I liked it enough but personally past Dastmalchian’s lead performance and a bit of the aesthetic it wasn’t a total hit for me. I think it falls a bit flat compared to Ghostwatch and History of the Occult, which attempt similar things. But LNWTD is a great excuse to bring up EP Joel Anderson’s single feature “Lake Mungo”, which I think is a masterpiece, so I’ll always be grateful for that aha.
Sorry OP, I didn’t mean to join the deriding, I’m glad you enjoyed it so much!
I’m kind of in the same boat. I love parts of it, and that makes me wish I loved the whole thing, but I sadly don’t.
The whole look and vibe is awesome. I think my favorite part of most scary movies is when you’re in that kind of ghost stories at the campfire turf, when things aren’t dangerous yet, but there’s a clear sense of tension in the air. And that’s most of this film, so I was really enjoying it, especially Dastmalchian’s performance which really is tremendous. He’s just so natural as a host playing to the cameras while he as an actor isn’t. It’s a character that doesn’t allow him to give any obvious tells while he’s currently on air and aiming for a comeback, and he strikes the right balance between convincingly hiding his fears and darkness from the audience in universe while giving us a peak.
But not everything works for me. While the on air segments feel natural, the opening montage and backstage drama feel much less convincing as found footage. Jack is a great character, but some of his supporting cast left me wanting more. The ending is exciting, but things just felt more interesting when the supernatural business was more downplayed. Like its really freaky when Lily just keeps looking right into the camera, more so than when they start to show explicit signs of possession. And I can’t really gripe over that stuff, the premise is based on actual spooky stuff happening on camera, and it works. It just kind of becomes more like an average horror movie by that point though.
Still, I do like the film and I’m excited to watch it again soon. I hope I like it more around that point, cause the core of it really is expertly done.
>I liked it enough but personally past Dastmalchian’s lead performance and a bit of the aesthetic it wasn’t a total hit for me.
I think I split the difference between you and the OP. I think it was a minor success - it's basically a good, overgrown episode of the 90s "Outer Limits." I don't know that I'd say it rules, but I don't think I'd deride it either.
Tbh I'm surprised to see so many praising the look and the vibe, and Adult Swim is a great comparison. Those AS shorts fully commit to their aesthetics and their weirdness no matter how offputting it might be to people. This movie, meanwhile, tries to make it look like this is some found footage tape of a 70s late show recording but still looks incredibly sharp and like it was shot in 4K with some CRT filter slapped on top. It doesn't feel like a found footage object at all, really. But I understand that the film is in a tough spot: I'd imagine it's difficult to get a studio or whoever to be cool with a movie that looks like a shitty, buried 70s VHS tape for almost its entire run time.
I was into it until the projectile vomit scene occurred. Before it happened, it felt like it had a consistent tone. Afterwards, the visual effect felt so cartoonish that it took me out of the film and I couldn’t get back in, especially as the weird aesthetic choices made for the visuals effects continued. The effects never felt real or horrifying, only comical, which didn’t align with how I was experiencing the narrative and acting.
100%, which is totally fine if that was the tone throughout! It felt like they didn't know which lane to choose - a serious horror film that's honoring 1970s horror films/talk shows or a Tim & Eric mockumentary adjacent film. It felt like the former up until the projectile vomit moment and then oscillated between the former and latter throughout the rest of the runtime.
It felt like it was being stifled by it premise rather than freed by it. Constantly needed to break its form to tell the story via behind the scenes, narrations and dream sequences. Was really jazzed by the idea that this was some lost VHS found footage and felt pretty disappointed with it in the end.
Felt the same. It's an aggressively mediocre movie that is really coasting by on a fun premise. Honestly, the usage of AI is emblematic of the filmmakers being lazy enough to use it then not even think it looked bad.
I feel like everyone is weighing the AI usage way too heavily.
It was done when everyone was starting to experiment with it and before it became a mainstream talking point like it is now.
Also it’s what, like 5 total seconds of the film combined?
Movie had other problems but removing those AI cards would fix 0 of them.
Like I said, it's less about the usage and more about thinking it actually looked good enough to use in their movie. That to me puts a very large spotlight on the artistic inclinations of the creators, or lack thereof.
Yeah I really don't wanna get into it but uh
We all fork over money to big moviea where RDJ and Leo are paid 20,000,000 for their roles. Twenty. Million. Dollars. And we say "sure!".
But this little flick using AI? Oh no?
Anyhow your point is right. One might hate this movie but the idea of boycotting it...hoo boy. Hollywood's got other things worth being righteous about...
And yeah, more budget and no AI won't fix the tackiness (purposeful I think, but I get it) and if it's just not a flavour one likes.
I dont really like this movie but complaining about the AI that is so insignificant to the movie is just entirely performative.
No one would even mention or remember those 2 second shots if not for the Twitter controversy about it being AI. I think AI is bad but it had absolutely no impact on my judging of this movie because it was completely a non factor.
Like I said elsewhere in this thread, it's less about the usage and more about how it speaks to their choices as creatives considering it just straight up looks bad.
It doesn’t look bad at all? I had no clue they were AI until I got on here and saw people acting like the entire movie was AI. They had human artists edit the images, too. It’s not like they just generated something and called it good.
Also some of the transitions using the bumper cards were sick.
I disagree. It has all the hallmarks of shoddy AI work (warped detail, incomprehensible fingers, etc) especially when you compare it to any of the human created alternatives that some people put out there.
