evil, although it takes a good 30 of the 80 minutes before she appears.

I watched it out of curiosity, and I was satisfied mostly with what I was looking for-a good performance by Daisy Ridley playing an evil character. Maybe a second watch might be better, but there's so much choppy incoherence in this story.

At 1 hour and 19 minutes, it doesn't ask for much of your time.

There were some really good ideas here, but some of it seems to really get lost in the choppy editing and non-linear storytelling. If perhaps a more experienced crew behind the camera could've gotten involved, it would've saved this some narrative problems it really suffers from. Maybe this would've been better as a very memorable 45-minute episode of Twilight Zone or Black Mirror.

Did the actors do well? Absolutely! Casting was done quite well for this movie.

Can I recommend this? I'm split. If you're a horror fan and/or a Daisy Ridley fan, check it out. There's DEFINITELY something here for you. I'm glad I watched it!

If you're neither, then there's not much here to grab you and keep you invested.

Script is ok, visual is ok. i just watch it for daisy ridley tbh

Like many I only watched this because of Daisy Ridley but overall the movie wasn't as bad as people say. Despite the choppy edits and some other things the movie has pretty good casting. It was cool to see Daisy Ridley play a villain character and to see how far she's gone in this movie industry. Bright future, wishing her the best!

There are a few aspects about this picture that readily stand out to mention before one even sits to watch. While the inclusion in the cast of some recognizable actors, primarily Daisy Ridley (importantly, in her film debut), is the first such matter, I don't think it's the most noteworthy one. That, I would say, is the underlying approach to its construction in the first place, in which filmmaker Peter Hearn handed off most facets thereof to his students as an exercise in producing an independent feature. However the end result turns out I greatly admire that notion, and with that in mind, one way or another I'll be very curious to see what those non-professionals involved might do as they pursue careers in the industry. Having observed all this, it's also worth noting that of course the root premise is a familiar one that has been explored elsewhere previously, but I won't inherently hold that against anyone; why shouldn't other creators have an opportunity to play with an idea we've seen before? Still, as none of this speaks directly to the quality of the final product, the question remains: considered in and of itself, how is 'Scrawl?'

The inexperience of those involved is discernible; this does, surely, look and feel like a student film. Yet despite being rough around the edges, I think most such contributions are actually just fine. The cinematography, sound, and editing are fundamentally fine; effects, and the hair and makeup, are swell in my book. The score isn't necessary super special, but I appreciate the tinge of quiet atmosphere that it lends to the proceedings. I'll even say that I believe the young cast are generally pretty good. Some performances are decidedly stronger than others (Ridley; Catherine Ruddick), and some are decidedly weaker, but for the most part all those in front of the camera turn in surprisingly capable acting as far as I'm concerned. No one is more surprised than I am.

However, the real point of concern here is Hearn himself; frankly, I just don't know what he was doing. He may not have specifically had a hand in the editing, yet his oversight of the whole affair unquestionably means that he guided the cuts. Solid as the editing may be from a basic standpoint of its craft, the sequencing is plainly dubious, and so flummoxing in its poor treatment of the story as to almost be nonsensical. Then again, maybe there's no fault to be found in the editing by any measure, for in Hearn's capacity as director we then see bewildering heavy-handedness, a total dearth of tact or nuance, a flailing aimlessness, and a lack of cohesiveness, that are all stunningly confounding. Sadly, the writing is without a doubt worst still. There is a plot, but it waits until the film is half over to actually show up. In the last portion of the runtime he tries to loop back and meaningfully weave in scenes that greeted us earlier, but at all times the connective threads are astonishingly thin, and Hearns also does a poor job of illuminating much of anything at all. Characters are barely introduced, and some not at all; I don't know who many of them were, or what their relationships to one another were supposed to be; I kind of get the impression that some of these kids are intended to be portraying figures that are older? Plot development is scattered and meager, further hampered by scene writing and dialogue that far too often come across as excessive, unproductive, non-explanatory, and possibly altogether detached from the tapestry the screenplay is trying to weave. Even when a scene or piece of dialogue has a clear place in the storytelling, the inclusion is still usually flimsy, baffling, and unconvincing. I'm able to describe only fragments of the overall narrative, for as far as I can tell - if the tale could be described broadly as a game of "connect the dots," then there are only a few lines appearing on the page, they're not all consecutive, and it remains unclear what image the entirety is intended to form.

If it were just a question of the cast, and the crew - those who had prior experience, and those who did not - then I would not have any major criticisms to make. Though the level on which they were operating is very evident, so is their hard work and sincerity, and I can overlook deficiencies in such instances. But Hearns' writing and direction are just outrageous, almost completely incoherent with effectively nothing for the viewer to grab onto. I get the impression that he had a definite vision for this movie, but unfortunately it absolutely did not translate into the words he wrote, or the scenes he orchestrated. The precise reference is eluding me at the moment but I'm reminded of a scene from science fiction in which experimental teleportation technology is used with a living being, yet instead of that same whole creature materializing at the receiving end, we just see a formless, amorphous blob. This is the sad truth of 'Scrawl,' not because of any of the acting, nor the efforts of students who were behind the scenes creating a full-length film, but just because of writing and direction of which I simply can't make sense. I genuinely feel bad being so harsh in my assessment, and genuinely hope that if Hearns continues to make more features in the future, he demonstrates growth in his skills. I want that for him. The fact remains that as we see it, this 2015 title is a perplexing mess, and it does the one person responsible no favors to pretend otherwise. I wish all involved the best of luck in their future endeavors; may they move onward and upwards from this.

Director is at the top of the list of people o want to push. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Haunted comic book lookin. I swear most of this movie looks like kids playing a game in the woods, but you don't really understand the rules or get to play with them, so you get absolutey nothing out of it. This movie gave me a hernia, from the absolute intensity of negative rage induced orgasms it caused. Proud to do my service as an American and give this movie 1 star. Also they're British so it's basically like listening to a deaf person try and learn english. Get this movie far away from society. Throw it in a mineshaft, or throw it off a bridge like in Jumanji. I'm so mad.