User reviews

Not great but watchable at least.

This is a found-footage movie, web-cam and phone-cam (stalker) style.

Similar to 'Alone With Her (2006)' with Colin Hanks (except sole focus on the victim) which is one of my favorite found footage movies, so no it's not even close to being as good but I've seen a lot worse.

What makes and breaks a found footage movie is usually depending on if the leads are annoying or not (which is pretty common) since most of what we see is their faces through-out the running-time.

Luckily Emma played by Ashley Benson is not very annoying and comes across as fairly likable which helps the movie substantially, had she been annoying this would not had held up, it helps that she's easy on the eyes as well.

There's not all that much to say about the movie, we get to see through hacked web-cam on phone-cam so most of it is everyday stuff often from weird (but natural considering the source) angles.

I can understand that some people would find it boring but I didn't, even though I wasn't amazed by it either it was a passable time-waster.

Potentially a good film spoiled by having no end.

I have seen thousands of films the last 35 years, but it seems that today film makers are less and less bothered about a good ending. The acting was OK in it, actually deserves a 7, the location looked OK, another 7, The story line and subject was fine, 7 again, but I guess the film maker had no money left over for a normal ending. And that makes it worth a 1. You wouldn't by a car without engine, or a house without a roof, would you? Even an empty bread bag would not pass a till.

I couldn't have cared if she would survived, got killed, turned into a privacy activist or what ever, but pls pls pls, give films an ending.

As from 2010, the difference in a good film or a bad film seems to focus on the end of the story. Imagine: The Green Mile without the end scene between two older people, The sixth sense without explaining at the end that the guy actually was dead all the film long, The Hunger Games missing part 4? That's what the "ratter" is about. Quick and cheap productions without an end... Thanks.

There are at least 4 fake accounts being used here in the comments. How do I know? Because it is impossible for anyone with the intelligence to create an account and post on IMDb to consider this movie a 7, an 8, a 9 and a 10.

This isn't just a difference in personal preference. This is by any standard a terrible terrible movie.

I expected a movie about someone's life being turned upside down because they were being cyber-terrorized. That's the plot summary. What I got instead was a movie that chronicled the most mundane activities of a young pudgy woman's everyday life.

Everything is shot on webcams and cell phones. I thought this was clever for the first 10 minutes because, although it was annoying, I thought it was a good way to introduce the viewer to the fact that all her devices have been hacked by a stalker. I guessed that it would then turn into a real movie after five or ten minutes. Nope. The entire f***ing thing is shot like that. It's annoying as hell. But much worse is the fact that nothing happens.

For the first hour, we the viewers are treated to having to sit through (and don't forget this is all shot from the perspective of computer webcams and cell phone cams):

• she does housework - she dances around the house - we see her ankle in the shower scene - she gets hit on by a guy in the library - she chats with her mom on Skype - she cooks - she does aerobics - etc. No, it does not get more meaty than that. Imagine your boring routine life and then having to watch someone else do the exact same things you do all day. That's what this movie is.

I tried hard to keep going but I couldn't. I gave up after an hour to go floss my teeth, which was more exciting by a factor of 10.

Bad movies, there are plenty, I can live with that. What I can't live with is the f***ing FRAUDS on this board that are working for the studio and come here to pump up the rating. It should be illegal to falsely make others believe a movie is good to get you to watch it. In every other business, trying to sell something by lying to the customer - by saying that something does what it clearly doesn't - is illegal. Movies are supposed to entertain. This one does the opposite of entertain.

The only "horror" in this film that I saw was having to sit through the non-story.

It just plain sucks bad.

I hate it when you go to a movie on IMDb and it has a high rating as one person, most probably involved with the movie or promoting it, rates it high just to suck you in. This movie is absolutely AWFUL. It has amateur camera work, most probably due to a limited budget, a boring story line, and the actors just seem like actors from a local college class. I know it is supposed to be on the subject of people hacking into your devices and monitoring you but boy was this BAD. Don't bother with this movie as you will never get that time back. For the person who wrote the first review - Shame on you. You should not review a movie again. This movie should be 1/10. I certainly regret watching it.

There's a lot of negative reviews for this film and, while I can see some of the issues pointed out by other users, I actually liked this much more than expected.

