User Reviews (180)

Add a Review

  • Probably the most fascinating part of this entire film for me was that it was made in 1998. There's just something endlessly compelling about watching an extremely obscure amateur-style film from over 2 decades ago while perpetually being reminded that I'm getting older. It's a sensation completely different from watching a professionally filmed Hollywood movie from the 90s, probably similar to reading a personal diary from someone written in the 1800s rather than a professionally published novel.

    But the film itself was mildly intriguing in its own right. My only gripe would be that there was an insufficient balance between the first half (Jim and the trial and the sequence of events leading to the murder) and the second half (casting doubt on the alleged guilt of the suspect and an extremely slight possibility of the supernatural).

    I am a complete sucker for subtlety in movies like this, and this film executed it perfectly, to the point where any and all supernatural or paranormal implications are so slight that you could easily miss it completely.

    But while those things are dealt with with great subtlety, the film itself doesn't manage to rise beyond "mild" in terms of interest or excitement or compulsion. Aside from the incoherent ending, it all amounts to being overall "Neat", not so much boring or even entertaining. Just kind of neat.
  • The poster cover of the Last Broadcast claims 'Don't see it Alone'.

    This is a joke. This is not a horror film. It's not scary. The ending is a total anti-climax. I am baffled by comments claiming this has caused some viewers sleepless nights. I mean, come on people, really. When I watched this alone, my reaction was: 'is that it?' When I watched it a second time with my mates, after it ended, their reaction was: 'hey, where were the scary moments?'

    Forget this and go for the Blair Witch Project. A much superior film.
  • PetLecom9 April 2020
    Warning: Spoilers
    The Last Broadcast definitely has an intriguing premise and setup, but it's ultimately mostly squandered.

    The first half of this movie is definitely better than the second half. They do an effective job at explaining the situation and giving us some backstory on the characters. The acting during the interview segments is, for the most part, effective and comes off as genuine. I was really excited to see where everything was going to go but...

    It really starts to drag in the second half. They keep repeating the same things and the same footage we've already seen and heard. It really got boring after a while. I just kind of wanted them to get to the point but it only got worse. The film completely loses focus. In the last half hour it suddenly becomes a commentary on media? The 'message' feels clumsy and tacked on.

    And then there's the ending, the twist, the big reveal. I caught on a few minutes before it was revealed but thought there was no way it was actually going to happen. But it did. And it sucked. I get what they were going for, it's supposed to be this huge reveal that you aren't actually watching a documentary but everyone who's ever watched this movie knew they were watching a movie. It just comes off as silly and nonsensical. And oh my god, does the camera work look terrible after it changes styles. It's unbelievably cheap looking compared to the rest of the movie. It's almost parody levels of stupid as far as twists are concerned. It is such a disappointing payoff. Everything falls apart in the end.

    Starts off promising but gradually goes downhill before completely going off the rails at the end.
  • In 1995 a group of presenters for the cable TV show `fact or fiction' travelled into the woods to search for the Jersey Devil. When they are killed, one of the group, Jim Suerd, is convicted for the murder. Years later a documentary maker receives video tape not included in the trial and sets out to find what really happened.

    I don't care which film was made first and I don't care if `last broadcast' and `Blair witch' are similar or not. All I care about is if the film itself is any good. The set up is good – a documentary that is put together in the style of many documentaries you might see on channel 5 etc and it is easy to get taken away by it (if not taken in!). it feels like it's building to something and it's reasonably compelling. However this drive loses it's way as the film tries to make comments about the subjectivity of the media and it detracts from what happened on that night.

    This is a shame because the documentary style was well put together and believable. But the twist is silly (I think) and the final half hour could have been scary instead of trying to be a comment on the media. The acting is good if basic – it is just like they're playing themselves – but all the documentary contributors are totally believable.

