TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Michael Ledo I DID IT FOR THE LULZ. I DID IT FOR THE LULZ. I DID IT FOR THE LULZ.Ashley (Caitlin Gerard) goes to college and rents a room off campus. She meets a crowd of other young people and is exposed to an "urban legend" about Smiley, a killing who appears and kills the person you are chatting with if you type in a sentence three times...and really want it.Ashley also attends a class which discusses Occum's Razor among other things that tie into the overall theme.The killer appears.The film is less slasher and more of a psychological thriller. The problem I had was the action centered around Ashley who didn't do enough to excite me. The characters were not well developed. Had this film been done with different actors and a slightly better script it would have been killer, instead of just another me-too slasher.Parental Guide: F-bomb, sex, and nudity

breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com If there is one thing to say about Hollywood that many filmgoers will agree on is that it's no longer being original with their material. For most cases this occurs because many film makers, whether being the director, writer or actor are either lazy trying to get their yearly pay or because they really don't have an understanding of the project they were cast for. On the other hand, it could also be because the process of being original is not the smoothest task to begin with believe it or not. That's why the category of A-list actors is much smaller by comparison to anything below them. So when looking at horror genre films, it might be easier to understand why there haven't been many new horror icons of recent memory other than a few. A large portion of popular killers came from the 1970s and 1980s. After that, the challenge became much steeper for anyone who came after. Like much film students nowadays, much were inspired and influenced by such films. The director to this movie, Michael J. Gallagher, probably has been subjected to the same experience.Having a script also written by the director already brings into question whether this could be made competently. As for the final product, it shows that Mr. Gallagher may have not been ready. Viewers are introduced to college freshmen Ashley (Caitlin Gerard), the daughter of a widower who lost her mom to suicide. After moving in with her friend Proxy (Melanie Papalia), they learn that a strange craze is taking over the campus. The craze is using a random Internet chat roulette program. When somebody wants the other person to die (of course, because any does), they type into the chat forum "I did it for the lulz" three times. As a result, the person gets stabbed by a character only known as Smiley for his face looking like an over fanatic fan of Zack Snyder's Watchmen (2009) pin. After Ashley and Proxy try it out for themselves to see if it was real, they get nervous and begin to feel like they might be next on Smiley's hit list.Directly taking ideas from the "Bloody Mary" urban legend, the script is a giant mess of confusing logic with a number of other flaws. If anything, the killer has a grotesque design but even then it's also nonsensical. There's very little to talk positively about here. The cinematography handled by Nicola Marsh (Twenty Feet from Stardom (2013) and Pearl Jam Twenty (2011)) kept the camera steady for the most part. Marsh also gave as many clear shots as he could even for the lighting in this movie. The only other plus is there are roles filled in by some Internet / veteran celebrities most notably Shane Dawson. There are a couple others but the script makes them sound unintelligent and boring. Writing overall isn't convincing either. There are moments where the Ashley character is focused on due to mental disorder but it's only used to further the illogical story telling. Then there's Roger Bart (the singing voice of Young Hercules in Disney's Hercules (1997)) who plays what seems to be Ashley's only college professor of an unknown class.Bart plays his character so strangely, he feels creepier than the villain. Not only does he openly address classmates strangely in public; he also likes to constantly stare at his students and casually drink whiskey (like its coffee, without even flinching) on his down time. What's up with this guy? Really the only purpose for Bart's role is to give obvious script fodder to the viewer so the main character continues to try and figure out their situation. Finally topping off the disappointment of actors to be seen here is veteran Keith David playing the head of the local police who does nothing but ignores Ashley's claims. He's probably the best part but also the worst because of how he's not used to the film's advantage. It's Keith David! As for the villain himself, he too is sorely lacking any kind of development. With a backstory rushed in at the first five minutes at the beginning of the film it only shows how much thought was put into this character.Apparently this character stitched his eyes and mouth shut. First, how did he do it on his own? Plus, how can he still say understandable words and clearly see? And where did his nose go? Was it surgically removed? Making things even more confusing is how this villain operates. How does he know when you type "I did it for the lulz" three times? What if you do this to two different people at the same time from two different locations? There's no motive for any actions this individual takes. It makes no sense. The kills in this film are nothing to praise either. There's nothing that looks overly painful or gross. It's very standard with typical stabbings and shootouts. The scares are pointless too because all that Mr. writer/director knows how to do is jump scares. Lastly, the musical score to this production made by Dave Porter was of no importance as well. Almost entirely atmospheric, the film score is largely dull in several areas of the running time. There's no main theme or recognizable motifs for anything. It's really close to not worth it.Aside from okay cinematography, internet and veteran actors having roles in the film, there's not much to enjoy other than how ludicrously inept the characters are made from a script with enormous plot holes. The horror aspect is MIA and the violence has no invention behind it.

