User Reviews (123)

Add a Review

  • I'm not going to lie... I downloaded this movie as soon as it was released (legally, look it up) and before watching it I didn't have high hopes for it. A *free* horror movie? How much effort could possibly have gone in to it?

    Apparently a lot.

    While the actors were fantastic and the set was amazing, what truly blew me away was the sound. Just the oppressive silence broken only by drips or footsteps. Sound can really make or break a horror film and in this case I can honestly say it worked!

    As a general rule, if you hate "found footage" movies such as Paranormal Activity, The Blair Witch Project and Quarantine then give this one a miss. Otherwise by all means have a look! It's free! I know for a fact that I will be buying the DVD as soon as possible.
  • WOAH..... really wanted to switch this movie off as I was practically on the floor I was that much on the edge of my seat! I'm not really into he shaky camera/found footage movies as the majority of them lack creativity and seem to copy off one another and end up relying on cheap scares or the same old jump out of your seat scenes..

    This was something else, I was shaking at one point and was finding myself wanting to turn it off, making excuses to walk out the room just so I could compose wimpy as I sound, i'm a massive horror fan, but this movie had me quite a nervous wreck!!!!! I can't praise this movie enough and would definitely recommend to horror fans alike!
  • In watching this movie it helps to forget Blair Witch et al. While structured as a pseudo-documentary and using various forms of "found footage", The Tunnel has more than enough individuality to lift it beyond the merely derivative. The plot contours become increasing plausible as the film develops - the movie does a fine job of drawing in the audience and creating the suspension of disbelief essential in the thriller/horror genre. The tunnel setting is inherently disturbing and disorientating. Think of it as a "ghost hunter" episode gone horribly wrong. Watch it alone at night and tell me you don't have to look away occasionally...
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Had high hopes for this, however, just another derivative docu/lost tapes horror film. The setting was interesting and the initial build up was different and engaging enough to maintain ones attention. The female lead was weak, and incredibly annoying once the running/screaming began. I liked the breaks to interview; Steve the cameraman was quite plausible though wont get any awards for his performance. The "secret" in the tunnels was quite scary though I was left wanting to see more of it. As for the ending, well talk about running out of ideas. I know we can't expect explanations from film makers but I kept saying to myself, "it can't end here surely." And it did!! Disappointment.
  • "The Tunnel" is a low-budget Australian Indie horror feature that goes about the novel path of these found footage / interviews narratives which sets-up the incident as if it's actually occurred and looks at the aftermath during the same time. It might be unremarkable in its developments (virtually from the beginning we know who survived) and have its flaws, but still it's effectively uneasy (especially when the investigative news' team search for a story under Sydney's underground train network becomes a brutal fight for survival) and the characters are given enough depth (mainly with reflective / afterthought interviews) to build upon a real genuine sense of believability.

    The story follows that of a TV journalist and her crew looking into the state's government initial idea of using the abandon train tunnels under Sydney as water recycle plant. However the homeless use the tunnels as shelter, although officials released reports otherwise. But for some reason the plans were scrapped, as now the government doesn't want to acknowledge it and this might be due to the constant disappearances of the homeless. With these cover-ups the crew decides to check out the tunnels themselves, especially after a somewhat frightening interview with a homeless man who once lived in them.

    All build up; but it does a very good job in its structure by balancing out the intrigue with suspense, fear and the occasional jolt. Sure there are some questionable details in the plot, but never did it bother me. When the hectic nature erupts (after it's progressively slow groundwork), the story becomes a little shapeless and we are never quite sure to what's actually going on… never does it go into explaining all that much (especially the crew's encounter with something quite scary) and by the end its still rather ambiguous. However the experience does leave you with a chill, other than confusion. I don't know what to make of this underground dweller. Its stays pretty much hidden. The movements are purposely jerky and quick. Sometimes its towering outline figure shows and of course the glowing eyes… they just stare you down. Something is kind of hinted when the crew come across its lair, but little if nothing is explained about this dweller who stalks the underground tunnels. There's one scene; the only death scene we see is truly an eerie rattler. The dank setting is unique as the vast underground tunnel system makes for a windy labyrinth of darkness and claustrophobia, but other than the pitch black what creeps up on you is the unsettling echoing sound FX or simply a lack of it. Cinematography is important to infusing atmosphere; as expected hand-held camera-work which can be fuzzy or unfocused and this is demonstrated in many angles as numerous sequences have characters running about. Nothing all that distracting or nauseating, but well executed to say the least. Then there are the interviews, which do have a sincere quality to them. Performances have a nice grounded edge to them, never overplaying it but still rather involving in their illustrations of the ever-changing moods. Impressive turns by Bel Delia, Andy Rodoreda, Steve Davis and Luke Arnold. Director Carlo Ledesma uses many customary devices, but these are resourcefully pulled off with such precision and a real eye for detail in the horror stakes.

    A familiarly solid, chilling and crafty little horror Indie feature.
  • anaa_eu15 November 2011
    Warning: Spoilers
    You're not gonna see nothing new here, this movie is a bad mix of the Blair Witch, Cloverfield and countless other movies. But that's not what makes the movie bad, there's tons of good movies around that are not exactly original.

    The acting is very bad, not convincing at all; the two main actors are boring to death and for me they just don't seem to be your usual horror movie type, which makes the movie seem too fake.

    But for me the lowest point was the interviews the characters are giving through the movie that makes you already know who died and who didn't, maybe they thought it could be a original idea but it sucks completely. You don't want to know who survived, it's boring to watch a movie already knowing what happens. Plus the interviews are so not believable, they tell the story like they're talking about something like the stock marketing.

    I could go on and on about how bad this movie. If you're looking for an awful movie, here it is! Otherwise, don't waste your precious time.
  • bikey127715 January 2012
    Warning: Spoilers
    Quick synopsis of the plot; a TV crew decides to investigate the abandoned tunnels under Sydney because of what they believe to be a government cover-up. They are absolutely right. It is a cover-up.

    First of all this is one of those first person footage shaky cam movies. To make it more documentary-like they include interviews with two survivors of this trip. I have nothing against movies shot this way. It can be very effective if used properly. Cloverfield is an example. And REC is an excellent horror movie. One of my favorites of all time. I read some reviews where the reviewers complained about the lack of mystery about who survives and who doesn't. Honestly, I can watch about 10 to 15 minutes of any mindless slasher movie and predict which character is survival material and which ones are 100 % cannon fodder. It does takes a long time for the movie to really get going but I thought the long intro makes the plot and characters more believable. The acting is OK and the characters aren't just props and one dimensional buckets of blood running around screaming until they get killed. Don't get me wrong, this is not exactly Oscar material here but its better than your average low budget horror movie.

    I give it a 3. The plot is decent. At least it wasn't an insult to my intelligence. The characters are believable. I didn't find it boring, despite the slow build-up. BUT the problem is the ending. The last third of the movie is set in the tunnels with some jumps to the fake interviews with the survivors. The writers did a good job with building the tension but they really screwed up the ending. The last sequence of REC is a really good example of how effective the first person view combined with a night vision camera can be. Sadly The Tunnel exposes all of its flaws. There is a mildly creepy scene involving a policeman and the monster or whatever is hunting them in the tunnels. It is followed by a lot of running around the tunnels and screaming. And jerky camera movement. But if you are a horror nut like me, you're going to tough it out because you want to see the conclusion. Basically you want to see what exactly is chasing them around the tunnels. You would hope for some kind of an explanation. What is it? How did it get there? Where did it come from? None of those questions are answered. We really don't even get a hint. In a nutshell, this movie has no ending. Its like a murder mystery movie or book that ends without revealing who is the murderer. Incomplete and thus flawed.
  • First thing first... Turn OFF the lights, put your headphones on and send everyone from the room away and ONLY then ... click PLAY!

