Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Willow Creek (2013)
7/10
Well acted and very organic
24 July 2014
I admit that I like found footage films, or, rather, I find that story telling device compelling. Assuming it's done well. To do it well, your film relies heavily on acting first, then editing, then sound They all work well here.

Too often, these sorts of films have actors who don't know what to say, or how to say it, as they are expected to improvise and aren't confident how to be "natural". In this film, the actors are brilliantly natural and their chemistry is superb. They are a very believable as a couple and as people.

The goal itself is interesting, as I have rarely watched a Bigfoot movie, so I found that part of the film at interesting spin. But really, the slow burn here is what really makes me like this movie.

As with other films in which the protagonist is a wannabe filmmaker, there are lots of establishing shots with the local townsfolk to talk up the legend, and to get a sense of what is to come. It's all done pretty realistically, and, again, the actors dialogue/exchanges with each other are especially convincing.

Again, this film is very much about the slow burn of tension. This is very much exemplified in a scene near the end that lasts nearly twenty minutes for one continuous shot. And it's not boring. At all. The actors are brilliant in the scene, as is the sound. It's a highly effective scene and you really begin to get into the same dread of what's next as the characters due to the immersive nature of the scene.

Overall, I really liked it. I think the director did a great job in choice/direction of actors, and the overall story was not over the top. It's a great example of how found-footage should be done.

Though, the film doesn't actually try to tell you it's found footage, it's just that the only point of view is the camera(s) used by the characters. But I'll assume someone found the footage in that fictional universe at some point.
46 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Amateur quality at best
6 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I was in the mood for a scary movie, and didn't see anything at most of the theaters at this time of year (December). But a local theater listed this movie, and after reading the description, I thought I'd give it a shot. It's a found-footage style film, which is getting to be a little overdone as a style, but can be very effective if handled well (which is what drew me). This film was not handled well.

SCRIPT

The story. Well, this isn't setup very well, and its narrated so carelessly, that I am not sure what the story really was. Overall, there are only 5 main characters, 3 of whom we spend most of the movie with. Two guys and one girl. They are apparently filming a reality show (for TV, web, who knows) about ghosts, the paranormal, or urban legends, or something (not clear from the movie). They are called to a house to investigate what happened to a girl who disappeared years before (NOT a spoiler: the opening scene shows this "disappearance"). The first scene of the movie shows this disappearance, and in that scene the girl doesn't know who's house it is, which is odd, because one of the main characters says the dad of the girl called him to come to his house to investigate her disappearance. How did she not know the house of her own dad?

The "story" takes place almost entirely at the house at which this girl disappeared. So what happens while they are there? Well, lots of walking from the living room, to the front door, to the bedroom, and back. Over and over again. All while saying things that make no sense. Characters say and do things in exceedingly unrealistic ways, poor motivations, unrealistic reactions, no meaningful backstory, characters seem to have no memory of the last 10 minutes, relations between characters are unclear, the backstory of the house is unexplained and on an on.

So, not much of a story. No character development, no real plot, nothing much to it. What little is there, seems to be poorly put together. You might be wondering how the title relates to the story. I've seen the movie, and I wonder the very same thing.

ACTING

The dialogue was so poorly written, it's hard to tell if the acting was that bad or the dialogue was bad, or if they were trying to improvise and not doing a good job. Even still, only the main girl seemed to remotely approach acting. Everyone else was wooden and unnatural. In once scene, one of the main guys is literally reading his lines from a notepad in front of him. Seriously.

I don't fault the acting too much, because the actors seemed not have been given enough to work with.

DIRECTING

I blame most of the poor quality of this film on the director. The actors were clearly not given very good directions, the location was poorly chosen, there is absolutely no tension in any scene (people see a ghostly apparition, but then moments later are chatting rather boringly with no sense of what just happened, etc). The main character leaves at one point to "make some calls" and then comes back with new clothes and a hair cut. You get no sense that the characters have EVER filmed a show of any sort before, even though that's what they are there for. The house isn't remotely creepy or foreboding, it looks like the director's aunt's house that had a few pieces of furniture covered with sheets. Seriously. They walk in a supposedly haunted house, and the door alarm chimes as they open and close the door. The house is clearly taken care of and lived in, but no reason is given for the absence of the owners.

And on and on. Scenes blend from one to the other as the characters go back and forth to the door, then to the bedroom then to the living room. All within about a 20 foot distance of each other. They talk of their "show", but seemed never to have filmed one before. They are at someone else's house, but we never meet them. There is supposedly a missing / ghostly girl, that no one seems afraid of when they see her. The main girl gets possessed briefly and no one cares. And, spoiler alert, one character kills another at the end, because, well, uh, you know, for a twist? Who knows.

Overall, I've never seen such a low quality movie in a theater. I thought the bar had to be a little higher than the stuff I shot when I was in high school.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A horror of a movie
1 November 2003
This movie was absolutely terrible. I am sometimes quite shocked that such ideas receive funding and actually make it to video. After watching the movie, it's actually quite hilarious listening to the director and producer wax philosophic about the degree of professionalism and quality they were attempting to achieve (but didn't). An especially funny moment (in the behind the scenes) was the producer describing how they spent literally months crafting the story and putting it together when one gets quite the opposite impression after viewing it.

I rarely rail on movies with such frankness, but this one almost angered me for wasting my time with such a poor effort. It only goes to show that it is not the paintbrush which makes a man a painter, but the images he creates.
18 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed