Rusty-61

I don't know why I started watching this; I know if I'd seen the 3/10 rating here, I wouldn't have bothered. The fact that EVERY cast member except one was "uncredited" would have tipped me off too, but nooooo, I had to blow off the usual IMDb check. It's my fault because it come up on Netflix streaming as "recommended" (thanks for assuming I have sh*tty taste, Netflix) and even though I vaguely recalled the title as one I was warned against by several reviewers whose opinions I trust, I had a little time to kill and figured what the hell.

The opening minutes featured some gore (more than usual in a found footage movie with a "haunted house" theme) so maybe that got my attention. A big red flag came up with the voice-over acting by the cop who was supposed to have discovered the bodies was TERRIBLE.

Less than five minutes after that scene the only thing keeping me watching it was my deep hatred for a certain character, (who naturally, survived the movie as a last "f-you" from the movie to me). I wanted to see her get kicked down a flight of stairs or pushed off a cliff or die brutally. This is not a good sign when it's the only thing keeping you from turning off the movie. The character was (I think, because I swear they were barely trying) supposed to be likable, too.

This movie was so terrible, so boring, such an endurance test that I can't even write a traditionally-structured review for it. I have to make a list of things wrong with it instead.

1. Every found-footage horror cliché in the book used. transcription of 911 calls (even when someone on screen is clearly seen making them and you can hear everything fine, in a couple cases)? check. shaky-cam over-use? Check. There are what seemed like several 10-minute segments of someone holding the camera while they run around freaking out and all you can make out is occasionally the ground or trees. Mysterious forces throwing someone across the room? check. Night-vision footage of people sleeping while some object moves around by itself? Check. Stupid fake jump-scares where one character sneaks up on another and makes a "scary" noise as a prank? Check. 2. People keep filming after any sane person would have stopped, under the circumstances 3. I wasn't even sure who was filming what, supposedly, by the end. 4. the movie actually gets worse as it goes along. 5. some of the worst make-up "effects" I have ever seen. 6. some acting so bad it is funny instead of scary... but do NOT see this movie because it's one of those MST-3000 movies that is fun because it is so bad, this is NOT one of those movies.

There is no shred of entertainment anywhere in the movie. At no point did I feel remotely scared or even mildly creeped out, nor did I care what happened to the characters (other than hoping they died horribly for being such idiots). There was no point where I was in any kind of suspense.I could see every jump scare (or what they thought passed as jump scares), or pretty much any action whatsoever coming a mile away.

"Bell Witch" (I don't respect anyone involved in the making of the movie enough to go and look for the complete title) is the reason people hate found-footage horror movies.

DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME! Even if you watch this just to see how bad it is, you will hate yourself when it ends. I hated myself before the first hour of the movie was over. If you want to see a good paranormal found-footage movie, see "Grave Encounters". Hell, even if you've seen it already, just watch it again, you'll have a much more enjoyable time.

I stumbled onto this gem after I discovered the existence of the upcoming movie "The ABCs of Death", and shortly afterward, discovered the film-maker's competition and call for submissions for being the "26th director of the movie". The other 25 letters of the alphabet were already set, the call for entries was for the letter T, with the winner being included in and getting credit for the segment in the movie, alongside directors of the movies "A Serbian Film," "House of the Devil", and "Tokyo Gore Police, among others. Unfortunately, the voting was closed by the time I found out the contest. I watched over two dozen entries in a row (binging out like I did, with a little marathon after dark, is NOT recommended if you need to get a nice peaceful night's rest) and I'm not even sure how the voting process worked, but this excellent and satisfying entry in the contest would have had my vote. Nothing at all I'd change about it.

It's really too bad they couldn't pick more than one entry. The Lee Hardcastle claymation horror short ended up winning, probably because Hardcastle has a big cult fan base (as well he should), his film "T is for Toilet" is pretty impressive (I'd put it up there in my top five entries) I decided that TIFT was the best live-action entry.

It was up against some strong competition, but writer/director Michael Foulke's entry has everything going for it. Obviously a lot of care and concern and craftsmanship went into creating this film. I don't have confirmation on this, but I'm pretty sure he's a horror movie fan, and any movie (short or not) made by horror fans, for horror fans (Spain's "REC" is a great example) turns out to be a fine work of film-making that REALLY knows what horror fan audiences want: story, scares, and some gore. A horror film can be pretty good when it contains 2 of the above (for example: good story, good scares, I can live w/the barest amount of gore possible). This entry has all three, though I'm pretty sure the gore level contained in this short is PG-13. Tops. I doubt they had a huge budget, but with the top-quality production values, it sure doesn't LOOK like there was anything low-budget about the movie.