    Overall it held my attention and is well made considering the budget. The idea is clever but I was let down by the lack of thrills or scares and the fact that the final 30 minutes is just one big let down as the focus is lost.
  • Obviously this is shot on really low quality cameras with very rudimentary special effects. The sound quality is poor at best with much wind noise and bass rumble on the microphones. Then again it is deliberate and perfectly fits the intended tone. This is probably the cleverest use of budget. There is no budget and they make a quite well crafted horror out of it. You get the feeling that they are really passionate about making films. There is some repetition as they struggled slightly to fill the time but overall it is interesting throughout. There are some really creepy moments that they could have taken further. I didn't like the third person ending; they could have kept it part of the documentary. It is inspirational for those wanting to make movies with a bit of substance with no money. Add some more thrills and this would have been much bigger. Obvious deliberate technical deficiencies are made up for by passion and suspense.
  • tmdarby21 December 2015
    I wanted to rate this movie much higher than a 3, up until the ending. After seeing the end I struggle to give this more than a 2. The movie drew me in very well, and the documentary style has you believing it all the way through. The acting was fairly good for a low budget horror movie. The story was really good, other than the end.

    It was a really good movie up until the ending. I can't believe the ending they went with. It made little to no sense and completely ruined what could have been a pretty decent horror movie. This movie gets filed under the "could have been good" category for sure. It's hard to explain how disappointing the ending was for this film. Probably because the build up was so good.
  • So this is a mockumentary about a small time cable show about the paranormal. When the show starts to lose popularity, it decides to take on a viewer suggestion that they look into the Jersey Devil. When they do, only one person leaves the woods alive.

    I liked this. Very similar to The Blair Witch Project. I really don't know how I have not come across it before now. The Blair Witch Project is filmed with a bit more finesse or maybe I should say more professionalism. If you like found footage films this is a decent throwback watch you should check out.
  • The Last Broadcast is presented as if it's a "documentary" about the murder of two hosts and a hired hand for a cable access show named Fact or Fiction. In the scenario, Fact or Fiction was in New Jersey's Pine Barrens to present a live show on the Jersey Devil. A second hired hand is convicted of the murders (this isn't a spoiler because it's stated at the beginning of the film). The film also makes an attempt to become more philosophical towards the end, and there is an unexpected twist.

    For me, this film failed on most levels, although there were a few small things that worked. The Last Broadcast is often compared to The Blair Witch Project, which arrived a year later. The comparison is appropriate, and it's difficult to imagine that The Blair Witch Project writer/directors didn't lift the basic idea from The Last Broadcast. The Blair Witch Project didn't work for me, either, although in my view, it works better than The Last Broadcast does. Both films rest on a similar gimmick of claiming to be partially a composed "documentary" and partially a collection of videotaped images by a group of young adults who are about to get killed in the woods, and we're watching them as "evidence" of what happened to them. Both have ambiguity whether something supernatural happened, as the characters were exploring a legend about a supernatural being, or whether more mundane homicides occurred. There are finer-grained similarities as well, but I mainly bring it up to give you an idea of what The Last Broadcast is like if you haven't seen it but you've seen The Blair Witch Project.

    The first problem with The Last Broadcast is that it doesn't play like a documentary. I've seen many documentaries. I've never seen one that looked like The Last Broadcast. Rather, this film looks like how an amateur filmmaker who has never seen a documentary might imagine documentaries, armed only with a description of the genre. That's a big problem, because the film hinges on playing like a documentary. In a similar vein, there is a problem with the Fact or Fiction program, and the actors playing the hosts. Even though Fact or Fiction is supposed to only be a cable access show, the material is done poorly and the actors are unconvincing. Again, it looks more like an amateur filmmaker who has never seen cable access programming imagining what it would be like based on a description only.

    Like The Blair Witch Project, another big problem with The Last Broadcast is that for some strange reason directors Stefan Avalos and Lance Weiler decided to use purposefully bad camera-work for much of the material, especially any footage shot by the Fact or Fiction guys, and footage by the documentary host, David Beard. While the idea to use purposefully bad camera-work isn't flawed, the execution is flawed, because the camera-work is so ridiculous that it again comes across like an amateur filmmaker imagining what bad camera-work might be like. Characters inexplicably will not keep the camera still (a really annoying scene showing this is when David Beard is filming himself in the woods towards the end and keeps revolving). They inexplicably have extreme close-ups of mouths, eyes, etc. If the idea is to make the documentary and the cable access show seem real, such exaggerated bad camera-work just does not work.

