First off, this film is not an actual 1970's found film. The makers did an okay job with making it seem like it is a film from the 70's, but definitely not one. The girl does not look like she is from the 70's. Granted, the boy does look a lot like that kid from the Fulci film, House By the Cemetery. They have all these strange names in the credits, yet the main two protagonists speak perfect English and their lines are not dubbed in like they would have been in the 70's. Then of course there is the maker of this film that said it was not real. Kind of blew it there, didn't he? So what do we get? A film with a very interesting premise the makers of the film waste trying to hook an audience with the whole, "This could be real" thing. Sadly, if they had put more effort into the actual film, it may have been a very good horror film.
The story, after the boring documentary, starts interestingly enough as a dog is euthanized. The young boy believes the dog to be burning in hell as this is the 70's so I guess he doesn't know all dogs go to heaven. For some odd reason, the sister concocts a plan to try and relieve some of the pain the boy is experiencing by going into the woods and digging their way to hell. Unfortunately, something does seem to be happening around them as they dig in the strange forest.
They basically make things start appearing in the forest around them as the siblings continue to dig deeper. Love this concept, but it is underutilized most likely due to budget constraints. If they had ditched the whole cursed film thing and simply made the story around the two digging and things around them warping in strange ways starting subtle and getting less so, this could have been cool. Too bad, we end up with a couple of dudes, one in his underwear, tormenting the children before a bizarre double ending.
So, it had potential and it had moments, they just underutilized their own premise and concepts. The stupid random stuff spliced in add nothing to the film and I would like to ask the filmmakers why they thought these scenes were necessary and I would like to ask how come they could not make this film more creepy and dark in tone, getting rid of the two hicks one tends to find in a Texas Chainsaw movie and adding strange monstrous figures lurking nearly out of view. Still, a pretty good effort, just needed more in the movie portion and none of the could this be an actual cursed film portion.
The story, after the boring documentary, starts interestingly enough as a dog is euthanized. The young boy believes the dog to be burning in hell as this is the 70's so I guess he doesn't know all dogs go to heaven. For some odd reason, the sister concocts a plan to try and relieve some of the pain the boy is experiencing by going into the woods and digging their way to hell. Unfortunately, something does seem to be happening around them as they dig in the strange forest.
They basically make things start appearing in the forest around them as the siblings continue to dig deeper. Love this concept, but it is underutilized most likely due to budget constraints. If they had ditched the whole cursed film thing and simply made the story around the two digging and things around them warping in strange ways starting subtle and getting less so, this could have been cool. Too bad, we end up with a couple of dudes, one in his underwear, tormenting the children before a bizarre double ending.
So, it had potential and it had moments, they just underutilized their own premise and concepts. The stupid random stuff spliced in add nothing to the film and I would like to ask the filmmakers why they thought these scenes were necessary and I would like to ask how come they could not make this film more creepy and dark in tone, getting rid of the two hicks one tends to find in a Texas Chainsaw movie and adding strange monstrous figures lurking nearly out of view. Still, a pretty good effort, just needed more in the movie portion and none of the could this be an actual cursed film portion.