Fluentiama
Perfect cast and a good story
Juana
what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.
Stephanie
There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes
pinkingyellow
Happy to find it on RED BOX, Hoped to watch a very scary movie.........was a documentary. OK Nothing against documentaries but anyway , What is this?!? E V E R Y T H I N G seems UNREAL..... is like knowing all the time that everything wasn't truth, even if maybe it was!! interviews, documents pictures, records, people..... ForGdSk. Needs more to be spooky/scary is not enough with just metallic sounds, screams, and dark backgrounds stages...... Could be scary if done 5 decades ago. And then, why on earth those "MATRIX film" letters??? Omg and that DVD menu?!? A disaster, needs to be exorcised. No, no, I ... need an exorcist right now because of how I feel watching thisPoor us, exorcisms lovers.. Disappointed 101%
Reaper-of-Souls
"SUCKS," it spoke back to me in its hauntingly, monotone electronic voice. Then, from within my room, I heard laughter. It was my own. This "documentary" was hilarious! Grown men playing with their ghost hunting toys, while trying to act serious, is funny to me. Who do they really think they are kidding? What was the need for all those silly electronic devices to tell a story they never really told? Go, go gadget thermal image camera! It found a hot spot around the one guy's head because he's full of hot air.Seriously, this was horrible. These guys don't know how to tell a story. They jumped from one place to another. From one person to another. Showed scenes and talked to people that had nothing at all to do with the original story. Constantly putting words on the screen. Showing type-written pages that we are to believe was a secret old diary. The same newspaper headlines over and over again. This was nothing but a bunch of people claiming to be "Paranormal Investigators" and "Ghost Hunters" walking around with their gadgets, filming hot, cold, black masses, orbs, and whatever else they could come up with to try and make us believe they were actually in direct contact with demons while filming this "documentary." This turned out to be more about themselves and Father Bowdern than it did about The Haunted Boy. All I got from this was that the boy was moved from his home to a hospital and then to an asylum. A couple of priests eventually exercised him somewhere. Oh, and his bed was really heavy and it levitated. I gave this a 2 out of 10 for the couple of things that actually had to do with the boy.I just asked OVILUS another question. "What lies ahead for these brothers?" "Brothers." "Booth." "No." "Future." "In." "Film-making." "Losers." OVILUS has spoken...
Manila Sampson
unfortunately a good idea went completely down the drain. right from the beginning, the details unfolded in a very haphazard manner. The "actual footage" was replayed so many times and to be true didn't even seem relevant to the actual Maryland case. what bothered me the most was that they were many loop holes in the narrative. the owner of the building saying "welcome to hell", just exemplified a very poor script. It looked like people were told what they have to speak before. the only scene that intrigued me was the last scene, but again not executed well. they could have made a 45 minute documentary with the focus on their findings.
Joseph Cannon
Stylistically, you can file this effort under "We have After Effects are we are NOT afraid to use it!" Yeah, there is a lot of eye candy. Lots of spooky sound effects and quick cuts and cool transitions. Lots of WHOOM and WHOOSH and FLASH.But none of it makes any sense. The Booth brothers have ZERO notion as to how to assemble their materials into a comprehensible, linear narrative.You'll see lots of talking heads, but the people interviewed are never allowed to say more than a line or two at a time -- because the film-makers presume that the audience has an attention span of three seconds. Consequently, we have no idea what the interview subjects are even talking about.We never know what year is under discussion. We have no idea as to who the main players are or how the events relate to each other.For example, the film-makers include many shots of modern-day people playing with ouija boards. But how does this relate to the events in Georgetown in the 1940s? We are frequently allowed to hear "real" exorcism sounds. The audience is led to believe that this audio comes from the Georgetown case. But it doesn't.I've read a great deal about this real-life case, yet even I had little idea as to what was going on in this movie. This so-called "documentary" devolves into such incomprehensible gobbledegook that I had to stop watching after about half an hour.Booth brothers, heed my advice: Take the After Effects OFF your system. Just get rid of it. Learn how to tell a story without it. Learn how to use straight cuts and classic dissolves. Learn how to assemble your work in chronological order.Have some faith in your audience. Just because YOU apparently spend your entire lives hopped up on meth and caffeine doesn't mean that your viewers are as itchy and twitchy as you are.Ultimately, the audience wants to become engrossed in a narrative. We want to be hooked. We don't want our eyeballs slammed continuously by "cool" images that don't have any relationship with each other.Also: If you want to be taken seriously, either don't appear on camera or cultivate a different look. You guys look like a couple of pimps from El Paso.