    I can tell your right now, that if you are fan of all mentioned movies, you will most probably like this one too. There is everything you would expect from "real" horror movie.

    I was tensed when I was watching & I can say it is interesting and probably the most realistic of all similar movies. Not because of the quality of the movie, but because of this can REALLY be true. Don't take me wrong, I am not saying that I actually believe in this, but it is more likely to happen than all of the "predecessors"

    I don't want to and I will not spoil you experience from the movie, so I will not tell you what is really going on or what will they discover down there, but I will say, that you will be scared. If I would imagine myself in situation like that ... oh my god!

    The movie has great scene and it has stupid moments. As the title suggest, there will be dark. Every good movie shows just a glimpse, this one is not different. Maze underground, only feint of light, creepy sounds, strange movements, loud breathing and ...

    You will see... but I can recommend this movie if you are a horror fan. I was expecting less from this one. Despite the fact, that there are some elements, like "randomly" places cameras on the ground, always shooting the important thing or running and screaming and still shooting the right direction and things like these, pretty decent movie.

    There is only one thing from holding me give more points ...When I first saw Blair Witch I was thrilled and really scared! Most of all I BELIEVED in what I have seen that time, I BELIEVED that I was watching a "REAL FOOTAGE". After couple of months I have found out, that it was a fake and nothing of it happened. This time I don't believe... maybe it is based of true story maybe not, I don't know and I don't care. Couple of years ago it would be 9/10.

    The most important thing for me in this case is ... Really good movie! To believe or not, it is purely up to YOU!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Another mockumentary..In my opinion this movie was hardly worth 5 minutes of the time I spent watching it. Very long build-up, which isn't actually building up a lot - certainly not tension or sympathy for the characters. I found it mildly amusing how desperate the movie tries to induce an understanding for the motivations of the protagonists - and utterly fails. The very scarce action is spoiled by a jerky hand-cam, which is definitely not adding to the overall credibility of the storytelling since it is clearly employed to omit any scene that would have cost actual money. Adding credibility may have also been the idea behind the constant use of annoying effects mimicking a malfunctioning digital camera -they are laughably inauthentic! That at least shouldn't have been hard.. The viewer has a clear idea who will survive in this picture after he's watched the first 20 minutes .. and since this is literally the only content of the movie (four people going in the tunnel- two coming out) one has seen the whole thing at this point. This movie got a ridiculously high overall-rating & I actually have an apt theory about personal acquaintances of the filmcrew writing some of the reviews - don't get fooled.. I am a friend of horror movies. I ain't here to bash a movie because it happens to be a genre I don't like and understand. I really dig indie movies with a shoestring budget: a well- told story doesn't need state-of-the-art effects to support it. I quite like the mockumentary approach in more recent filmmaking - i have seen great flicks that work with it & I don't mean the trendsetters exclusively. The Tunnel is just an uninteresting, amateurishly executed movie, not because but in spite of being an Australian Indie. I learned after watching that it was made available for free. Well good on them. It's still shite.
  • I was really not expecting much from this film probably because I was under the impression that it would be more of the same ol' same ol'. I'm happy to report that this film was INTENSE !!! It was creepy in a Blair Witch sort of way but a lot more frightening. While watching it, you can't help but feel this could happen to you. Feels very real - a very visceral intense experience that will definitely stay with you the next time you are taking a train. A treat for urban explorers+ horror fans too. I think it's even cooler that it was a low budget film supported by film fans on the Interwebs! I'm glad it turned out this good. Let this be a lesson to Hollywood. Definitely recommended.
  • Let's try facts instead of paid positive reviewers. (1.) Over 50% of the movie is composed of "talking heads". You don't know what talking heads are? It's a cheap production technique where all you see is someone's head talking to the camera; often in a monotonic pseudo-documentary style to save a money, cover a lack of the following: acting, sets, props, plot and to lend a deceiving sense of credibility to a story. (2.) The Blair copycat formula of poorly lit places with shaky cameras e.g. Quarantine, (Rec), Poughkeepsie Tapes, Wicksboro Incident. (3.) Storyline is of the usual investigators of a make believe or highly exaggerated haunted "whatever" story. This one's a subway. (4.) Over 40% is the isolated claustrophobic running nowhere as seen from the point of view of a camera (or two). In this case, as is usual, we have normal lighting which seems to randomly switch off followed by viewing through a low light camera. If watching the walls of a subway tunnel is exciting then this is time well spent. (5.) Scary part is always very brief, in this case, just seconds. A very blurry figure that likes to make groaning sounds (how creative) and snatches someone so quickly it is also just a blur. (6.) Ends with usual talking heads' actors telling us how frightening it all was followed by few lines in credits telling us who lives on and who just disappeared.
  • Now, I'm really not into this type of "horror" movies (especially not Blair Witch or similar) but this one really looks so real and documentary that almost makes you forget what it's all about. Excellent production for almost no money at all: perfect acting, subtle editing, those details that make you believe... No, it wasn't scary at all (at least not for me). It is just what it would be if somebody really tried to do what these people did. Of course, Americans would send an army of armed & packed up kids and annihilate everything probably, but that's not the point. This is (only) a movie. The art of deception and make-believe. And it does so in every moment. Highly recommended even to the people not horror-fans. Just see what you could do when you lack budget but not artistic experience, know- how and proficiency. Go for it.
  • Among Australian Cinema There's always an impressive horror movie. But its on some rare occasion that you get one that actually feels special. To me "The Tunnel" ranks as a film that has to be seen!!!