    Another problem is that the documentary keeps repeating material. Most of the videotaped evidence is repeated many times. The 911 phone call is repeated. The narrator keeps repeating the same ideas over and over. It all plays like an attempt to pad out the film's running time. Also, the narrator has a very annoying monotone, which comprises the bulk of the dialogue throughout the film. It is another aspect that does not help sell the film as a documentary.

    Finally, the attempt at becoming more philosophical about media's influence on reality perception is very sophomoric, and the big "twist" at the end was fairly inexplicable to me. There were a couple other small points throughout the film that were confusing to me, as well, such as why the soap opera director wasn't involved with the Pine Barrens shoot, but my attention might have drifted a couple times. I was also confused how Fact or Fiction, which was otherwise so technically bare bones and incompetent, was able to manage an audio/video as well as an Internet satellite feed miles into the woods in 1995.

    On the plus side, the premise has promise--the story is interesting, and there are some nice shots of the woods accompanied by atmospheric music. Perhaps if the film were handled more conventionally, The Last Broadcast may have been moderately successful. Even though the twist made little sense to me, the style of the film at that point, which pulled further away from the feigned documentary, worked better for me.
  • A group of guys went into the woods to film an episode of their cable access show "Fact or Fiction?" They bring along a supposed psychic to help them with their mission: to find out if the Jersey Devil really exists. Two of them were found brutally murdered, and one was never found. The lone survivor is the psychic, and the murders get pinned on him. Our narrator, however, believes that something else happened that night, and sets out on his own mission by putting together this documentary using the men's recorded footage. Obviously, this sounds a lot like "The Blair Witch Project," but really the only thing the two films have in common is the basic premise: local legends and disappearances in the woods. The makers of BWP may have taken the concept of this movie to create their effectively scary psychological horror film. The Last Broadcast itself is not much of a horror film. If anything, it is a document that illustrates how blurry the line between fact and fiction can be, especially when media is involved. It could have been better, but all in all this is a very respectable effort for an extremely low budget film. My Rating: 6/10
  • I had this one on my watchlist for quite some time now and decided to give it a spin this evening. It started of pretty good and I was hooked, but after 30 minutes or so the movie just kept dragging on and became very boring. I noticed that I wasn't closely paying attention because of this and was eager to turn it off. After a minute or 60, it became interesting again for a few minutes but then went back to it's dragging self.

    The movie has some similarities to the Blair Witch Project, but doesn't even come close. A lot of the found footage material was so badly shot and 'damaged' that it wasn't even fun to watch anymore because you hardly could see anything.

    The acting was decent at best and at some points not even convincing. The characters were dull and had very little backstory.

    Without giving anything away, the big revelation is a big letdown and nothing is really explained about the 'how' and 'why', which makes it very frustrating.

    Don't be fooled by the 5,5 rating which is pretty good for a horror movie on IMDb these days, it's definitely not worth wasting an hour and a half on. If you haven't seen the Blair Witch Project, you should definitely view that in favor of The Last Broadcast.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Contains spoilers

    Since the release of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, a less well-known shaky camera effort released the year before has had to endure countless comparisons with its more famous counterpart. One day perhaps reviews of The Last Broadcast will not make such a lazy comparison, but clearly that time has yet to arrive. On the surface, they are similar: an eclectic group of people go into secluded woodland and end up in peril with only a video montage left of their final few days. But whereas The Blair Witch Project provides you solely with the footage of the gang's descent into jeopardy, The Last Broadcast comes at the event from a different angle, that of retrospective and revisionist documentary.

    First off, it has to be said that the events are totally fallacious. While to some this is blindingly obvious, I had gone into the film without this knowledge and had naively assumed that what I was watching was factual. I had no reason to doubt that what I was being told was true, given that I had never heard of the ‘Fact or Fiction' murders of some seven years ago and that the style of the film seemed thoroughly convincing. Certainly the message at the outset about the cast not being actors had me fooled. So with that in mind, perhaps my review of the film will be slightly more generous than those filmgoers who took being duped rather badly.

