Leofwine_draca I guess I'll continue to remain a fan of the found footage genre no matter how many bad films I watch. THE ROHL FARMS HAUNTING is certainly a poor addition to the genre that very few people are going to get a kick out of it, aside from perhaps the people who made it. This is a cheapie independent production that suffers from an almost entire lack of script, which means all of the dialogue is ad-libbed by the guys who star in it.What this means is that 99% of the running time consists of a couple of guys wandering around empty farm buildings at night, trying to convince the viewer that some kind of evil spirit is lurking on the premises. Sadly the actors aren't very good and seem devoid of imagination when delivering their dialogue, which is stilted and repetitive. The cameraman in particular seems to whine and complain a lot which doesn't make for a very engaging viewing experience.In terms of the horror stuff, very little happens, aside from a few spooky moments captured in the background of shots. That granddaddy of the genre, BBC's GHOSTWATCH, runs rings around this production. I admit that the isolated setting is an effective one and with the right material this could have been an extra-creepy viewing experience, but sadly there's too little meat to the story for this to work.

bks-508-290401 I love found footage films, I find them quite terrifying when done properly. They're claustrophobic and creepy, you never know what will be standing there when you turn the camera round. I thought this film started off very well, quite tense early on, with the stress levels gradually rising at a nice pace. Luke was likable, just a working class bloke trying to keep his parent's farm going. He was very natural in front of the camera, and believable. Cordero started off OK, although if someone was shoving a camera in my face all the time it'd get on my wick fast. As the film wore on, the word "haunting" in the title is misleading as it's not ghosts at all. The three masked figures are nice and creepy from a distance, but look silly up close. Cordero started to really grate on my last nerve, he was whining constantly in a really droning, nasally voice, and he didn't. shut. up. EVER. I had to mute my TV now and then because I couldn't stand it. And considering how great he thought he was at film making, he was waving the camera around like no tomorrow. His car went missing and he felt the need to sweep the ground with the camera fifteen times, just to emphasise that the car was gone. It made me feel seasick. Some of the stupid things both men did bugged me a bit. If your shotgun goes missing in the middle of a home invasion, surely there must be a knife or other weapon around somewhere? Neither of them felt the need to arm themselves? Luke was a big chap, but against three people? Anyway, I did enjoy this in the sense that it jangled my nerves, but there were so many things that annoyed me, so I haven't rated it very highly. Nothing was explained at all, which isn't always a bad thing, but I hope there won't be a sequel. I definitely wouldn't watch it if there is.

chocolatebunnykins We watch a lot of horror/scary movies, both good and bad, unfortunately this didn't fall into the good category. Hand held camera, found footage has been done a lot in movies, especially when the budget is limited, I normally don't mind them as long as there is a good plot and a character to root for, I just didn't find that here. I may have missed something but the movie is about a documentary maker but by the end of the movie I still wasn't sure what the documentary was about, I'm guessing the documentary makers farmer friend who lost both his parents (how did they die? We are just the viewer why would we want to know that). The characters throughout the movie make poor decisions, for example, let's leave the door unlocked and windows open and let's leave our only gun by the unlocked front door and expect it to still be there later (spoiler alert: it wasn't). My favourites, let's run off into the darkness outside separately and let's not bother picking up anything to defend ourselves with from the strange people who are trying to scare us. My biggest annoyance was why are the characters in the masks doing any of it, the movie had no revelation at the end or story unravelling and each time you think something good or interesting is about to happen it just doesn't. The only positive was that the people in masks were a bit creepy, is that enough?

HerrSupahz Well, this was awful. It combines all the negative qualities of a low budget horror movie without any of the good parts of being a scary movie. So basically it's a high school-grade non-scary scary movie with a 5-minute plot and Golden Raspberry-level acting. I'd be surprised if you didn't want the "good guys" to get offed well before the movie was over.It's hard to imagine giving away "spoilers" for this movie, I'm not sure how you would do it given how bad the enterprise is. But, just in case, some of this could be considered a spoiler: there's no plot, no haunting, no acting, no monsters, no effects, no story, no point. Several things get put out there which might make you think things are connected... Luke's parents being dead, the 11:55 each night happenings, the previous documentary... but nothing is brought together. It's like taking a fistful of possible plot points and throwing them in a script without any of them meaning anything. In some films, the idea of "let the audience figure it out" is fine, but this is not one of those films.There is one marginally creepy scene in the movie, at 1:09:45ish... Luke and Cordero are freaking out as the masked entities are closing in, and Cordero sets the camera down on the dining room table. You see the curtains in the back while the two talk, and if you keep watching the scene you'll see a dark figure move away when their backs are turned. He/she was in the house... oooooooh. Not exactly gripping stuff, but if there had been more of this sort of thing maybe I could give the film some creepiness credit.Also, apparently Cordero's girlfriend played one of the antagonists? I speculate after looking at the cast list, which credits Creep #1 and #2, but not #3. I don't know if that's somehow supposed to be a plot point, or just a matter of saving a few pennies to pay someone else to be in the film. I suspect the latter.I watched this for free through Prime, and while I am very glad I didn't spend a cent to watch it, I do feel like the time could have been better used cleaning litter boxes or watching water boil.