    Filmed in a Documentary Style it follows a journalist and a TV Crew, who go an investigate a tunnel network under Sydney. The Tunnels were once railway lines and proposed to be used for recycled water under the state government. However after dangerous incidents occur below with people missing, the TV Crew find themselves faced with the horror of the story they were going to investigate.

    Its amazing what indie films can do. The Tunnels is just another great way of convincing film makers to just go out there and make what you want in just anyway you can. The films funding cam online with 135k Project to sell frames for $1 each. It fascinating to hear how these type of projects come together. I would of liked to see a cinema release for this, but with its online distribution and DVD sales, Its a strong Horror film that deserves Cult Status!!! The Story is simple and easy to follow with some relatable characters, accompanied by th survivor interviews. The rest of the film is shot with authentic camera footage as if it were a hidden archive film. Acting talents are top notch! What drives the film is the claustrophobic sense of an uncharted caverns/sewers and the thrilling and compelling sequences of being lost and whats truly lurking in the dark (no need for me to say what it is). I can really say this film is Pure Genius!!! Watch it and chances are you won't be disappointed.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    OK, If you have seen Rec, Creep or The Blair Witch Project, then you have seen this!

    I really don't get all the other reviews that are calling this movie original and entertaining! It's completely Cliché and very unsatisfying.

    Four undercover journalists go on a mission to Sydney's underground to expose the truth about a government water cover-up and slowly but surely and very predictably they get picked off one by one!

    The characters (all except the female role) were pretty believable and likable but that's about as far as the compliments go!

    The Tunnel is an instantly forgettable and very flawed movie. The Acting and dialogue was acceptable but the story was just laughable and has been done so many times before.

    I can't help think that a few friends were sitting around drinking one night somewhere in Australia and just decided to make a film about something that has been done to death and lost it's charm some 10 years ago!

    The Blair Witch Project has a lot to answer for! Without it, this tripe wouldn't have been made!
  • There are flaws in this movie. Most movies have quite a few. However this movie, with some editing and a little more interaction with "them", could have been amazing.

    The entire concept of the movie is somewhat derivative."Blair Witch", "The devils rejects","Sanctum". Its all been done before. But this movie actually has a more modern and polished feel than those. The camera work is spot on, the acting quite good, and the movie is very scary. With all that going for it, the movie is somewhat predictable and formulaic.

