SunnyHello Nice effects though.

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Platypuschow I really do believe that with a couple of rare exceptions that once you've seen one found footage movie you truly have seen them all.This is another that is presented in the form of evidence footage, it covers several different groups and there last moments on earth in the forest.What's after them you ask? Well, it's not entirely explained and like most movies of the genre you don't see all too much.So what do you see? A lot of average character development, a ton of shaky cam work and the usual screaming. Lots, and lots and lots of screaming.Sadly that's about it, very little happens and when it did it leaves you questioning why they even bothered.It's not the worst of its kind of seen, but it's still a mess devoid of entertainment value.The Good: The red eyes though ridiculous certainly are memorable The Bad: Very slow Usual clichés No originality at all Things I Learnt From This Movie: The whole found footage genre needs a reboot

cummyduck I don't want to write any spoilers, so just to say, this movie ticks all the boxes for found footage genre but does not break any new ground. You get the expected poor quality shaky film footage, the sound is surprisingly good with some nice creepy noises coming from the woods. A lot of the film is in the dark but that is usually a good thing for these types of films. The acting is better then average and the film has a good pacea bout it, not really any special effects to speak off but the creature is passable and not CGI which is something I always appreciate.If you enjoyed movies like Evidence (2012), The Dyatlov Incident (aka, Devils Pass), The Chernobyl Diaries etc then you will enjoy this film. Made me jump a couple of times which is always good!

Theo Robertson THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT has a lot to answer for . It started a fad for what became known as " lost footage film " and you can think of a couple more off the top of your head . You also know how formulaic these movies are too and when you've seen one you've basically seen them all . You know , improvised realist acting that appears too wooden or too over emphatic to be real and video scenes that conveniently relay the whole story intercut with random scenes trying - and utterly failing -to paint a picture of a day like any other that ultimately ends in horrorEYES IN THE DARK continues the trend and yet for some reason I found myself enjoying this film much more than I did with the over hyped and overrated BLAIR WITCH and the big budget CLOVERFIELD . I'm not going to make any claims that EITD is some de facto masterwork of cinema because it's not and is merely a low budget horror film shot on a video camera being waved about . But what it does it does better than most films in its ilk and it simply does it by having the actors shriek and act terrified at some noises just out of sight . I found some of the scenes very creepy which surprised me since I wasn't expecting much from the film and perhaps that had something to do with it

Greg In Bjorn Anderson's Eyes in the Dark, recovered video files discovered by the F.B.I. showcase the perilous story of a group of college students who while on a trip in a remote cabin, come face-to-face with a mountain legend that brings evil and ultimate death to all those it meets.Shot in POV (or as some like to call it, Blair Witch-style), Eyes in the Dark effectively uses the dark and the terrifying idea of eyes staring back at you from the black abyss to develop a story told through multiple media devices.The results are every bit as scary as they are uneven. The scary does eventually befall those patient enough to wait out the set-up. There are creatures in them there hills and their wolf-like howls are just as terrifying as their red glowing eyes.Shot on an estimated budget of $100,000 (source: IMDb.com), Anderson uses his limited balance wisely and keeps the reveal of the creatures until the final reels. Even with their identity shown to the audience, the camera angles are such that long detailed views are impossible. This can either work effectively (see Cloverfield) or can be utterly annoying and Eyes in the Dark walks the thin line between both.Unfortunately, the film is dragged down by some of the inferior acting of the small ensemble. Wayne Bastrup and Paul Eenhoorn stand out in their individual performances but the remaining cast seem at times uninterested in Bjorn's script or at the very least, unsure of how to deliver their lines. And a sub-plot storyline about jealousy amongst the young college co-eds just doesn't seem to resonate as anything of importance.Eyes in the Dark has played on the festival circuit with stops at Stiff 2010, Killer Film Fest, Local Sightings Film Festival and as an official selection at the 2010 Fright Night Film Fest.www.killerreviews.com