    The ostensible filmmaker David Leigh sets the scene, describing the murders of two cable TV show hosts, Steven Avkast and Locus Wheeler, plus production aide Rein Clackin. The only apparent suspect is Jim Suerd, a weirdo loner and computer geek who was recruited by the TV hosts as their guide into the paranormal for a live tele/web cast from the Pine Barrens of New Jersey. In a bid to arrest flagging viewing figures, the quartet head into the icy woodlands on the hunt for the legendary Jersey Devil to film the show. Suerd leads the way, taking the group three miles from the nearest access road. This homevideo footage is interlaced with a talking head documentary style as Leigh quizzes those who knew Suerd and those involved in the investigation into the case.

    Things start going awry when Suerd reacts badly to a wisecrack from Clackin which is caught on camera and replayed throughout the film. It forms the basis for the prosecution's video evidence of a man capable of committing the homicides. When blood is found on his shirt and given the remote location, there are no other viable suspects. Suerd is handed two life terms but shortly after sentencing, he dies in prison in `mysterious circumstances' leaving the filmmaker without a crucial piece in the jigsaw. Nevertheless, Leigh, as narrator, sets about sowing seeds of doubt in the viewers mind as to Suerd's guilt in a thoroughly convincing manner. The evidence he puts forward suggests that what looked an open and shut case may not necessarily be so. But the turning point is the unexplained delivery of a box of videotape footage of the night the murders took place not seen by the jury. Now, having had much of the tape digitally restored, Leigh has crucial evidence that seems to suggest that the killer almost certainly was not Suerd. As the film progresses, the film restorer says that one frame could reveal the face of the guilty, proving once and for all the guilt or innocence of Suerd. It takes until five minutes from the end for the tape to be enhanced sufficiently to identify the murder. Needless to say, it's both shocking and wholly unexpected.

    The Last Broadcast cost a reported $900 to make. If that is the case, the filmmakers deserve fulsome praise. This is a clever, interesting and well-executed idea that convinces as both a horror flick and serious case study into a flawed criminal investigation. Bearing in mind that (perhaps foolishly) I had no idea of its dubious authenticity, I was totally engrossed as the story twisted and turned down paths I never expected it to go. It was a far more convincing proposition than The Blair Witch Project (which cost $22,000 to make) and to my mind a whole lot more frightening too. Perhaps this was because I knew the Blair Witch was a hoax when I watched it but believed the Fact or Fiction murders to be genuine. Regardless, it remains a creepy proposition. There are plot holes certainly. For instance, how did blood from all three that led the police to assume Suerd's guilt get onto his shirt if he was not the killer? And how was he online all night on his run-of-the-mill laptop out in the middle of the woods given that `the Innernet' (as the Americans love to pronounce it) was a relatively new phenomenon when the film was set? Some things just didn't add up in retrospect but it would be churlish to pick apart the film just for the sake of it. The acting on the whole was good (well they had this gullible viewer fooled anyway) and the film, while in no way of studio release quality, looked like it had a budget considerably higher than just under a grand. The twist at the end of the film surely ranks up with The Usual Suspects and Fight Club in the `I didn't see that one coming' stakes. Some have criticised the ending for letting the film down. I disagree but, as ever, it's a subjective thing. Make your own mind up.

