Oculus 2014

Shiraz 4.99

Everything seems fine with the initial setup, the rules of the game are established as Doctor Who girl sets up multiple cameras, temperature sensors & most importantly, a routine which allows her & her brother investigate an evil mirror which she believes was responsible for the death of her parents 11 years earlier.

After establishing this strict regime it begins to tear it apart to pretty much allow any inexplicable nonsense to happen.
Then you are on a rollercoaster of flashback scenes intercut with live footage which show running parallels between this timeline & what happened 11 years ago.
Honestly I found it very confusing & when the ending comes it seems to lack any coherent explanation.
Not many scares for a horror either.

I didn't get it, 5/10.

red dave

1/10 for me.

Starts OK (5-10 minutes of OK), however I quickly lost interest in the film at

the very first incident where they move the cameras together without realising it. It just blatantly displayed how pointless the whole movie was going to be. This film is the most incoherent mess I've seen in a while. The girl rambling on at the end about him finishing it and the promise they made when they were young

Utter ****e.

Banjaxed82

I am genuinely getting to the point where Oculus, Sinister, Insidious, the conjuring, etc, etc are all morphing into the one movie.

I understand its due to budget reasons but if I see another horror film set in a house... It's getting very tiresome.

Banjaxed82

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

I am genuinely getting to the point where Oculus, Sinister, Insidious, the conjuring, etc, etc are all morphing into the one movie.

I understand its due to budget reasons but if I see another horror film set in a house... It's getting very tiresome.

That's a ridiculous statement to make. You've picked 4 or 5 films out of the hundred of so horror films released over the few years and are implying that the genre is treating the same tired ground. While I've yet to see Oculus, Mike Flanagan's last film, Absentia was damn good and marked him out as a talent to watch so I'm looking forward to seeing what he does with a bigger budget.

nix

It's terrible Darko, OP's review is spot on except for the rating, id give it a 3/10

I went to it without seeing the trailer so all scares would have been fresh/first time and i didnt jump at all, Reason i went, i was just excited to see a horror film in the cinema and as a bonus starring Katie Sackoff, but she is terribly under used and brings little to the little time shes in it, sadly.

I couldn't wait for it to end..

On the plus side i did see a burning car on the way back from the cinema coming onto the motorway, it was engulfed in flames.. pretty cool.. It wasn't a crash, looked like it was abandoned and then set alight, probably moltoved..Nice lookin car too...

But yeah movie was bad..

Banjaxed82

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's a ridiculous statement to make. You've picked 4 or 5 films out of the hundred of so horror films released over the few years and are implying that the genre is treating the same tired ground. While I've yet to see Oculus, Mike Flanagan's last film, Absentia was damn good and marked him out as a talent to watch so I'm looking forward to seeing what he does with a bigger budget.

That was not the statement I made. I'm not talking about the 100's of other horror films made.

I mentioned those films specifically because they plus other "supernatural goings on in a house" films are all tonely/visually similar and its reached a point for me where I can't remember if a certain scene was in one film or another.

e_e

nix wrote: »

i didnt jump at all

I don't that was the film's intention at all in fairness. One of the more interesting things about it for me is how it sidesteps the generic "quiet quiet quiet LOUD" of other recent horrors. Found it a decent enough watch.

Banjaxed82

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

That was not the statement I made. I'm not talking about the 100's of other horror films made.

I mentioned those films specifically because they plus other "supernatural goings on in a house" films are all tonely/visually similar and its reached a point for me where I can't remember if a certain scene was in one film or another.

So basically your problem is that out of the hundreds of horror films released every year there are 4 or 5 that share a similar setting. Honestly if you have trouble remembering one film from another then perhaps the problem is with your memory and not the film. While I've only seen 3 of the ones you mentioned I know what happened in each one and don't get confused thinking about them.

nix

e_e wrote: »

I don't that was the film's intention at all in fairness. One of the more interesting things about it for me is how it sidesteps the generic "quiet quiet quiet LOUD" of other recent horrors. Found it a decent enough watch.

True but there were moments where it tried to make ya jump but i found they were just poorly executed/predicable and failed, and i did find it overly random and hard to be immersed in the horror when not even I could tell what was real or fake, it all felt so random.

Take the apple/bulb scene for example, that did actually have me cringe for a sec but then it just turned out to be an illusion, all just so pointless, that was the only scene that was nearly good heh

e_e

Yeah the stakes become really murky when it's never clear what's real or imagined. I liked the brother/sister drama at the center of it though.

nix

Yeah up until pretty much the bulb scene it was a decent enough watch, but it just went random city after that, the 3rd act is usually always ropey in modern horrors i find, and more often than not a let down.

Its all subjective i guess, people say the 3rd act of insidious was poor, but i didn't mind it at all.

Fysh

I watched Absentia last night after seeing Darko's mention of it upthread and was quite impressed (though I can see how it might frustrate people expecting it to be a different sort of film).

I hope that Oculus is in a similar vein to it because, if so, I'll probably enjoy it.

