Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Matt345 I saw this movie on a list of recommended horror movies. Scary movies have a pretty low bar in that they don't require excellent writing, characters and artful direction, as long as they are scary. This is all the more true for "Found Footage"-features. Basically, they can have many faults, and don't need to be "very good", as long as they make for some sort of intense watching experience.This movie, in my opinion, has a serious flaw that amounts to false advertising, though with the pretty wishy-washy criteria for horror movies even this might be forgiven or be seen as a matter of taste. Nonetheless, I will count it. It is not so much a scary movie because of creepy encounters, but for a lot of the running time it is a psychological horror of the characters freaking out and suffering over the evil scenario of being pointlessly looked in that creepy and haunted house for a long time.That is, the creepy encounters are less relevant than essentially watching the characters, for a major part of the running time, being locked in and going mad over time. If you like this sort of sh** (and since it's exploitational, it's fitting to use such language), or are just one of those who are easily impressed by such a "twist" or evil "trick" of sorts, you might like this, other than that I find it false advertising, and basically a flaw in concept.Ultimately, it makes for a fundamental weakness of many lesser horror films, which is conflating "annoying" with "scary". This is definitely one of those films which though somewhat scary, rely heavily on being annoying, and it does that by making generous use of its running time, to make the annoyance more real to the viewer.(And I find the supernatural encounters that happen after the point this becomes clear, although increasing, are also not scary anymore, but silly and annoying; mostly as inconveniences, though sometimes as dangerous.)Other than that, I found there was some needless snivelling and screaming (by the woman, who is terrible casting), even relatively early on, I guess that counts as the usual imperfections and even tropes of the genre (with its low bar).

jonesarmyofchampions After reading most of the other reviews, I thought I was in for one of the scariest movies I had ever seen. I couldn't have been more surprised.But something about it just kept falling short for me, and I don't really no why. Creepy atmosphere? Yep, extremely creepy, but just not filmed in a way to maximize it.Jump scares? Yes they were there, but for some reason they just weren't really scary. Perhaps they were telegraphed to the point that I knew they were coming.Creepy ghosts? Yes, but once again they just fell short of being scary for me.I wouldn't say this is a bad movie, because the acting and everything is pretty solid, it just wasn't really scary. All the right elements were there, between the location, sound, etc., it just didn't really do it for me.***Minor Spoiler Alert*** In fact I found myself picking out spots in the movie that WOULD have made great places for jump-scares and surprises, but they just didn't get used for that. Ex: it's a horror film staple these days to have the camera on a particular character, pan away from the character, then return to them a moment later with a ghost/monster right behind/next to them. It's cheap, but it works well. This movie had TONS of places where that would have been fantastic, but I don't recall seeing that technique used even once.There were all kinds of long, dark hallway shots that would have been perfect for showing a ghost/spirit in the background, but it never happened. The movie was filled with shots of the characters roaming the dark halls of an abandoned mental asylum, walking blind into dark/creepy rooms, so I was waiting for them to round the corner and have something scary right there in your face, but that never happened either.I'm not saying all horror/scary movies should follow the tried-and- true techniques all the time, but this movie could have really been well-served to use a few of them.I'm giving it a 5/10 because although it wasn't a bad or poorly produced movie, it just wasn't really scary for a horror movie. Plenty of other people thought it was though, so by all means check it out if you're so inclined.

jacobjohntaylor1 This is a very boring movie. It is badly written. The acting it o.k but still it very boring. I do not know why it got 6.1. It seems like all you to do to scary kids these day it make it a Found footage movie. Does not matter if it is a slow movie. That has an awful story line. And has an awful ending. You have to be some one who to easy to scary to be scared of this cheesy movie. I do not know why people keep giving it a 7. I give it a 1. If you want see a really scary movie see King Kong (1933). Son of Kong is also very scary. King Kong (1976) is also very scary. King Kong lives is also very scary. King Kong (2005) is also very scary. But this is just a wast of time and money. Do not see it.

znegative I've been on the search for a truly frightening movie. For some reason I remember the first few Paranormal Activity films really freaked me out, so naturally I thought 'Grave Encounters' would be more of the same. The fact that this film didn't make me flinch once makes me curious to watch the paranormal movies again, to see if I had just been super stoned at the time.The premise for Grave Encounters is clever enough. A 'Ghost Busters' type reality show crew shows up at an abandoned mental hospital to report a haunting, without ever believing that anything paranormal could possibly occur. They soon find themselves locked inside the building and menaced by a malevolent spirit.I'm disappointed to say that throughout the film I was waiting to feel that sense of dread in my chest, hoping for that sense of suspense that has a person want to turn on the lights during a very frightening sequence. But that moment never came. What was frustrating about the whole thing was that I thought the idea and setting were perfect for a good horror movie. Hell, even the actors were convincing (asides from 'Matt'), which leads me to place the blame on the directors, who I hope in the future will be able to truly follow through on creating a scary movie (to their credit, the ALMOST had it here).Honestly, the whole time I was watching this movie I was thinking back to 'As above, So below', one of the few found-footage films after Paranormal Activity that got it right, and achieved true scares and suspense. Part of what made that film work was the setting and the sense of claustrophobia, and what's so frustrating is that Grave Encounters almost had that too!Don't get me wrong, it's not a terrible movie. For a 'Found-Footage' piece, it's actually very top notch in terms of quality. If you scare easily, I imagine this one will do the trick. It's certainly better than 'Insidious', which has been labeled as one of the most frightening movies of the decade, though I thought it was laughable. Furthermore, if you did like this, I'd highly recommend watching 'As Above, So Below' which is in a similar vein but done right.