TinsHeadline Touches You

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

Helllins It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

GL84 Trying to develop a news story, a reporter and her crew intending to follow up a recent spate of home foreclosures instead stumbles upon a strange unseen supernatural spectre following them and must try to solve the mystery of his appearance before it's too late.For the most part this one here isn't really all that interesting or enjoyable. What really holds this one down is the fact that like so many other films of it's ilk the whole thing being presented as a found-footage effort really underscores so much of what's going on in this one. Forcing itself into all the usual trappings with this style gives this one such a rather bland and tired feel here where it's pretty heavily flawed just by the general sense of familiarity runs rampant throughout here. This one isn't all that original or creative in the genre and really doesn't do much to really differentiate itself from the usual tropes associated here by constantly failing to focus on something that should be front-and- center in the main part of the frame, getting way too many shots that wouldn't occur unless someone was specifically trying to make a film of this caliber on purpose as well as the ever-dreaded scenario of managing to keep filming in scenes where a person's life is in danger which is quite a troubling issue here with this one as this leads into many scenes with utterly troubling and infuriating behavioral choices designed to push the film further along rather than anything to save themselves. The shaking camera that keeps running throughout the film never helps either as there's so many potentially amazing scenes ruined by the inability to properly tell what's happening during the action. Still, the root cause of the film's problems lie in the fact that this one just doesn't have any real fear or terror in its lead. If there was no mention of who he was in the film's promo materials you wouldn't know who he was in the film proper as it never explains who he was, how he came into being and why he's targeting the troupe here makes for a series of questions about what's going on with this one as there's nothing given here about that main villain which just takes so much fear out of this one. Lastly, the film's pacing is so off here that it seems to take forever in setting up an encounter or attack by the mysterious figure yet it breezes by without much difficulty in that it manages to remain watchable despite nothing happening at all as it seems to focus a lot more on simply getting them to yell and argue with each other over his sanity rather than showing why it's deserved or even setting up chilling encounters on its own. This results in a large discrepancy here with the pacing really being another big factor holding this one down. There's a few solid parts to it, as the central idea gleamed from what's going on with the killer is a solid core idea of a mysterious being tormenting a group of friends, and how it goes about delivering some solid action in the later half where they get targeted at the house and later on in the cabin refuse which are somewhat chilling and creepy set-ups here. Still, this one has too many problems to really generate much else.Rated R: Violence and Language.

Bridgette Hecht *SPOILERS AHEAD!!* Small ones, not that important but smallSo I'll first say I thought this was going to be the worst piece of poop called a movie in the history of movies... And I was wrong! This has great actors who look panicked when they see him in the cameras, sad when a dog dies, and the best screams when Slendy opened a door with so much force that it could break a wall. The setting perfectly sets the mood like in the actual marble hornets production (I've watched the Marble Hornets Entries twice). You knew exactly where they were and what they were doing.I don't understand why people hate it. Yes the idea of not seeing him with the bare eye is not on the same legend, but they only did that so people could understand why they needed the cameras. It's just they way of making this more suspenseful.I also don't understand why people can't find a plot to this. I could make a whole summary of the movie in 1 single paragraph.The final thing I don't understand is why do people not like the idea of the camera isn't a 3rd person POV, but a 1st person camera.In conclusion, this movie was a masterpiece that deserves to be told so.

dcarsonhagy First of all to the moron who wants to spell stupid (s-t-o-o-p-i-d), get a life (or dictionary). Don't whine to people in your review about (sic) stoopid editing and then--for whatever reason--turn around and misspell the word. But I digress.I found "Always Watching" on On-Demand. Since it didn't cost an arm and a leg (only $3.99), I thought I'd give it a try. As it began, it tended to drag just a little bit, and the viewer may think "here we go again" with the found footage premise, which has just about been beaten to death along with that proverbial horse. It seems a family has mysteriously disappeared and, rumour has it, they were driven away by a mysterious man soon to be known as "The Watcher." Trouble is, it seems this man only turns up on camera. Three journalists are given the task of going through many reels of film trying to find some connection and, viola, they find...something.As stated before, the found-footage genre is about as overdone as the Friday the 13th, Halloween, and Saw series. This one, which I think pays homage to "Sinister," is a cut above most. I thought the editing was what sold the picture for me. Again, this movie proves you don't have to have a screen awash with blood to scare people. In fact, I don't really know why this is rated R. It could have easily been PG- 13. Angus Scrimm (of "Phantasam" fame) make a brief appearance as a mentally disturbed patient.I thought "Always Watching" would make for a fun viewing for a sleep- over for ages 12 and up. Rated "R" for language. It's what you don't see that scares you. Recommended.

Liam Blackburn Oh No....There's a guy in the camera, and he keeps popping in and out of view. He is like a poltergeist who haunts video cameras. Then he leaves these cult marks on people's skin to show that he has claimed them to haunt. He is like a demon, but also a ghost, and also a spook. The moments of suspense are too much to take. The ghost is too scary to actually look at the screen. He is just a guy in a suit....but he has like no face or something....There's something mysterious. But, the camera guy, he secretly follows the girl around and stalks her. Then he says he loves her. Then there is this guy in the camera...but the guy takes his camera everywhere...it's connected I think.