I found this film to be quite disturbing. It's a slow burn and yes, the fact that the entire film is shot on hand held devices can be a bit off-putting. I found it really effective though, and a simple way to highlight our reliance on technology. There are screens everywhere - I'm writing this on my phone and my laptop is open playing a series on my TV.

As a woman who has lived alone and has had her fair share of creeps, this movie builds the sense of dread quite well. Others have commented on its boring nature, but for me it was effective simply because it was about the quotidian activities of our lives - there's no horror, no major twists and turns, it's just about the life of one fairly ordinary (albeit pretty damn gorgeous) young woman.

That's why it works. She's realistic and relatable so seeing the escalation of the stalker's actions and its impact on her life and the people around her is super creepy.

One of the reasons I explore the out of the way places when it comes to film. Low budget and shot mostly on webcams, this movie evokes a sense of dread and horror without showing a drop of blood. The moral, if there is one, says that danger in the 21st century no longer needs mass or form.

Emma is surrounded by the technology that slowly becomes a menace to her as a stalker takes over her devices and the devices of others. A nameless presence oozes through the movie with no clear indication of who or why - it's just nameless malice floating through the same ether as the wireless signals that connect her. As such, it's filmed entirely on hand-held, cell phone and webcam. While this gets annoying at times, the filmmakers break up with some nice editing moves. The performances are solid and engaging. The stark, brutal ending horrified me with its unspoken implications.

(BTW - to the person who trashed this, insisting that the rating was inflated, I didn't even know this film existed. If you didn't like it (and I'm betting the lack of nudity and gore played a part in that) that's fine. But don't be a dick.)

I am really wondering what it was I just watched. I know it wasn't a movie.

I am not including any spoilers as there are none.

Nothing ever happens.

Think of what it would be like to watch somebody 24/7 with a camera hidden inside their home. Be boring right? Well, that's pretty much all there is here and it is not even interesting. I think there was a plot, but not so sure.

After the credits, I thought there may be something more that would make me give this more than 1 star, but no. More of nothing.

1 question - for the folks involved in the making of this video, when they sat back and watched it after it was done, did they really think to themselves, "wow this is really good?"

Ratter is one of those rare horror films that actually scared me.

Ratter CAN happen. Ratter DOES happen. They could have slapped Based on a True Story and I wouldn't have doubted them. My only problem with Ratter was that it was too realistic. The acting wasn't great but it wasn't poor. It was like how people are in real life. The film plays itself as if you are watching what the Ratter is watching.

I don't normally feel for the victims, most of the time, I'm on the villains side. But I felt so scared, so frustrated, so wanting to help Emma, to warn Emma. Emma and myself probably wouldn't be friends, but man, did I feel the need to warn her of what was happening. I felt violated for her. I lost trust of those she trusted.

Give it a shot. You won't be disappointed.

All of the low reviews for this movie are most likely bandwagoners who want to seem cool and knock this film because it's a low budget. Indie film and doesn't have a lot of action. This is a PSYCHOLOGICAL movie and mind you, very creepy. It plays on a lot of our's worst fear, an intruder in our home, especially at night while we are sleeping. Or someone watching our every move. Ashley Benson also does a great job with her realistic portrayal of a girl who's just moved to another state to live on her own and doing some questionable and/or embarrassing things while alone, thinking no one is watching. And the ending, holy crap, I got chills all over my body, its so unexpected and scary and seems so real. This isn't nearly the best movie I've ever seen but I was glued to the screen, and I'm not afraid to say that, because they brought the creep factor and I was definitely paranoid after watching. If you scroll down you can see a lot of people rate this movie really well, before all these low ratings of "1" grouped together following each other like sheep. Come on, be realistic, this movie deserves much more than a 1. That is beyond exaggeration. I think if you like thrillers like this, you'll be in for a treat!

And I've watched some bad ones.

The movie just drags and the sound is bad at times. I take it we're supposed to be hearing it like the 3rd person. It plays out like a high school movie project.

Parts are looped like we're supposed to feel like the hacker is replaying the exchanges in their head or it's supposed to incite fear.

