Blair Witch, Chronicle, and REC were done well imo. I hated Paranormal Activity, and I haven't seen Cloverfield or Apollo 18. In any case, I think the film itself is much more important than whether or not it's presented as "found footage".
Blair Witch was done exceptionally well, given it was pretty much a first and they put a shitload of money and effort making fake websites and other hoaxes to give the impression the footage was legit, and not just a horror movie. There were a lot of people going in that thought what they were seeing was real, and found the film all the more engrossing because of it. So big props to the film makers there.
With something like "Blair Witch" we don't even know if there was a monster, if it was psycho towns people, a witch, a dead child molester, or a bunch of kids who all dropped their camera after playing "creepy ghost time" in the woods
Maybe you weren't paying close enough attention but the monster was in fact the Blair witch, IIRC. In one scene they were talking about how the witch supposedly makes her victims stand in the corner or something like that, and at the end the camera girl finds the guy in the shack standing in the corner.
I would hate to say 'no' because there are people who refuse to watch anything that's silent or, black-and-white or whatever else but in all honesty the only found footage movie that I watched and liked was Cloverfield. Blair Witch Project was my first FF movie and it was the worst film I've ever sat through so that's probably why I'm soured to the genre. I haven't seen Chronical yet and that was the last one that looked interesting to me.
I like good films. Stands to reason if it was good, I'd like a found footage film. It's just that a lot are terribly cheap and lazy. Honestly, if a found footage film is made with dedication to quality and with a solid script and acting, I don't see why the style would get in the way.
There is a problem with the style in that they tend to give me a headache, but that's not really something the film has any deft control over, so I won't hold it against the film.
I hate them with passion.
I dont see the point. the camera work is just wobbly and annoys me.
If it is a good story, I am sure they can produce it in another style and still make it good.
Maybe it's because I've only really seen two of them and hence it's got the added freshness factor, but I'd say I like it.
As a big fan of disaster movies I liked how Cloverfield really put you into the shoes of one of the thousands of people running through the city streets as shit gets torn apart by the giant monster. Furthermore, the format really lended itself to creating a sense of mystery about the monster (until that bit at the end where you get a nice good look at the bastard) which is pretty unique for a gargantuan city-destroying behemoth.
As someone who enjoys a good time at the movies and relishes a good shock I really enjoyed watching Paranormal Activity 3 with some friends when it was at the cinemas. I liked the fact that the camera being an actual camera in the movie lended itself to some pretty unique set-ups (such as a point when they decide to jerry-rig a camera set-up that rotates left and right periodically, making it so that as the view returned to a part of the room each time there'd been something that had been changed by the demon). Furthermore the fact that it was presented as being like a haunting caught on home-video helped to accentuate a lot of the scares i.e there was this scene towards the end wherein
The guy operating the camera is running for his life through a house which he's now discovered belongs to the witch cult behind all the haunting shenenigans, and as he's running he turns this corner and suddenly BAM, he (we) comes face-first with a group of the witches
and I feel like it was made scarier by the fact that there was no dramatic sting, no special camera angle, just the pure terror of what was going on in the scene.
So yeah, while I think these movies probably would've still been good if they had been done in a conventional style (human perspective in a monster movie and 80's ghost respectively) for the reasons listed I feel like considering the effect the movies were going for they were only made better by the found-footage effect they went for.
Therumancer said:
In a more fantastic case, if there WAS actually a Slenderman, a haunted "Candle Cove" broadcast, or anything of the sort, simply by being mentioned on Something Awful or other sidtes, and going viral with all the amateur creations nobody would take it seriously. I mean Slendy could be behind you right now, take you out on your webcam, and if the video was uploaded everyone would just assume it's one of a million similar videos people made for lulz (queue X-files music).
*shudder* Well...I'm officially scared now. Though on that note, because of that influx you could probably do something that sort of does the opposite but for a similar yet greater effect. What I'm saying is, if it were something viral, maybe it just seems like some ordinary vlog or something, and for the observant eye you do see discreet shadows and monsters and blood-stains and what-not in the background while all the while this innocent vlogger is oblivious to it video after video...RUN VLOGGER, RUN BEFORE SLENDERMAN GETS YOU!Hell, they could do the same for a regular movie, make it so on the surface everything seems normal (like it's a light-hearted comedy or a romantic film or something) but a bit off, then at the end the character (and you) realise that the whole time there were monsters in the background, muffled screams in the distance, that kind of thing.
I see it as an interesting and valid technique that can be pretty damn effective. Cloverfield had me on the edge of my seat. However, as with any "technique" prevalently used, it can also be pretty damn effective at inducing tedium.
I usually don't like them. There are of course exceptions, but I tend to really dislike the whole "shaky cam" thing that those movies tend to do, and the fact that they're always grainy. Whenever I watch them it always ends up feeling like I'm wasting my the fact that I have an HDTV to watch them.
I think the can be good as long as the film makers arn't using it to cover up the movie being cheap but I found I liked the animal planet mockumentarys (dragons/mermaids are real) and they were found fotage but mostly with stationary camera which made it look real.