    I gave this movie an 8 out of 10. The movie is flat out freaky. Definitely worth a watch, or like me during parts, worth looking away.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I know, I know. So many positive reviews, and I've got to be the odd man out.

    If the sound of a woman ridiculously bleating and gibbering in terror, over and over, causes you to react sympathetically, then you'll love this movie. You see the cover photo? That's the WHOLE MOVIE. She just wouldn't shut up, and no-one would slap her. Then they'd move on and she'd go and do it again. Four or five separate times. Every time someone says "Shhhh", she immediately starts up again. It would have been so satisfying to see her end up a smear of blood in some filthy, forgotten room, but as the movie reveals at the beginning, she's one of the survivors. It just kept breaking the spell for me over and over.

    Some of the acting was also rather flat, despite so many other reviewers writing that they were brilliant. This was Blair Witch level schtick, folks.

    Lastly, if you're hoping to freeze-frame this so you can get a better glimpse at... things, abandon hope. Every critical frame is blurry or obscured with fake glitch. But I think it's just a big, skinny dude that doesn't like people who carry lights.
  • Warning: Spoilers

    Prologue: "The following film depicts (Tangles-related) events that occurred in October 2007 (to Tangles, among other people). It contains official police evidentiary material (including a lot of hand-held camera footage that will remind you of other very true stories such as "Blair Witch", "REC", and "Verynormal Activity"). Several person involved in these events declined to be interviewed. (They refused to be associated in any way shape or form with this B-movie.)"

    The overly dramatic, corny prologue is the only "interesting" thing going on in the first 40 minutes. You can skip these 40 minutes of the movie, easy; you miss out on nothing - aside from some rather trivial details involving in-fighting and power struggles in the offices of an Aussie newspaper. Who the hell cares?!

    Not only does TT take an eternity to get its ass out of the dull politically-based back-story and finally shift gear into horror-film territory, but we also have two people being interviewed, very much in a Woody Allen, Bergman or Christopher Guest vein. It didn't work for Bergman, so why should it work here? Nothing will take you out of a horror movie quicker than actors pretending to be real people in a quasi-documentary set-up while explaining the bleedin'-obvious. An action scene in a tunnel – followed by someone blabbing into the camera about what he thinks he/she saw or heard. Nothing will derail a movie's horror potential than this kind of trendy docu-bull.

    Nothing – apart from Tangles, of course. After 40 minutes of dreariness, finally someone is attacked… Yes, people… it's… Tangles time! The ten minutes that follow this abduction are about a character running through the tunnels, shouting "Tangles". "Tangles!... Tangles!!!... Tangles!" I kid you not. And then: "Tangles!... Tangles!" And so on. I am surprised they didn't call him "Kermit" or perhaps "Popeye". What a dumb name. Shouting out "Tangles!" a thousand times would be considered total overkill in a comedy, let alone in a horror film in which this kind of silly repetitiousness is a full-blown kamikaze act perpetrated by the presumably alcoholic screenwriter. Didn't he want TT to be scary? Apparently not. Hence the whole Tangles Affair, which could have sunk a government, not to mention a little Aussie horror movie weighed down so heavily by its utter excess of tanglesiness.

    Then again, why am I complaining about the name? It's not the movie's fault that the man is actually called that way. After all, this is "based on true events", right? Tangles: the man, the legend. Let's not desecrate the name of this boom-man who ended up in the belly of an actual, real tunnel zombie.

    Why have the survivors describe the events in cheesy interviews? That only serves to dilute the mood, not to mention that it serves as a major spoiler: now we know who makes it out of the tunnel alive and who doesn't. Well done, movie: take away whatever little surprise elements you may have had in store for us.