I'm not even sure what was supposed to be watching the character at times. Considering the angles they show it at.

And the ending, without spoiling it it was juts god awful.

All in all, one of the worst movies.

Thinking of seeing 'Ratter'? then maybe you need to seriously think again! The write-up sounded as if it could have been an exiting modern cyber 'warning' - NOT SO. This is one case where you can believe the bulk of reviews that are trying earnestly to warn you away. Wish I had read them before I wasted more than 10mins on this indescribably bad movie.

It starts off shot on webcam, cellphone, bagphone, wobblecam, kitchencam, then progresses to toiletcam, before finally ending on pervcam. Thinking this cheap style was only being used to set-up the plot - I waited for it to turn into a professional movie - and waited...but, no change whatever!.....The name Branden Kramer is now on my 'Must To Avoid' list. At times it looks like he forgot to turn off the camera between takes - then thought the results looked 'creative' so left them in. Could some of the problem perhaps be born within certain types of Media Studies courses being taught at every school across the land - who hand out digi-cams to students and "teach" them to think they can be the next movie junkie king?. This particular effort looks like it's from a student who should have been told...!. To think that any serious distributor would even consider going near this, is unthinkable (Sony!!!)- tells us how much we just can't trust this industry anymore. If you don't care what you sit through or have an abundance of time to waste - then this could suit your level of non- eventism.

Topic: electronic gadgets might get hacked! And these gadgets (laptops, smartphones, etc) have cameras and some of us ALWAYS bring them along wherever we go.

Topic is interesting and though the characters act to a B-level, the movie was like watching a Finnish TV-theater from the -70's of a couple in a Sauna. Almost entire movie was filmed inside the sauna and nothing interesting happened. The viewer is left waiting for something to happen.... And it never does..

Don't bother watching the movie, call an old relative instead and do a good deed, it's time way better spent!

I don't understand the amount negative reviews on here! Do people only consider a film to be good if it has non-stop action and a clearly spelled out ending?

I can only assume this film is too much for anyone who isn't psychologically minded, or hasn't experienced any form of stalking themselves.

Being stalked is a terrifying experience, but it isn't all about the perpetrator being in full view and attacking. The real gut chilling stuff comes from the unknown - WHO is doing this? WHY? Are they watching right now? Am I in physical danger? - it's the build up of tension that doesn't constantly end in dramatic climaxes that gets you more. This film gives a very realistic view of this.

Perhaps the most frightening part of it all is knowing/not knowing you're being watched in your sleep - where you're at your most vulnerable. This can then lead to not sleeping at all, which can destroy a person (as portrayed very well by the lead actress) and make you come across to others as unwell in other ways, or perhaps suffering paranoia, which is frustrating at best and despairing at worst when you're desperately trying to convince people (like in this film with the police) that you're in danger.

As for leaving the ending open - why is that a bad thing? It surely makes the film far more chilling? When you look at all the cold cases and/or missing persons that exist, they remain in our minds and leave us with an uneasy feeling as there are no answers! Once they're solved, people can move on from them. It's the not knowing that makes them all the more unsettling.

Finally, I think the actress did a great job in her role. She remained very real throughout without slipping into that ghastly Hollywood-esque "I'M SOOOOO SCARED!" flailing. And whoever on here thought it was appropriate to comment on her weight of all things (the actress is clearly not the slightest bit overweight anyway, she is healthy looking but slim), wtf is wrong with you?

All I can say is really? The ending leaves many questions that even a second movie would go nowhere. Since it is now 6 years since release I can ask, did she die or is she alive? Even with the part after the credits, yes those of you reading keep watching after the credits, it still never answered was she alive. I feel as if I lost almost two hours of my time I will not get back. If you enjoyed it I am happy for you. Just didn't work for me.

Only reason I got the movie was cause Ashley is in it but it was the most horrible decision I have made in 2016. It's sad cause I was really hype to see Ashley in something other than Pretty Little Liars. Way to drop the ball people .It's super boring I actually fell asleep while watching it the only really non dull part of the movie was the ending where the stalker finally comes out of hiding out of nowhere and I really do mean no where the lights got caught off in her apt then she starts screaming then boom she's wrestling with him. End of movie what a shame !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!