Firstly, is anybody really going to shed any tears when the "found footage" genre finally dies its long overdue death? Anyhow, I was prompted to add my thoughts after looking through the written reviews here and felt some things really needed to be added.
1. This film has an average rating of 3.0 from 26 users
2. The written reviews rated this film at 9, 8 and 9
3. Each of these reviewers have a total of one, and only one, review on IMDb.
4. Subtract these three review scores from the total and the average rating drops to 2.3 - which is the level that should trigger alarm bells. It ain't easy to score that low here.
5. The one external review (horrornews.net) tries to be as polite as it can, but does raise some other points of interest which are not mentioned in the IMDb user reviews: the absence of film credits; that the "based on a true story" claims fall apart on investigation; and, quote: "Essentially what this film is, is a collection of the Youtube videos that follow Collin Mason from being a snot-nosed teen into his self recorded murder exploits".
6. The horrornews.net review has only one comment from a person under the pseudonym "CinematicCritic", claiming to be a horror cinema connoisseur and reviewer but offering no credentials or links, who attempts to reassert that yes, this is indeed based on real life but, again fails to provide references. The rest of the rather long comment has to be read to be appreciated as an exercise in true shill-craft.
My final thoughts. Horror fans are a fickle bunch. And there is a golden rule no aspiring new film maker should ever break. Don't take us for a ride by feeding us false premises and praise for one's own genius. We have long memories and we don't often get fooled twice.
1. This film has an average rating of 3.0 from 26 users
2. The written reviews rated this film at 9, 8 and 9
3. Each of these reviewers have a total of one, and only one, review on IMDb.
4. Subtract these three review scores from the total and the average rating drops to 2.3 - which is the level that should trigger alarm bells. It ain't easy to score that low here.
5. The one external review (horrornews.net) tries to be as polite as it can, but does raise some other points of interest which are not mentioned in the IMDb user reviews: the absence of film credits; that the "based on a true story" claims fall apart on investigation; and, quote: "Essentially what this film is, is a collection of the Youtube videos that follow Collin Mason from being a snot-nosed teen into his self recorded murder exploits".
6. The horrornews.net review has only one comment from a person under the pseudonym "CinematicCritic", claiming to be a horror cinema connoisseur and reviewer but offering no credentials or links, who attempts to reassert that yes, this is indeed based on real life but, again fails to provide references. The rest of the rather long comment has to be read to be appreciated as an exercise in true shill-craft.
My final thoughts. Horror fans are a fickle bunch. And there is a golden rule no aspiring new film maker should ever break. Don't take us for a ride by feeding us false premises and praise for one's own genius. We have long memories and we don't often get fooled twice.