    As if running through tunnels and shouting "Tangles" weren't stupid enough to already give TT high marks on the stupidometer, we then have two characters involved in ludicrous bickering; he shoves the camera into her face, blaming her for this and that (as if she could possibly know there was a flesh-eating zombie in the tunnels) and she responds to this badly-timed harassment by actually sulking. All of this in the midst of a monster attack. But at least there is a bit of realism inasmuch as the briefly sulking Natasha doesn't get all Lara-Crofty on us, but falls into hysterics at one point, which is how 99% of all women would react in such circumstances.

    I love how they portray the tunnels in Las Vegas as some kind of bizarre, huge mazes impossible not to get lost in. Totally false piece of information.

    Epilogue: "The whereabouts of Jim "Tangles" Williams remain unknown… (He is presumed unemployed, unable to find any new movie roles.) His family is still searching for answers… (They were told to start looking for them in the insides of the monster who ate him.)"
  • Geez this documentary is a docu-boring movie with the shakes. As another reviewer says it as good as REC, Blair Witch. What are you guys on when you watch these camera shake movies, because they are terrible even with the best actors, they are that bad.

    It is like playing first person shooter game with the shakes. Dang, just can't stand that people think a shaky camera is great camera work. Just give the camera to an infant, and it will be better then this camera work. Steady hands with camera is better. If you want to not tell what is going on kind of movie then this is for you. If you are on something, then this movie is for you. If you want docu-boring movie this one is for you.

    If you want to waste time with a free movie, this one is for you. I would not donate for this movie, even if I was the richest person in the world. This might as well be the Cloverfield sequel. Some people have no taste in movies. Rating this high like Blair Witch is something wrong with people. I say get your puke bucket next to you for all the shaking. Do not eat while watching.

    What is funny is the previews hold out all the shaky camera, just to lure you in, and then BAM here we go, can you tell what you are watching? Even if you could does not make it good.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I respect the film-makers for putting out a well-crafted film. The acting was uniformly competent and, outside of a setup that took a little too long, was directed fairly well.

    If there had been no "Blair Witch Project" and the other, similarly 'real' movies, than this would have been rated higher. But all this pseudo-reality stuff has been done before, so there is no novelty to the approach.

    Add to that, the fact that the actors are all credited at the end of the movie and one of the primary intentions for this film (to make you believe it actually happened)goes out the window.

    After showing at least one actual murder, that this should not have launched some sort of official investigation is just absurd. It may be implied that the government has covered this up, yet it still is highly implausible.

    The biggest flaw, for me, is the storytelling device of showing the 2 survivors from the beginning. Also, when one includes the emergency call played at the start, it is very clear early on who the dying person is. Why do something that will telegraph who will live and who will die? It just saps a big chunk of suspense from the movie.

    So, again, nice effort and creative marketing, but...ultimately...not something I would watch twice.
  • deftond18 June 2011
    First of all I went into this movie not really knowing what it was about and also not expecting too much. I am not a huge horror fan and this movie kept me on the edge of my seat. The best part about this movie is that it could be possible and you can believe what is going on. Some moments really jump out at you and make you rethink what you think you just saw.

    I really hope that a bigger budget company can get their hands on the rights to make a part 2. I think with a bigger budget this can turn into something even better.d

    I think it is retarded to have to have a minimum of 10 lines. I am not a film critic and I am not going to be some lame ass who thinks he is one. There is nothing more annoying than trying to read comments about how good a movie is and having people write comments like they are professional film critics.
  • Carlo Ledesma's "The Tunnel" is a first class example that all you need to for some great horror is some awesome camera-work and an even better script. Too many movies rely on huge million dollar budgets and first class-CGI and come up relatively short of being great or even good movies in some respects.