I really don't, I like the idea, but it either just annoys me because they never actually show what's going on (yes I know that is the point, but I just don't like that) or the camera is so bad it makes me nauseous, which is weird because I have never suffered any kind of motion sickness in my life, but those kind of films can knock me off like that.
Seen a few of them, and the people i go with generally seem to like them, but i will pass, its why I was pleasantly surprised that when that Chernobyl diaries turned out to not be found footage, because co me on that film had that genre written all over it, hell there is even a bait and switch opening.
Chronicle in my view, used it well. They played with the old "kid with a camera" trope from American Beauty, and the first person did help sort of to focus on the character. Being able to switch to a 3rd person steady view for the big set piece moments fixed it.
What I usually hate about them is shaky-cam nonsense and "Why is this moron lugging around a camera whilst in a zombie/wtf/alien invasion?" question, and that there's never any well structured shots, since the viewer is a participant. Which were all fixed with Chronicle, so I didn't mind.
Worse than shaky cam shooting has to be really rapid-cut editing. Michael Bay gets a lot of flack for this, and whilst I despise lots of his work, I think the worst example was Quantum of Solace. Half of the action in that film was rubbish. You've got scenes where two or three men in black tie, black suits, white shirts, are in a fight, and the cuts are happening once every 2 or 3 seconds. You don't get to follow the action. Car chases-a bunch of silver and black sedans and sports cars, cuts of wheels against the roads. Seriously, when I first watched it, I basically had no idea what was happening until the action scenes ended. I had to watch it again to get even the barest idea of what was happening. That and the shaking or moving cameras in those shots just ruin it.
Directors: Stop this. Fast cuts make the action seem frantic. But fast cuts also make the scene seem incoherent. You have to ride the line between coherent and giving the audience a rush, and if your film-making is up to scratch, we'll already have a rush because either a) something badass is about to happen or b) we care what happens to the characters.
I sort of do. It all depends on the overall quality of the story and how interesting the characters are, but yeah. I hate when they break away from the format or if it's not necessary to the story. I really liked Blair Witch, though. I'm usually the only one.
It's usually bad because now we have people making these movies because they're cheap to make no because of an artistic or any other sensible reason.
Look at Paranormal Activity 4. It should be called Normal Activity 4.
Generally, no.
It's not the kind of storytelling I like, it ends up limiting what you can show and do with the story.
I think the only 'found footage' movie I've really liked was Trolljegeren.
You can do good things with it, but way too often you don't get any actual characters, I dislike the way the camera moves and you don't see anything, and if it's horror, I just find it silly we are supposed to 'believe' it really happened. I'd rather have a good story to get into, it's sort of easier for me to suspend my disbelief to accept that this fictional world and characters are real, rather than that the film was actually found somewhere.
I suppose my biggest issue is that they tend to be horror. They just aren't scary to me most of the time.
But something like Trolljegeren, that was a comedy, worked for me.
Would something like 'The Wedding Video' considered to be found footage? Isn't it shot like it's a video shot by one of the characters?
I actually do quite a bit. Even if most of the people in the movies are acting like idiots or something, I enjoy the genre very much. Blair Witch was fine and creepy, Cloverfield is my own personal favorite, Quarantine and REC are pretty good too I guess, but Apollo 18 was just horrible. The Paranormal Activity movies are OK, didn't especially care for 3 though.
I guess what I like most is that the footage is suppose to give a "this could really happen" sort of thing. Usually someone is looking back at the footage and we are seeing what has already happened. All very believable to me given the right circumstances I suppose. Family terrorized by a demon ghost thing? Large Alien attacking New York? Kids lost in the woods by a supposed Witch? All makes sense why those would be filmed. I really liked how Cloverfield did it though. The main characters are just simple people who were attending a party and then they get caught up in everything, but they don't exactly know what's going on. They speculate, and simply try to find another friend, but no answers are specifically given. It makes sense, because how WOULD they know? They are just normal people.
Apollo 18 was pretty bad in this regard though.
Here is this footage that has never been revealed until now. Then the movie starts off and is like, "you saw those moon rock aliens right? Well just think about this: There are hundreds of those rocks on Earth right now! Be careful out there!"
And that just broke the "believable" angle for me. I liked the isolation of the characters and the monsters I guess, but jeez.
I also really liked Quarantine's main actress. Near the end she is just basically screaming her lungs out, which I always thought was great because not a lot of people in these movies actually do that like she did(just completely lose it when crap hits the fan). There's a scene were the elevator lights go out (which she's in), and she's yelling for them to come back on. I didn't find it annoying, but somehow just...real I guess.
Diary of the Dead was also pretty good. A college film crew/club trying to shoot a monster movie when the dead start walking. Also, one of the actors I thought was Eliza Dushku, but it wasn't. Seemed like a really good look a like though.
My only major complaint is the endings to most of these movies.
I know they are found footage for a reason, but does everyone have to die? Can't they just...drop the camera and leave?
Haven't seen Chronicle yet, but I heard its good. Should probably rent it.
So I would really like to see more Found Footage movies. As long as they at least hold my interest, then I'll keep seeing them I guess.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
