GamerTab That was an excellent one.

MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Bill C I've seen a lot of movies, and I've seen a lot of *terrible* movies. This movie doesn't even rank as terrible. It had Roger Bart in it. That's the only high point. I wouldn't even consider this "horror" or a "thriller." I'd simply rank it as a "bargain bin movie" that nobody should ever watch unless you need something to help you fall asleep. I can't say enough bad things about this movie. I logged in specifically to tell you how bad it was. I don't usually tend to notice bad acting, so it wasn't even that, although my wife did mention the acting was bad. Whomever wrote the story or adapted it to a screenplay should NEVER write another horror piece... ever again.

grammyscold Pros: Very good lead actress. Likable, believable, attractive, interesting, confident, and charismatic. The guy that played the professor was light years ahead of the other males, in terms of chops. I was impressed by the sure-handed direction, too; there were no big blocking mistakes or glaring camera placement errors that had me shaking my head (unlike so many recent big-budget horror movies --Ixm looking at you Final Destination peeps). Also good was the tension and atmosphere. Continuity was fine. Engaging philosophy discussions were refreshingly anti-social. Sort of nice to see /b/ mentioned in a movie, but then again it kind of peeved me seeing how the filmmakers piggybacked on its cachet. Technically proficient in almost every category.Cons: The end of the movie is atrocious! It makes zero sense. I refuse to accept it. The young male characters were garbage; way too broadly written, simple, and uninteresting. Creature design was dirt-poor. Logically, this movie held water like a colander. Finally, the biggest sin this movie committed in my opinion is not showing any girl nips bare bottoms, shagging, or any tangibly yummy displays of any kind, whatsoever. I might have missed a few minutes here and there, so maybe I missed the appearance of the moaning beast with two backs? Regardless, every quality horror movie has oodles and oodles of graphic or at least strongly suggestive content. Therefore, this was not a quality horror movie, period.And another thing, you little punks: There is no such thing as a YouTube star, OK? The word is celebrity, not star. Everybody knows stars. Grandmas, uncles, rocket-stove Luddites, even the "you knee bomber" knew the names of stars. They are household names. Minus grumpy cat y'all got nothing'.

catfishman Yeah, so I watched 2012's Smiley last night.It's a piece of crap with a stupid plot, a stupid attempt at a "twist"… and I'm sure some freakin' hipster will defend it as the direction of the new "Artcore" movement.Just because you call a piece of crap a rose, doesn't make it a rose.So, a girl starts college, and her partying new dorm mate invites her to a party. Once there she's introduced to "Smiley" – You get in an Internet chat room with someone, and while you are there, you type "I did it for the lulz" three times, and magically something bad happens to the person on the other side of the chat window. Not a terrible idea for a horror movie, but unfortunately, it is a terrible horror movie. I'm not even 100% sure where it went off the track, but it was one of those movies where you just end up waiting for it to end.

jdluv Should anyone ask me the reason why I watched this movie, my response would be, "It was on... and it seemed interesting."This movie seemed to be some kind of cross between "Pulse," "Cry_Wolf" and "Hackers," but had none of the suspense, complexity, sincerity or, quite frankly, the depth. Jump-out-of-your-seat scares were minimal, but I'll disregard that as not all horror or slasher movies need to be scary to be good.It wasn't the acting that made the movie bad. The acting was fairly decent, but it was the script and plot that needed the most work. You could tell by the end of the movie, some of the main cast were bored to tears. And it's understandable why as there seemed to be only four scenes in the movie, just recycled and repeated. Party-scare scenes-Main Girl is going crazy-class scenes. There is absolutely very little plot and what are supposed to be scares, are pretty much just the same jump sequences over and over again. It's repetitive, and by the end, arduous.Now let's talk about the ending. The last three minutes of the movie are devoted to explaining a "Cry_Wolf"-esque practical joke... except that it's not a joke and everyone around her is just a psycho who would be better off as tertiary or background characters in "The Following." Adding insult to injury, the group is apparently a a distant branch to the hactivist group Anonymous (also making references to popularized memes from 4chan). While Anonymous and 4chan have made some fervent, rather amoral, attempts at justice, killing for the sake of creating a viral serial killer seems just a tad of a stretch. A rather insulting stretch for those of us well-versed in recent media.And now, after considering this movie all over again, my final thoughts on this movie are, "Go find a stream site that's playing 'You're Next.' It won't insult you're intelligence too much, and it's a lot more fun to watch."