    Natasha ( Bel Delia ) is a reporter that is working on a story that she feels is going to be make her career. We're introduced to Natasha's crew early on with Peter ( Andy Rodoreda ) seemingly in a constant power struggle with Natasha. Tangles ( Luke Arnold ) and Steve ( Steve Davis ) are the goofs on the crew and make up the rest of the party venturing into the tunnel. Australia is going through a water crisis and the government comes up with a plan to tap into the huge reservoirs that are trapped in Sydneys' underground tunnel system. Natasha senses that it could be displacing the homeless that use the tunnels as an escape from the city that has forgotten about them. Sound like a setting for a great horror film? You're not wrong. Eventually Natasha and her film crew start to uncover a much bigger story. It seems that the homeless that use the tunnels are starting to disappear and no- one knows where or really seems too care. The government seems to be turning a blind eye and no one is allowed near the reservoirs as Natasha finds out the hard way when her contacts turn her down. Eventually when they get into the tunnels, they find out the hard way that some stones are better left unturned.

    Without giving too much away, the "creature" is shown sparingly and more of the terror and horror come from the limited light sources and the viewers' imaginations. My friends and I still have arguments to this day as to what exactly was hiding in the tunnels as the shots are somewhat vague, but extremely effective. The movie starts off on a slow burn, setting up the events that ultimately lead to a life or death struggle down in the tunnels.

    The Tunnel is a movie that is best viewed with an open mind and a couple friends. Classic indie horror at it's best, it's also proof of the quality of horror movies that Australia has been churning out in the last few years. Although not as famous as "The loved ones" or "Storage" , This movie is a prime example that not all scary things come with a million dollar price tag.

    One of my all time indie favourites... Watch this movie and you'll be looking over your shoulder every time you venture into a concrete tunnel in the park alone.


    Stay scared friends.

    Kurt Smillie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The best horror movie I have seen in a long time. It gives the feeling that it could actually happen and is totally believable. Having explored storm drains as a kid I can relate to the feeling of being in dark unfamiliar places with the ghostly sounds and the fear of becoming lost, it really brought those feelings flooding back and had me on the edge of my seat. The background music was perfect as was the casting and the makeup. The cameras captured the eerie feelings of the disused railway tunnels exceptionally well and the narrow tunnels through which the characters ran from the horror which followed was making me feel a little claustrophobic which meant the filmmakers have achieved the feeling that the viewer was caught up in the panic and the mayhem as well. Excellent movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie is largely in the style of other "found footage" films like Blair Witch Project, or Paranormal Activity. The claim to fame here is that this was the first film to be released simultaneously on torrent, DVD, and in (a very limited number of) theaters. Supporters also had the option of "buying" a frame of the movie for a dollar which I did just to support the film makers and their choice of in effect giving the movie away for free on the net. I think that was a very cool and brave decision on the part of the producers.

    There are a few problems with the film which I think make it harder for the view to suspend disbelief (and therefore get really scared) in comparison to other films like Blair Witch or Paranormal Activity.

    The first and most important is that much of the story is told through interviews with the characters which were done after their fateful trip into the tunnels. The problem is that you can deduce right away who survived the trip and who didn't, since the story is basically being told by the survivors. While it somewhat sets up the story, it takes away from the immediate visceral first person crap-your-pants-cause-you're-actually-there experience that make good found footage films effective and instead makes it more like watching an episode of 60 Minutes.

    Other "found footage" is supposedly taken from security cameras or a internet videos, but they don't really look like security camera or internet videos which makes the viewer feel more like they are watching a movie than something that really happened.

    The acting by the lead actress is a bit flat. The best acting in the film is done by Steve Davis who has worked as a camera man for over 20 years (and who in this film plays a camera man so you get a sense that he's just being himself).

    The setup for them going into the tunnel was a bit clunky and unnecessary - There was a government scheme to "recycle water" by using old tunnels under the city, which was "mysteriously" canceled years ago and government officials aren't talking about it, and homeless people are (perhaps) disappearing in the tunnels, but the government for some reason won't admit that homeless people even live there, and now this is somehow a make or break story for a young TV journalist, so they have to explore the tunnels to find out what's going on. Huh?

