WOT?  Not "Unrated Director's Cut"?  I'm shocked, especially as this was only a PG-13 here in the states.

This movie was awful, I barely stayed awake the entire time. Every time the tension started to build, it was quickly dropped and never gave the chance for the film to be suspenseful or creepy in any way. I really wanted to enjoy it but it let me down. It's really time for these camcorder/ shaky-handed/ mockumentary films to go away. They are far from fresh or exciting anymore.

If it didn't have all that other c**p... the cover would be quite cool.

Had the Rotten Tomato meter not been at a 72%, I would have given this movie a 2/4. Since I'm feeling generous and I kind of want to match the RT meter, I'm giving it a 2.5/4. All in all, this is a decent film, but very flawed.

The movie is nowhere near as scary as the critics are making it out to be. Shoot, I found "Paranormal Activity" scarier. This movie builds the suspense so high and then in the next scene, it loses it. If the point is to build suspense, why just stop and leave the viewer hanging? Also, the ending was AWFUL. Can you say AWFUL? And, the beginning was a chore to sit through. 45 minutes of unnecessary and boring dialogue. And since it's about 80 minutes (without credits), that means more than half of the film is already done.

However, I can see why people give it a 2.5 because it didn't strive for the typical blood and gore. And also, the acting was very solid. Although, while I still mildly recommend it, I would HIGHLY suggest a rental. This movie is not one that was made for rewatchability.

matt86 wrote: Look u gotta form ur own opinions dont let RT decide for u, thats insane and u lose some credibility. Thats like me saying roger ebert liked it so i love it a little bit more. Just a silly thing to say.

You've got the wrong idea, lol. What I mean by "trying-to-fit-RT", I mean, I try to view the way critics do when viewing a film. If they think it's entertaining and it's boring, I try to find the film entertaining, just to view a film with different perspectives. That's what makes a film more interesting.

Now there have been exceptions my friend. I thought Afterlife was a fun movie and would proudly give it a 2.5/4 even though it got a 10% on RT.

As for Ebert, try to find a more credible source, lol. Roger may go out of the crowd for fun movies, but when it comes to classics, his reviews are WAY off. I mean, he gave A clockwork orange 2 stars. Enough said.

I hear ya now, sorry for the confusion and i see what ur saying about trying to view it differently

This movie could have been the new Exorcist if they would have just let it alone and made if R instead of this PG 13  .No wonder people hate this movie shaking camera work more scenes cut out and a stupid ending .

I am so sick and tired of blue ray getting all the special features not everyone owns a blue ray player yet I don;t have one this sucks