    What we're dealing with here is a complete lack of respect for convention. Not only was it exceptionally low budget, it was also the first film in US motion picture history to be released without having used any celluloid. It had been edited on a home computer and dispatched by satellite. Had I seen this film before The Blair Witch Project I would have been even more impressed with its unique approach. As it stands, the two films should stand apart from a horror genre that has been treading water for so long it must be in danger of drowning. Rather than bangs, gore and all-too-predictable panto-style shocks, the film creates its own eerie atmosphere and scary believability by relying on the environment and the actors to create a sense of unease and impending doom. It offers a new perspective and new techniques in going about putting the fear of God into you. And for that reason alone it comes highly recommended.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Stefan Avalos and Lance Weiler's film "The Last Broadcast" is a fake documentary that explores the murder of three men in New Jersey's Pine Barrens. On a television shoot for their television show "Fact or Fiction", the show's two hosts and their cameraman, in search of the Jersey Devil, are viciously murdered, while the fourth member of the group makes it out of the woods, only to become the prime suspect in the murders and eventually, convicted. David Beard is a documentary filmmaker who is trying to see if this man, Jim Suerd, is indeed behind the "Fact or Fiction" murders.

    "The Last Broadcast" is intended to appear to be an actual documentary shot by Beard, a concept more famously used a year later in "The Blair Witch Project". While "The Last Broadcast" carries more of an air of mystery than the horrifying "Blair Witch", the latter "worked" a little better than the former in my opinion. This is not to say that I even remotely disliked this film, however. I liked the concept, and the fact that this was the first digital film entirely edited on a desktop computer is pretty cool. Also, knowing that the film was actually made before "Blair Witch" made me respect it a lot more because now I could call it both clever AND original.

    The only major complaint I had about the film was its bizarre ending, which just seemed tacked on. Yes, the film was a "whodunit" of sorts, but did we have to find out who done it in such a cheesy manner? It just seemed gratuitous, superfluous, and just plain unnecessary. The acting is not very good, but I wouldn't expect it to be, looking at the people involved, this has pretty much been their only film project to date. With a better ending, this film would have been great, but as it stands, it'll have to settle for pretty good. I would give it a 6/10.

    --Shelly
  • I accept this as important in terms of an early found footage genre film. Unfortunately, there is little to no entertainment value. The story probably would've worked better as a 45 minute semi-short film as much of it becames repetitive and tedious.

    If you are a die-hard FF fan, then maybe you can appreciate it for being one of the first (as far as I'm aware). But don't expect to enjoy it.
  • I don't care what anybody says; I think this lies amongst the most brilliant films I have ever seen. The documentary itself looks totally convincing, and the movie's ending will have you disturbed for days afterward. Sure, it was awkward to switch camera perspectives, but it NEEDED to be done. It couldn't have been worked any other way, and still have the same effect. People don't seem to understand this, and it is why THE LAST BROADCAST gets so much negative feedback.

    In order to understand the sheer genius of the movie, you need to watch it multiple times and catch the many, MANY clues about the events that occur at the ending. This flick's rewatchability value is extremely high, and it never gets boring because you spot so many little details that make you think "oh, I see..."

    I don't care whether this or BWP came first, but for the record, I don't care. They were both excellent and different films.
  • jcslawyer3 February 2020
    Warning: Spoilers
    A little disappointed in this one being that it's an early found-footage/mockumentary style film. I was intrigued by the story because I was waiting for the big reveal. I was definitely not expecting the twist, but was hoping that we'd see how it played out and how everything was orchestrated.

    I couldn't get invested in any of the characters. I thought Rein and Locus had more potential; Jim and that other dude (whose nameI already forgot) weren't interesting characters and the actors kinda sucked. The narrator's voice was really annoying. His big twist was outta nowhere, but then nothing's done other than going back to the woods and repeating a line over and over again rather than show how hedid it or what happened to that other dude. Otherwise I don't care and you didn't leave me thinking about anything other than how I didn't really like it. But I did give it a 6/10 because it kept me engaged and I think some of my fellow found footagers may find this to be more interesting than i did.

    The premise was definitely one that had much potential, but it the end it's unsatisfying. I think if you're a fan of found footage or mockumentary films, you can watch this as a study of what could be improved upon.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Sorry for the Blair Witch comparison, but I it was inevidable so I wanted to get it over with early. That said, on with the comments...

    *****SPOILERS******

    I had heard of The Last Broadcast (from now on TLB) after I had seen the Blair Witch Project. I was intrigued. Unable to find a copy to rent in my one-horse town, I resorted to buying it. (a practise I never indulge in but what the heck...)