    Compare that to :

    -There's a witch that lives in a forest and a bunch of kids are going to there to film a documentary about it - Blair Witch

    -There's a ghost in my house and I'm going to try to film it - Paranormal Activity

    -We're filming a party and a monster attacks the city and we just keep filming as we flee for our lives - Cloverfield

    So maybe because I wasn't really buying it up to that point, when they actually went into the tunnel I didn't find it that scary. There were a few jolting moments but overall, not that exciting.
  • Not a horrible movie, but's essentially Blair Witch Lite. Very talkie...low on action....low on character development.

    Takes forever and a day to get going.

    I'm not even 100% sure what the plat is to be honest.

    They go down into some WWII tunnels and whatever they are looking for seems to be hurting them.

    It's not that its a really bad flick, it's just been done over and over since Blair witch.

    Too bad they couldn't be original.

    If you like a flick that is low on action, high on talk and derivative as all heck you might be interested in this flick.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    ... but sadly, one has to rate it as if it was a commercial release, because on IMDb there's no distinction.

    In the old days (of not-too-long ago) this probably could have picked up a distributor as a weekday matinée or a drive-in B-movie. Now, it's the latest example of 'donation-ware' filmmaking, distributed through torrents managed by 'free-media' outfit VODO.

    Now, as a VODO-released production, it's pretty good. The bar is not high. The storyline is stupid. The actors behave in tired, predictable horror-movie cliché's. The cinematography is okay, until the fourth wall is broken by bright, shiny plastic buttons and power-points, and the realisation that the 'night vision' footage is just used to make the runs down the hallways seem longer. But, from what I've seen in VODO-released stuff, it's probably the cream of a very limited crop. (I know, it's very difficult to make long-form visual media, ie. TV or feature-length movies, and I respect that, but once again, this is IMDb, not some feel-good community media forum.)

    The frustrating thing is that technically, this is a very good film. If only the other aspects involved in movie production had reached that level, well, I don't think it would have been distributed by VODO. (I mean, it might have been picked up.) Let me explain.

    First, you can only recycle the (I'm guessing an abandoned factory or warehouse of some kind) limited available space so many times before suspension of belief becomes a major problem. 25 minutes? Sure! Outer Limits and its ilk did it a million times. 44 minutes? Maybe. I think X- Files got away with it once or twice. 90 minutes...? Good luck with that!

    The editors decide the solution is to pad the run-time out with faux-documentary footage, but (secondly) the major problem with that, especially from the point of view of a horror movie (and this is _not_ a spoiler because it's just painfully obvious) is unless it's a post- mortem voice-over or some-such, the people being interviewed DIDN'T DIE. As such, having long, drawn-out scenes involving how frightened these characters are have almost zero impact, since we know they're going to live! Especially (third) when one of those scenes is some bizarre homage to the "I'm so scared" scene from The Blair Witch Project.

    (Fourth) the script itself feels like a first draft that someone thought was so cool it didn't need any revision, because it was PERFECT! Real productions throw scripts through a meat- grinder of a million 'script supervisors' for a reason -- even if it was written by Lucas (and especially if it was written by Lucas!) Even if a director is billed as a writer-director, their script still goes through that mill. Typically, there's an editor that supervises a number of editors. So it goes -- the reasoning is that, although you want continuity, you don't want your production to get 'same-y'.

    Same-y makes people post reviews where the summary says something like, "It's a good student film..."

    Which is a shame, because (fifth) I know personally and for a fact that there is a veritable legion of talent here in Australia that would love to work for free, especially for a Denton gig. But productions here tend to be closed -- 'tight-knit' small production groups are supposed to somehow 'be better'. If that's true, then someone really should set the international distributors straight, because they've got it all wrong!

    They don't have it all wrong. If you can't take criticism of your script, you don't belong in the film business. If you can't share editing, sound, or whatever it is you do, you don't belong in the film business.

    The film business is about involving as much talent in your production as you can afford, not about founding a little club that just happens to make 'movies'. Come on, Australia; get with the program.

    Good luck next time.
An error has occured. Please try again.