Mark Seamon-Luciani In YouTube 2011, a sea of people (myself included), became mystified and terrified after a screen-shot of a bloody smiley face started circulating the web. Seeking out the source of the clip, I found the trailer for this film on "TotallySketch" YouTube channel. My thirteen year-old self watched it with intrigue and when it ended, I wanted to watch the movie. Sadly, I never saw it...until now.Now sixteen, I have a better index of horror films like "Jaws", "The Shining", "Halloween", "Psycho", and "The Thing", so I got my hands on a copy of "Smiley" and finally watched it.Moments after watching the film, I sat and wondered three things: a) Does Michael Gallagher (the director) know what a horror movie is? b) Hasn't been on the internet more than once? And c) Has he gone to a college in his life? Following this film, I watched an interview Gallagher did just before the film's release and said he used horror classics such as "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Shining" as inspiration, which made me walk away more confused than before. The reason for this is that both films had the following three things: a) A great, unique narrative propped up with stunning and beautiful cinematography, b) Real, complex, and relatable characters brought to life by an impeccable screenplay and great director, and c) An eerie, unsettling atmosphere throughout the film and a great, memorable ending to wrap it all up."Smiley" had none of these things.Why go in threes, you ask. And to that I say, "Candyman" rip-off!Within the movie's first three minutes, we're told the Smiley killer is an urban legend who is summoned via a ChatRoulette-like site with the phrase "I did it for the Luz" typed thrice, and Smiley kills a person on the other end of the chat room. And while ludicrous- sounding enough, the premise was fine and seemed original, until right after the first ten minutes, I realized what type of film this would be.Filled to the brim--no, overflowing--with jump scares to point of predictability and humor; predictable so, that should you invite your friends to your house and should agree to watch this film, it'd make a great drinking game. With the number of jump scares I'd watch it though, the 29-32 jump scares might give you a hangover.All the characters, like the film "Not Cool", are brought to life by Internet personalities (Shane Dawson, Toby Turner, etc.) and still wonder if the director assumed that their fame on YouTube transferred into the movie world or just though each YouTuber would bring a certain number of moviegoers. I'm assuming number two, primarily because, being a MASSIVE Toby Turner fan back in the day, I would've gone to see it solely because he was in it.The main girl, Ashley (Caitlin Gerard) is who we are supposed to root for, care about, and worry for after she kills an anonymous stranger by summoning Smiley and now thinks Smiley is after her, is the most annoying character in this film; with the vocabulary and mindset of a fourteen year-old girl, anything that came out her mouth just drove me crazy and her laugh was so dreadfully painful to hear, I'd think being stung by a scorpion would be less painful.The supporting cast simply added salt to the wound; Ashley's roommate, Proxy (Melanie Papalia) represented the typical cliché character of "nothing's really happening", then coming full circle to being "now that it's going down, I'm all screaming and whining". Her "love interest", Binder (Shane Dawson) is so wooden, a coffee table could give a better performance. Perhaps the biggest quarrel I have with this film was it's ending.*DEFINITE SPOILERS FOLLOW*This film has a twist ending, much like "The Village" and it's just as illogical as the latter, but the difference being that M. Night Shyamalan had build a pretty decent amount of suspense and story in "The Village" so that made me more angry than this film that build pretty much neither.As all the college campus kids are revealed to have been pulling an elaborate prank on Ashley and all "pretended" to be Smiley, it's also brought up that they're Anonymous and 4chan hackers bent on spreading the word of Smiley.It presents not just one plot hole, but so many that if the movie were a water balloon it'd burst. To list them; a) Why would "Anonymous" set-up such an elaborate scheme to just get one annoying girl? b) How were they everywhere "murdering" anonymous people anywhere online when they're is only seven of them? c) How would the whole confrontation scene boil down so much to coincidence? And d) What was the purpose of even trying to kill her??Mind-boggling.To wrap up, this movie was pretty terrible and only watch it with a friend, just to see him squirm in annoyance like I did. The last ten minutes destroyed whatever the movie had going for it and made me completely check out. But not to say "Smiley" didn't have OK moments; the classroom scenes weren't that bad and Roger Bart and Keith David bring all they can to the table. But the table is pretty bare...All I can say is, that if the director dreams building a franchise with "Smiley", then I say the dream is dead and it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

grammyscold Pros: Very good lead actress. Likable, believable, attractive, interesting, confident, and charismatic. The guy that played the professor was light years ahead of the other males, in terms of chops. I was impressed by the sure-handed direction, too; there were no big blocking mistakes or glaring camera placement errors that had me shaking my head (unlike so many recent big-budget horror movies --Ixm looking at you Final Destination peeps). Also good was the tension and atmosphere. Continuity was fine. Engaging philosophy discussions were refreshingly anti-social. Sort of nice to see /b/ mentioned in a movie, but then again it kind of peeved me seeing how the filmmakers piggybacked on its cachet. Technically proficient in almost every category.Cons: The end of the movie is atrocious! It makes zero sense. I refuse to accept it. The young male characters were garbage; way too broadly written, simple, and uninteresting. Creature design was dirt-poor. Logically, this movie held water like a colander. Finally, the biggest sin this movie committed in my opinion is not showing any girl nips bare bottoms, shagging, or any tangibly yummy displays of any kind, whatsoever. I might have missed a few minutes here and there, so maybe I missed the appearance of the moaning beast with two backs? Regardless, every quality horror movie has oodles and oodles of graphic or at least strongly suggestive content. Therefore, this was not a quality horror movie, period.And another thing, you little punks: There is no such thing as a YouTube star, OK? The word is celebrity, not star. Everybody knows stars. Grandmas, uncles, rocket-stove Luddites, even the "you knee bomber" knew the names of stars. They are household names. Minus grumpy cat y'all got nothing'.