Bipolar Joe

Deleted User wrote: »

So basically your problem is that out of the hundreds of horror films released every year there are 4 or 5 that share a similar setting. Honestly if you have trouble remembering one film from another then perhaps the problem is with your memory and not the film. While I've only seen 3 of the ones you mentioned I know what happened in each one and don't get confused thinking about them.

Dude, relax, you're being unnecessarily angry. Haven't seen the movie, but I can understand the statement. A lot of Hollywood horror movies (Which are what he listed) do tend to bleed into each other, I find, mostly because they're instantly forgettable. Scary things happen in a house, so instead of doing the logical thing and moving the fuck out, set up a camera.

I don't blame the budget. Great movies, especially horror and slasher types, can be made on a tiny budget. Hatchet, a great slasher, was made on $1,500,00. Oculus cost $5,000,000 (Both according to the IMDb). It's shitty ideas, not budget.

Bipolar Joe

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Dude, relax, you're being unnecessarily angry. Haven't seen the movie, but I can understand the statement. A lot of Hollywood horror movies (Which are what he listed) do tend to bleed into each other, I find, mostly because they're instantly forgettable. Scary things happen in a house, so instead of doing the logical thing and moving the fuck out, set up a camera.

I don't blame the budget. Great movies, especially horror and slasher types, can be made on a tiny budget. Hatchet, a great slasher, was made on $1,500,00. Oculus cost $5,000,000 (Both according to the IMDb). It's shitty ideas, not budget.

How does any of that seem like I'm angry. The poster listed a number of films which share one thing in common, most of the action occurs in a house and involves a family. It's like writing off Halloween because it involves a man in a mask killing people. While I've yet to see Oculus, is not the whole point of the film that a character is trying to prove the mirror/house is haunted and as such just leaving would make no sense.

If you want to talk about budget then you gotta look at films like Insidious and The Conjuring which were made for less than a million dollars and work not because they are flashy but rather they have good scripts and ideas in play.

Bipolar Joe

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a ridiculous statement to make. You've picked 4 or 5 films out of the hundred of so horror films released over the few years and are implying that the genre is treating the same tired ground. While I've yet to see Oculus, Mike Flanagan's last film, Absentia was damn good and marked him out as a talent to watch so I'm looking forward to seeing what he does with a bigger budget.

Deleted User wrote: »

So basically your problem is that out of the hundreds of horror films released every year there are 4 or 5 that share a similar setting. Honestly if you have trouble remembering one film from another then perhaps the problem is with your memory and not the film. While I've only seen 3 of the ones you mentioned I know what happened in each one and don't get confused thinking about them.

Do you really not see how these two posts can be construed as angry, especially the bolded?

I thought Insidious was boring and generic. This debate is more about what an individual feels makes a good horror. Arguing about that is retarded and belongs on IMDb.

Bipolar Joe

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Do you really not see how these two posts can be construed as angry, especially the bolded?

I thought Insidious was boring and generic. This debate is more about what an individual feels makes a good horror. Arguing about that is retarded and belongs on IMDb.

No I can't see how either post could be seen as angry, and yes if someone has trouble telling a number of films apart then perhaps they should look at themselves and not the films.

Bipolar Joe

Taking another medium, music, do these two songs sound the same? Or is it that I should take a look at myself and not the music?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs4tNeGyTyI

Also, if you can't see that those posts come off as angry, maybe you need to look at yourself.

EDIT: Not sure if a :P or :rolleyes: are in order in this post, so delete as applicable.

Bipolar Joe

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

Taking another medium, music, do these two songs sound the same? Or is it that I should take a look at myself and not the music?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qs4tNeGyTyI

Also, if you can't see that those posts come off as angry, maybe you need to look at yourself.

So to prove a point you are going to a completely different medium to do so. Now you may be able to use it if you were arguing that the films looked similar, or had similar scores or copied scenes from one another but otherwise, your post is just pointless.

Visually all the films mentioned are quite different looking, there's different styles used and as I said already bar the setting and the fact that they involve families the films are different. It's not like were discussing one of those "Not a Movie" rip offs or something from the Asylum where entire scenes are recycled. Lots of songs sound similar and lots of films feel the same but that still doesn't mean that the problem the poster here had isn't entirely their own. That they can't tell one film from the other yet millions can means that the problem is their own.

I'm genuinely trying to see how anyone could see my posts as being angry. I didn't realise that expressing a different opinion was not someone being angry.

PLUG71

I watched this film and was sorely let down.

Over hyped crap as are most modern horror movies.

Boring and predictable IMO.

catallus

I liked this, I didn't see that ending coming at all at all, all of the actors were really good; comparing this to the desperately twee "The Conjuring" is just wrong.

nix

I saw the ending coming a mile away,

as soon as it was revealed they were doing things but really doing another, i knew one of them was getting impaled by the spike

flugjab1

If you've seen Paranormal Activity, The Conjuring, Sinister don't bother. Nothing new here.

Fysh

Deleted User wrote: »

So to prove a point you are going to a completely different medium to do so. Now you may be able to use it if you were arguing that the films looked similar, or had similar scores or copied scenes from one another but otherwise, your post is just pointless.