    After viewing TLB for the first time I was very displeased. The ending, the big twist and climax of the film, was called. In fact, I said to myself, "Please let it not be the narrator" but alas, it was. The change from "documentary" to "real life" was not smooth and the struggle between the narrator and the reconstructionist was laughable. That is what I thought the first time I saw it. I watched it again a day later and I like it a little better.

    The TLB is a "documentary" about a series of murders in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey in December of 1995. Four men venture into the Pine Barren to produce a live web/cable simucast of a hunt for the Jersey devil. Only one man emerges alive and is convicted of the murders. He is sent to prison for life and dies there under mysterious circumstaces (Never elaborated on). This is where the "documentary" starts. Through interviews and footage shot by the murdered filmmakers, the story of Jim Seward, the convicted man, is told.

    It is shot in digitial video for finacial reasons and to give it a "real" life look. The acting is fine for none actors with the exception of a few bad moments. (The infamous "I'll see you back at camp" shove scene is first to come to mind). The interviews are, for the most part, convincing. This film has a very low budget and it shows. But the makers do alot with what they have. The pacing is a little slow, and you get bogged down by seeing the same footage over and over again.

    What really bothered me about the movie is the ending. It is supposed to be shocking but is comes off badly. But when I saw it a second time I appreciated it little more. There were a few small things that I missed.

    Alot of people, myself included, do not like the way the movie switches from documentary to real life at the end. It is unexpected and blocky. But the second time I saw it I noticed a few things. One, the documentary "ends", that is, it concludes with the narrator/murderer David Liegh making a cliche ending remark. He then goes to see the film reconstructionist to kill her. Some people think this end sequence is part of the "documentary" (which would be confusing) but it is not. In fact, it doesnt happen at the end of the film. Before the "documentary" ends with the cliche, there is a part in the film where David recreates the trip of the murdered filmakers. He stands in the woods and states "This is a clearing like the one..." This is the same as the ending of the film. The body of the woman is there out of sight.

    Another small thing also happens at the end. We see David take the camera, after killing the woman, and basically congradulate himself on setting up then entire thing. He is holding the camera with his left hand. At the very end of the Film, when David is standing over the wrapped body of the woman in the woods and giving the clearing speech, he is holding the camera with his right hand. This is done to show that he is ambidexterous, one of the criterion the police attribute to the killer.

    The last bit I missed the first time that made it a little better film is just how sick David is. By the end of the film we know he set the entire event up to make movie. (I think he put the blood on Jim's shirt after he got home) He even pats himself on the back after killing the woman. But he also put clues that he is the killer in the film. The second time he shows the Fact of Fiction duo talking to Jim and the soundman for the first time, one of them says that they got the idea from and IRC chat and a letter from a "D something" D, as in David. But the sickest clue comes exactly 1 hour and 6 minutes into the movie. At the end of the film we see the rendered image of the killer get clearer and clearer until it is David. That same picture is quickly shown an hour and six minutes into the movie. Its like he puts these clues in to show his superior intellect. He is daring someone to catch him. These things are small, but it the little things that count. TLB is not the best film, but it has some moments and is worth a look. *** out of five
  • Warning: Spoilers
    *spoilers* I will admit that I was unable to make it all the way through this movie. The two reasons for this were.

    1. Narrators voice was monotone. When you narrate a movie, it will pull the audience out of the experience, so you better have a really fun/sad/interesting voice to listen to. The narrator did not seem to care what was going on, no matter what happened it was always the same low drone voice. Picture Ben Stein.. "Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?".

    Some people had touched on bad acting, but I can live with a bad actor if the movie has a believable plot line. Which brings me to #2

    2. So what made this movie soo unbelievable? The fact that, in 1998, a poor bunch of public access TV hosts had access to the internet in the middle of the woods. Even today we don't really have access in remote areas without expensive equipment. Perhaps I missed the explanation of how this was possible.. but I doubt it. I love IRC, so to see this movie use it as part of the plot line was laughable..