The acting by the two main cast members is high-quality, and I was especially impressed by the talent of the actress--Ashley Lynn Switzer-- who plays the Girl Scout. She NAILED it, especially for an actress her young age. I don't see a lot of actors/actresses appearing in horror films under age 10 stealing the movie. I couldn't find her age on her IMDb page, but she looks to be about 11 at the very oldest, my guess is (at the time the movie was filmed, anyway) more like 8 or 9. She was so convincing that I wondered at first if she was one of those more experienced young actresses who they "age down" well, then use her because she can sell being that young. I doubt that was the case here.

I've seen so many horror movies, TV shows, graphic novels and even novels that I'm very good at guessing what happens next. TIFT was one I couldn't second guess, so that says quite a bit. Check this one out (use the link on the "external links- miscellaneous" to find the Vimeo page to watch). It's less than five minutes long, so why wait? Check it out ...now! Oh, and I guess I should state as a disclaimer I was NOT involved in the production in any way, nor did I sell out for personal gain or to get any perks for giving a 10/10 rating (not that I'm complaining, I didn't expect any). If you click the page that shows all my reviews, you'll see I write plenty and am not biased, and definitely not a 'plant.' Like I said, if you miss this, you're missing a treat!

The only Shake Rattle & Roll (awesome name for a horror franchise) I'd seen before this was one I rented On Demand, the description of which didn't bother to mention the installment was in Tagalog with no English subtitles. I still sat through it, more or less, and could still see it had some very creepy images and even plot twists.

The first story is the weakest, more a comedy than horror. Set-up for "The 13th Floor" sounded promising, but it's played as a comedy (and didn't succeed as one). The CGI was used in a slightly original way, but the effects were terrible enough that it just screeched to a halt. In fact, the FX, combined with the predictability of the plot, almost made the whole movie screech to a halt for me. However, before I kicked it out of the DVD player, I started looking at reviews online and saw most said the middle segment made SR&R 8 worth a rental. They were right, and I'm glad I watched the entire movie.

"Yaya" is indeed the most memorable of the lot, about an especially cute little boy who suspects something isn't right with his new nanny. His fears are confirmed, as he learns the folklore about "aswangs" from his teacher. Naturally, his mother and aunt just roll their eyes and assume someone's been telling him ghost stories. He sets out to discover a way to protect him and his baby sister, but soon realizes he may be in way over his head. The actor that plays the boy is really talented; I've seen a lot of terrible kid actors in foreign (and American) horror, so my expectations were low. Instead I was very impressed, this kid is talented. The segment probably wouldn't have worked as well if they hadn't cast an actor who could portray fear, as well as love for his family and protectiveness towards his baby sister so convincingly. Honestly, the majority of kids in horror movies get on my nerves, but I just wanted to give him a big hug. The aswang is genuinely frightening, enough that I decided partway through this installment that maybe it hadn't been a clever idea to watch it with all the lights off, and pause the movie to turn on all the lights in the room. As far as I could tell, the effects were mostly practical, and pretty good ones at that.

What I read about the third segment, LRT, didn't make it sound like anything special. I turned the lights back off when it started ...then realized I'd fall asleep easier that night with them on again. The subway monster has an original design, and is definitely not something you'd want to catch a glimpse of in an abandoned LRT tunnel (or anywhere for that matter). The characters mainly died in the order I expected them to (until the last 10-15 minutes), but that didn't make it any less entertaining to watch, and there was a pretty clever twist at the end--I didn't see it coming, and the reveal made the whole tone even more dark and creepy. The FX were played just right; the minor use of CGI just enhanced the practical effects. I heard a quote once about cosmetic surgery that I also heard several film-makers paraphrase- it shouldn't be used to turn an apple into an orange, but instead to make the original apple a shinier one. I didn't watch thinking, "Oh hey, there's some interesting CGI", instead I just thought how awesome the shots were in general.

So check it out. I'm going to start seeking out other installments, and hope that one story/segment is at least as entertaining as this one.