Thehibikiew Not even bad in a good way

Iseerphia All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

Sabah Hensley This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

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.

smakar This is an incoherent mess of a video, worse than most amateur videos on YouTube.The plot, such as it is, involves a group of young people visiting an abandoned building which is being converted into a "haunted house". During this visit, one of the youths tell the others a story of a group of paranormal investigators who went missing the previous year when filming an investigation of this site. And of course, they find that the story/myth is real.In an attempt to be somewhat objective, I've rated this movie based on three categories: a) Story/Plot/Characters, b) Acting, and c) Production Values (Editing, Sound Quality, Visual Appeal). Each category was ranked by the following scores: 0 = Abysmal 1 = Below Average 2 = Average 3 = Above AverageOn top of the above total possible of 9, I have a wild-card point given if some facet of the film made me go WOW, or made me wish to see it again very soon because I enjoyed it so much.a) Story/Plot/Characters - 0 points. The plot was a mess. This movie couldn't decide if it was a ghost story or a slasher flick, and thus failed at both. If was hard to follow if a segment being shown was from the past or the present. The "storyteller" said that the entire investigative crew disappeared without a trace, yet in the "flashback" it appeared that there were two survivors - so what happened to them? In all fairness, it may be a matter of my brain having shut down by then. As for the characters, they were ALL annoying, with the exception of a single character, with the most charisma and who showed the most emotion, and he was a stoned-faced American Indian.b) Acting - 0 points. I normally give a lot of latitude in this category, for I have a fondness for B movies, and can enjoy the most amateur performances. The problem with this film is I cannot separate the performances from the characters - it's hard to enjoy a performance when I'm spending the time wishing the character would just die (in the film). One of the biggest surprises was finding one of the actors to be the (in my opinion) great Michael Rooker - and even his performance was phoned in - it was as if it was an audition of his before he had any acting lessons.c) Production Values (Editing, Sound Quality, Visual Appeal) - 0 points. As bad as the rankings for the other two categories were, this one was the worst! The editing was sloppy - it seemed like they used rehearsal takes that were quickly setup with no attention to framing, and the cuts from the present to the past were confusing. There was nothing scary about the location since it all took place during the daytime, which by highlighting all the graffiti on the walls, simply emphasized all the people who have visited this location. But the bottom of the barrel is the sound quality - it was as if someone was sitting on the microphone, or it was pointed opposite of the actors. There was even a moment about 2/3's through where a sound blurb was inserted - like a clip from another movie was accidentally spliced in. Of course, with all the F-bombs having a muddled sound track could be considered a positive thing.One of the biggest surprises was to find who directed this mess (and this was the first time I had to look outside of IMDb to find details about a movie): none other than Michael Rooker! I can't believe that someone with his experience could create such an abysmal piece of excrement. Once I found this out, I couldn't help but think of the difference between this movie and Josh Stewart's directorial debut: The Hunted. I guess having a lot of experience of being in front of the camera counts for nothing towards being behind the camera.If it was possible, I would have ranked this movie as 0, but am settling with 1 (the lowest possible).You have been warned......

Leofwine_draca THE LOST EPISODE is another in a long line of no-budget found-footage ghost films set in abandoned asylums, following on from the likes of the GRAVE ENCOUNTERS films and EPISODE 50. This one's the worst yet, despite the presence of cult horror favourite Michael Rooker (HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER) working as both director and guest star.This film features a muddled narrative set in both past and present, repeatedly swapping between the two time zones. One narrative involves a film crew shooting a documentary in the asylum, the other involves the stereotypical group of teenagers out for a thrill. Lots of lame wandering around and godawful dialogue scenes are interspersed with some extraordinarily lame deaths.The movie's cast is appalling, with not one actor standing out from the quagmire. Rooker wisely hides his face behind a mask for the most part, but as a director he displays no discernible talent whatsoever; stick to what you're good at, dude, i.e. stay in FRONT of the camera where we want to see you! Needless to say there's nothing else worth mentioning here, because it's an entirely worthless film and comes close to meriting the dreaded 'one star' rating.

XPJKingX A 2 is being nice. I'm very surprised that Beverley Mitchell & Haylie Duff are associated with this video (yup, filmed on vid not film). Then I saw they helped produce it. Ouch! C'mon ladies! I wanted to stop watching after 20 minutes but out of a love of Bev & Haylie I continued til the end. The acting is some of the worst I've ever seen. Although Haylie does a good job at being believable the rest of the cast is pretty blah. Sorry to say Bev even wasn't up to par in this and I'm a big fan of hers. It's categorized as horror, I see it as comedy. I see the budget was 1 million. Where'd it go? Certainly not into the making of this movie. With Michael Rooker directing you'd think the movie would be worth a watch. Sorry, Mr. Rooker. Don't quit your day job.

Alexia Coleman Before watching this movie, I looked at reviews on here and other websites. Pretty much all of them were awful, claiming it to be a low- budget, less than satisfactory movie. However, I was skeptical a movie could be as bad as people claimed. Besides, I give most films a chance and see the good side of most.Saying that, after I proceeded to put it on and watch it, I sat with my mouth open, marveling at just how not-scary a "horror" could be. It's an 18-cert but, if I'm brutally honest, a 12 would be pushing it.There were next to no scary, suspense moments in it, the plot was so simple a child could have written it and I thought it was indescribable. Usually, I'd say it's just not for me, but I couldn't see anybody enjoying this movie and recommending it as a respectable horror or thriller.I was really disappointed but at least I'll take more notice of cynical reviews now- don't waste your time with this.