    In closing, I hope that everyone involved in this movie learned from it. The Blair Witch creators took this idea and made it better. 10x better and even The Blair Witch kind of sucked. So when you see this playing on Sundance or IFC, please take that into consideration.
  • What genre is this? Horror? Thriller? Crime? Is it found footage? Is it a mockumentary? Ultimately, it is a clever idea that goes way too long for the reveal at the end.
  • I rented this movie after hearing all the comparisons with "Blair Witch Project." The idea was interesting, but that's about it. This movie is actually rather boring and poorly structured. However, the film totally falls apart with the ending. A "twist" ending which is just a cheap attempt to surprise the audience. Not only is it ineffective, it destroys everything the film has set up and leaves so many unanswered questions.

    My advice: skip this movie and watch "Blair Witch" instead.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    As a big fan of THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, there was no way I could really avoid seeing this film. Touted as a precursor to that horror phenomenon, indeed the two films are similar in many ways and it's difficult to believe that the creators of the BWP didn't see this film before they began work on theirs. In terms of horror, BWP has the edge slightly, but THE LAST BROADCAST still manages to be extremely frightening during some key scenes.

    Instead of relying solely on recovered footage, this takes the form of a mock-documentary. All sorts of evidence is thrown in our faces - tape recordings, interviews with key players, newspaper articles, courtroom verdicts, and, of course, the key footage, making this a well-rounded and interesting film. Unfortunately, for the first hour, it's pretty slow-moving too, with the real horrors only beginning towards the end of the film. As a side note, clever use of the Internet as a factor in the incident is used.

    The low budget, amateurish feel is clear, yet this really does make the film feel like a cheapie documentary you might see on a cable channel. While we never get to sympathise with the characters as much as we did in THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (none of them are particularly likable), the acting is all rather good considering that no famous names are involved and most people involved are, indeed, amateurs. Special mention should go to David Beard, who plays the maker of the documentary and acts as a narrator for the film's running length, as he is surprisingly good and surpasses first impressions.

    The film plays more like a murder mystery than a horror film for the first hour, but crime fans will enjoy the clues and twists that are included. When a crinkled reel of videotape is discovered, the horror really begins. We're subjected to some grainy, jumpy scenes heavily resembling key moments in THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, which are just as frightening. One of the party disappears and the others go to look for him, eventually discovering a huge quantity of blood in the snow - this scene is actually terrifying. More creepiness ensues when reconstruction of a crucial frame is applied, which purports to show the killer's face. As the fuzzy features become clear, this is highly disturbing...

    And then the twist comes. It's completely unexpected, and confused/annoyed a lot of people. A problem with the ending is that events are suddenly played out in third person, whereas for the rest of the film they haven't been, and this ruins the atmosphere by taking the viewer out of the film entirely. While this aspect destroyed all credibility for me, the identity of the killer is actually well thought out, and when you think about it, you'll realise a number of clues have been shown in the film's running time. THE LAST BROADCAST is a curiosity that deserves looking into, and probably one of the most interesting and best horror films of 1998.
  • Another found footage type movie where the buildup was a lot better than the payoff. Surprised to see that it was done on an extremely low budget. I'll give it a 1 star bump just for that. Definitely won't be well received by everyone. I really wanted more from a story about the 'Jersey Devil.'
  • pizowell14 January 2001
    You may see The Last Broadcast on the video store shelf and just say its another knock off of The Blair Witch Project. Well actually The Last Broadcast came out before BW. It chronicles a group of independent film makers making a documentary on the Jersey Devil. There are many similarities to BW in The Last Broadcast which would lead one to believe that The BW film makers watched The Last Broadcast and ripped it off.

    Blair Witch Project is much better than Last Broadcast, but The Last Broadcast is just as suspenceful in my opinion. Most of it was filmed with a hand held video camera on a shoe string budget like BW, but isn't half way as popular. The Last Broadcast is a little redundant and kind of long winded toward the end, but it is very easy to lose yourself in the movie until the disappointing finale. It doesn't look into the legend of the Jersey Devil or exactly explain what it is, unlike the Blair Witch. She even had a special on the Sci-Fi Channel about her. The film makers all acted in the film and cast their friends in lead roles. The acting is nothing to write home to mommy about, but the character of Jim Seurd is worth the price of admission alone. I had a wonderful time watching The Last Broadcast and wish more people would check out the movie that The Blair Witch Project ripped off. 8/10
  • ComparisonsÂ… we just can't help ourselves. I see a lot of comparing between this particular shadowy cult effort to the very similar in style, worldwide hit 'The Blair Witch Project (1999)'. Both share a low-budget cost and that documentary edited structure, but other than that. Really that's it. Well it did come out before its more fancied rival. We begin with Steven Avkast and Locus Wheeler hosts of a cheap cable show called "Fact or Fiction" going into the Pine Barrens of New Jersey with the aid of Rein Clackin and Jim Suerd to broadcast the search for New Jersey Devil. However Suerd is the only to come out alive, and accused of the murders. A year later filmmaker David Leigh decides to make a documentary about it using the live footage they shot to get down to the bottom off what really happened in the woods that night. 'Broadcast' has more an entertainingly detailed background (from actual footage to interviews) to its story-telling and for most part it's highly captivating and immensely inventive. Well that's up until the indifferently eye-rolling last ten minutes, which totally spins back onto itself with a ridiculous (if off-putting) revelation. It was going so well (I liked the whole ambiguous, open-minded and eerie nature), then they shot themselves in the foot. It feels like it came from another movie. They lost that chilling vibe and cooked up some glaring plot holes because of that sudden inclusion even if it was undeniably effective. Still the gimmick is provocatively engineered and efficiently presented by the director and his actors (believably capable performances by Jim Seward, Stefan Avalos, Lance Weiler, Rein Clabbers and David Beard) to leave an unforgettable imprint. The set-up manages to feel sincere with good use of illuminating the manipulative air stemming from the media to influence an outcome. Be it bullet proof or not. Everything is basically suggestive with a drearily dreaded tone. Some sequences can cause a shudder and make your skin crawl, as things are linked together or put down for us to mull over. A slick, stark and engrossingly blood curdling concept that's almost pulled off.
  • gobamnit23 September 2012
    Warning: Spoilers
    This could have been a good movie.

    Fantastic.. The acting/direction was spot on... all the way up to the last 15 or so minutes, where it just sort of commits suicide right in front of you.

    It gets far enough that I think a decent fan edit could actually bump it up a couple stars... just cut out that last bit, a little creative editing here and there and come up with a creepy image of the jersey devil and call it a day.

    This movie didn't need a twist. At all. It was delivering on almost every level. Hell, the twist itself wasn't that bad, just the way it was delivered. A little subtlety would've went a long way.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Spare yourself the pain - DO NOT EVER WATCH THIS PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR A MOVIE. It's not scary, it's not interesting, it's not atmospheric, it's just BORING! I had to honestly turn it off and leave the room for a few hours before I could continue watching, or else I'd have just fallen asleep. MAJOR SPOILER AHEAD.

    The narrator has as much emotional range as a brick, the acting is wooden and unconvincing, the characters are unlikable net-junkies, the music is twing-twang inbred banjo-pickin' and the ENDING??? I have NEVER seen an ending that is quite as terrible as this.

    *MAJOR SPOILER (but read on anyways, it'll save you the torment of watching the whole thing)*

    The narrator did it! Yes, the monotonous boring geek from the beginning of the film, the one who's giving the voice-over all the way through. The one you wished would get an axe-to-the-face within the first 10 seconds of the movie... is the murderer. He somehow went out into the woods, and kills them all. Why? Who knows? Do we care? I don't. The ending was clearly a highschool competition-entry for a contest entitled "Our movie sucks so much - but how can we make it worse???"

    I hired this celluloid monstrosity out for free as part of the Blockbuster 3-for-2 offer... and I STILL feel ripped off.

    Bloodsport 4, Blair Witch 2, Bless the Child and Bloodsurf are the only movies I've ever witnessed that are as physically painful to watch as this... this, this THING!
An error has occured. Please try again.