This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Nothing happens for 3/4 of the movie. The first 40 minutes is acted about as well as a bad porn, and when the 'horror' portion finally comes, it isn't remotely scary. The cinematography is just as bad as the acting- full of shakes, overly long close ups, and awkwardly done body shots. The scene depicted on the cover looks better on the box than it does in the film by far, so don't let that fool you into believing there's at least one good scene, either. I don't think this one has a single redeeming quality. Avoid this film!

In the opening of this film, shot on location in Burger King, some amateur film makers decide to investigate a house which the owners think is haunted. The plan is to con the home owners with some stunts, prove how gullible people are and then reveal to them that it's all been a joke at their expense. What could possibly go wrong? From these opening scenes it's clear that none of these guys can act at all. They aren't even natural enough in front of the camera to pass as extras.When they turn up they find the kid (who is the only one who can act) actually levitating and not only that, catch it on camera. Bingo! Except this doesn't change their plan one bit. Nor does a girl getting dragged out of a room by a ghost in grand comic style or people getting badly scratched. That's how well written this film is. It's supposed to be a found footage film but seems to forget that at times and makes no use of it at all other than an excuse for looking bad.I have to mention the girl who is supposed to be 'hot' because the film can't stop trying to direct your attention to her. Beauty is of course in the eye of the beholder but I think nine out of ten beholders would probably agree she has a freakishly long neck. They couldn't even get the tit shot right, presenting it in wobbly sideboobvision. Not that you'll care. If Nicole Neal came cartwheeling topless into the movie it still wouldn't repay the viewer for what they'd already sat through.At least she is trying to act, unlike the chortling psychic eunuch character who is supposedly a classically trained actor. The close up scenes of his face when he's in the van go on long enough to scorch his wobbly face onto the viewers retinas for an unwelcome length of of time afterwards.What I found absolutely hilarious though is the very end credits which begin trying to convince you that what you just saw was 100% authentic footage. As if anyone would actually be sat there wondering if it was real or not. So funny. It almost made this home video worth watching.

Documenting The Grey Man is one of the worst examples of the found footage genre. The film just isn't convincing enough, and it has obviously adopted the whole found footage form in order to make a cheap film, rather than have it serve the story. The quality is obvious from the start, these characters are supposed to be a documentary film crew and yet they are incompetent at framing shots even if it's just an interview scene. The actors try to hard, which is the worst thing you could do in such a film. Getting characters to try and emote anger and sadness when they can barely say "I'm so scared" convincingly is never a good idea. It's a shame because it sounds interesting at first. This group are investigating a ghost that simply predicts hurricanes. However, by the end of the film it has abandoned this line of investigation for typical scenes of séances and the like. I have no idea what this ghost is doing or why because it flies in the face of the mythology the film has supposedly set-up. The film drags on for 40 minutes before anything happens, and even then it makes no sense. Absolutely no sense at all! One character is grabbed by an unseen force and is dragged across a room. She even has scratches on her arm, yet she still accuses the lead guy of faking everything at the end. What? She was a victim of an obvious paranormal occurrence. The end has everybody attacked by spirits just off screen and leave no wonder as to how they did it. One character is dragged under the bed, but her hand is still in shot for a few seconds before it cuts away. It's shoddy, not scary, and just a waste of time.

OK. A decent idea and starts of with quite a good back story. But then... well actually nothing much. The actual programs this is supposed to be parodying are scarier with more tension. A big disappointment and simply a waste of what could have been quite a decent film. The acting is extremely fake, even for characters that are attempting to pretend they are something else, and the whole thing is shot in 3 rooms... Yawn... Do yourself a favour and do not bother. I think every other film on the market of this genre is scarier... Actually walking with a night vision camera around my own house would be scarier. Maybe I should try that and make a movie. Would be better than this rubbish... Avoid!