Visually all the films mentioned are quite different looking, there's different styles used and as I said already bar the setting and the fact that they involve families the films are different. It's not like were discussing one of those "Not a Movie" rip offs or something from the Asylum where entire scenes are recycled. Lots of songs sound similar and lots of films feel the same but that still doesn't mean that the problem the poster here had isn't entirely their own. That they can't tell one film from the other yet millions can means that the problem is their own.

I'm genuinely trying to see how anyone could see my posts as being angry. I didn't realise that expressing a different opinion was not someone being angry.

While I don't think you came off as being particularly angry upthread, I do disagree with you about whether films feeling similar is exclusively the fault of the viewer. I've tried to cut down my viewing of blockbusters because in the last couple of years I've hit the end of the year having seen at least half a dozen films which were thematically, narratively and visually sufficiently similar that they bled into one another. I've become picky about horror films which get theatrical releases for similar reasons - there seem to be a couple of subgenres which are proving popular and cheap to make, but where experimentation appears to be lacking.

I'm happy to see that this is being countered by an increasing number of independent horror films; I just wish more of them made it to the cinema.

Fysh

Fysh wrote: »

While I don't think you came off as being particularly angry upthread, I do disagree with you about whether films feeling similar is exclusively the fault of the viewer. I've tried to cut down my viewing of blockbusters because in the last couple of years I've hit the end of the year having seen at least half a dozen films which were thematically, narratively and visually sufficiently similar that they bled into one another. I've become picky about horror films which get theatrical releases for similar reasons - there seem to be a couple of subgenres which are proving popular and cheap to make, but where experimentation appears to be lacking.

I'm happy to see that this is being countered by an increasing number of independent horror films; I just wish more of them made it to the cinema.

I wasn't saying that there isn't a familiarity to many films, blockbusters are especially guilty of it with films such as Transformers 3, The Avengers and Captain America 2 all having pretty much the same ending. The final set piece in all 3 seems to be the same one recycled with just a few characters reskined, it's like a bad video game where you unlock a bonus level and it's the same only with different faces.

Looking at the films which were mentioned here they aren't that similar that they could all blend into one. Sure they all share a similar setting and all feature a family but they do enough to distinguish themselves and not feel overtly familiar.

jaykhunter

Jaysus. I'm with Darko on this. Although there are similarities, the aforementioned films don't blend together at all, I think that's quite dismissive. Thankfully I've actually seen the movie so I can comment on it!

I was surprised at how much I enjoyed the film, as a partially WWE-funded film I thought it would be average. The slick camera-pans transitioning between the two storylines/time-frames was jarring at first, but you get used to it and it's enjoyable by the end. There's a few cheap scares but also some effective tension and unexpected scary moments. I quite liked the mirror sequence in the art stock room. I'm a fan of when characters set up precautions and fail-safes to try take control of the situation. Tropes laid down (eg plants withering, the mirror causes sensory-manipulation leading to self-harm/delusions) are expanded on in the current time period. Although other films, this real-or-illusion schtick could lead to you not caring (like later Hellraiser films) I thought it was really interesting. I wish we got more information on the being itself but that's a nitpick. Nothing ground-breaking but I found it to be a good watch. I gather that most people dismiss the film without having seen it (ironic as it's called Oculus!) but I recommend it.

Fysh

Just saw this tonight and can't help feeling a bit disappointed, to be honest. It starts out reasonably well, but where Absentia demonstrated a willingness to give the characters space to breathe and established a very clever basis on which to suggest that all of the characters might or might not be unreliable narrators, Oculus establishes scope for such character development and then skips it, choosing instead to hurtle straight through the best part of it (the conversation between brother and sister about whether the sister is suffering from trauma-induced delusions) and then drags out what few setpieces it has for too long.

The editing is slick, and particularly towards the third act there was some nice stuff with the narrative almost sliding back and forth between the past and present storyline (with a couple of very nice moments), but the ending is weak as all get-out (and is something that both characters should have seen coming after the very first incident).

Unfortunately, while the editing is sometimes quite nice there's an over-reliance on lazy jumpscares with loud high-pitched strings and visuals of "demonic" people (sadly using exactly the same sort of visual that every other film along similar lines has used in the last several years).

This has some nice moments and ideas, but ultimately it's a wasted opportunity and a mediocre end result, particularly in comparison to Absentia. Although at least it doesn't descend into outright incoherent bollocks as so many supernatural gubbins films tend to do...

ChoiChoi

Interesting flick, there were some very nice moments like when they're switching around the cameras on video. Clever in parts definitely.

unreggd

Saw it a while back, and was mostly disappointed. I HATED the lead actress. She delivered all her lines like it was an infomercial. And most importantly, it just didn't feel like a horror film much at all. The 'reality vs headfxck' aspect was interesting, but they didn't do much with it. Also, it was obvious how the film would end.

I did like how the mirror remained a mirror though. It didn't speak through reflections or have a voice. It was simply just there. That was well creepy.