Monday, 25 June 2012


This movie was based on a true story. Without doing any research what-so-ever, I'm guessing the true story is that "once we were gathered around a camp fire and tried to scare each other with bad ghost stories, and then I decided to make a movie and stick them all together."

Somehow, a journalist researched a story about events that happened a decade earlier. Although (spoilers!) she went missing, we know what she did. And although the 'one survivor' from the time ago isn't speaking, we know what happened to the half-dozen college students back then. And the events involved ghosts and lots of strangeness, and clearly this is not made up at all.

Actual searching only shows references to this movie, so why bother to even say that this was based on true events? Especially as it makes no sense at all (as a narrative that is). Is there some added veracity from being based on true events that we are suddenly to accept ghosts and the like? For some thrillers, etc., sure, it's mainly asshole people at the source, and that is believable, but not here. Just no idea what the writer/director was thinking.

So, a bad psychological thriller, with a messy story, and nothing worthy to say. Welcome to the large pile of movies, there are a lot like you...


No comments: