Look, I *get* it, I just don't *like* it.

Rating: Null/10 (16 December 1999)

So much has been said about the minimalism of this film, about the way it builds up suspense and fear by selectively restricting what you see, that it comes as quite a disappointment that the elements which inspire total hysteria in this tormented trio are so earth-bound and tangible. There is simply no sense of mysticism.
The most clever aspect of this movie is that virtually all continuity and dramatic weaknesses can be explained away by the basic concept that we are only seeing what the three students had filmed. Any blanks that we feel exist we have to fill in for ourselves (does this make it interactive?). If you had to argue the case for the legitimacy of the structure of this film you could easily do it - but you don't have to, you have to sit through it - and that's not quite so easy.
The exposition is obvious and cliched. The mock-umentary has been done oh-so-many times before. The middle section is alternately grating and tedious. Due to the absence of hours and hours of footage, supposedly when the trio weren't actually filming their misadventures, there are a number of strange dramatic anomalies when characters seem to develop particular attitudes completely out-of-the-blue. It may be true to the film-makers concept of "found footage" but it sure doesn't make for interesting or appealing (or even understandable) characters. There are a couple of effective sequences - Josh's confrontational "this is your motivation" routine and Heather's "I'm so sorry" scene are both quite strong - but they only serve to show up how weak the bulk of the dialogue really is. The ending I thought was far too literal, although I would like someone to explain to me just who was holding the 16mm camera in the final sequence.
When you pare the story down (it's already wafer-thin) it reveals a basic premise that is only a very slight variation on the traditional slasher flick. They're lost in the woods, they're scared, they're being hunted, they're screaming, they're turning on each other, they're screaming, they're hungry, they're being hunted, they're screaming... etc etc. I'm not going to reveal anything that could be considered a 'spoiler' but you really aren't going to get anything from this movie that you haven't seen (many times) before. It just appears to be different for stylistic reasons.
You may be tempted to argue the case of the presentation of this film, that it is innovative and inspired. Sure, it may be unusual to see this particular style on the big screen at your local megaplex, but it's nothing that you couldn't have experienced at your local art college or film school at virtually anytime since the late sixties. I'm serious. I mean good on 'em and everything - they've challenged the big boys and their big budgets and they've won handsomely (if it means that we may not have to sit through Godzilla 2 or 3 it can only be a good thing) - but get a grip and look at the film itself in isolation. It's simply not the event it has become.

Also, if the film-makers where *absolutely* true to their initial concept, shouldn't we have seen the footage in two separate sections - the video footage and the 16mm footage. The fact that it has been spliced and edited together by someone dampens its alleged authenticity (for me, at any rate).