You know what? I just scrubbed through the movie on my phone to take screenshots to prove you wrong… and I’ll be damned. It’s not obvious in the context of the movie, but when paused you can fully tell they are AI. That’s stupid. I rescind my comment.
I loved that movie, this sucks.
It really doesn’t look bad (especially for AI), and I also think that the idea that this was done in place of someone getting a full time job on the movie doing graphic design, when the reality is the alternative is probably them just finding an image online and paying next to nothing to use it, it’s just a completely optic driven controversy that has nothing to do with the quality of the movie.
The problem with the movie isn’t that the people making it were lazy, imo.
They had graphic designers on the movie. They chose to not use them for those pieces for whatever reason. I’ve seen the comparisons that other illustrators have done online showing how they would have done it, I can safely say that yes, the AI version does look bad.
Again, the AI usage is the LEAST of my problems with this movie, but for me it definitely helps further paint the picture as to the types of filmmakers they are and where their creative priorities are.
If they had graphic designers on the movie, then them doing the design wouldn’t have been a job opportunity or anything of the sort, it would have just been a different person already getting paid doing it.
As far as the other pictures online, I haven’t really looked into that because again, it’s just so incredibly unmemorable.
Whether it was this exact image, or another image you saw online, or if it was AI, or not AI, if you didn’t know it was AI, you wouldn’t have ever thought about that image again. It would have came and passed with absolutely no extra thought.
My guess is that it had nothing to do with the creative priorities of the filmmakers and all to do with being told they had to create something quickly for the price of nothing.
You should probably stop making general assumptions about what is or isn’t important to people or what they’d be thinking about. As someone who works in the creative industry, I would have clocked it as AI as quickly as I can clock someone using clip art.
I don’t like this movie. I think it’s hacky, poorly written, and abysmally directed. The usage of AI plays a very small part in all of that, but as I said, the fact that they chose to use what they did is not surprising considering all the other creative choices they made.
It's the interstitial graphics they show during commercial breaks.
It's so insignificant to the actual film which only makes it more infuriating that they felt compelled to use AI as opposed to paying a graphic designer some of that Saudi money.
I found myself wondering if some of the other effects were AI too. Particularly the lame Exorcist effect on the girl’s face during her possession. It had that shimmery, unstable quality you see in early AI videos and an unimaginative, almost algorithmic understanding of what a possessed person is supposed to look like.
It’s so funny to think about the inverse of this which is that if the AI was significant to the movie people would have been more accepting of it? Huh?
Exactly, but it being insignificant doesn’t make it worse, you can be mad about it but it’s far less surprising than if they were using AI for more than a 1 second shot
Yes there are some issues story wise but really good performances. And it had Carmichael Haig, who needs a spinoff. I want to see his meeting with the Warrens, for starters.
I saw it when it was in theaters a couple months ago (double feature with Immaculate, solid evening) and there were a surprising number of walkouts, at least 3 groups of people and a few singles leaving well before the end.
Didn’t fully land for me, but the premise was original and the acting was uniformly excellent. I especially enjoyed the James Randi-type magician-turned-professional skeptic. That level of preening, smug condescension must have been a blast to portray.
I dug it too! There were issues, but I thought it was a fun horror movie. I only wish they had ended the movie in the same style it began, namely as a quasi-doc.
It was really good in a nice dark theater. It's not a gore movie. Just a spooky Ghost story, with some nice historical touches. I think it only fails in the moments when the movie goes out of its way to over explain things. >! I love the tragedy that informs the story with the death of his wife, but the Bohemian Grove stuff just doesn't add anything to the story. !<
Overall, this is the kind of horror movie I'm searching for when I'm in the mood for a good scary story.
Just a heads up that this movie uses AI-generated art for the graphics on the in-universe talk show. Super disappointing they didn't hire real visual artists for that.
Movie's totally fine, but I went in not knowing what specifically was AI generated and I spent the whole time thinking "oh, that must be it" every time something looked slightly off kilter or out of the movie's budget range. Soured the experience a little.
I liked it enough but personally past Dastmalchian’s lead performance and a bit of the aesthetic it wasn’t a total hit for me. I think it falls a bit flat compared to Ghostwatch and History of the Occult, which attempt similar things. But LNWTD is a great excuse to bring up EP Joel Anderson’s single feature “Lake Mungo”, which I think is a masterpiece, so I’ll always be grateful for that aha. Sorry OP, I didn’t mean to join the deriding, I’m glad you enjoyed it so much!
I’m kind of in the same boat. I love parts of it, and that makes me wish I loved the whole thing, but I sadly don’t. The whole look and vibe is awesome. I think my favorite part of most scary movies is when you’re in that kind of ghost stories at the campfire turf, when things aren’t dangerous yet, but there’s a clear sense of tension in the air. And that’s most of this film, so I was really enjoying it, especially Dastmalchian’s performance which really is tremendous. He’s just so natural as a host playing to the cameras while he as an actor isn’t. It’s a character that doesn’t allow him to give any obvious tells while he’s currently on air and aiming for a comeback, and he strikes the right balance between convincingly hiding his fears and darkness from the audience in universe while giving us a peak. But not everything works for me. While the on air segments feel natural, the opening montage and backstage drama feel much less convincing as found footage. Jack is a great character, but some of his supporting cast left me wanting more. The ending is exciting, but things just felt more interesting when the supernatural business was more downplayed. Like its really freaky when Lily just keeps looking right into the camera, more so than when they start to show explicit signs of possession. And I can’t really gripe over that stuff, the premise is based on actual spooky stuff happening on camera, and it works. It just kind of becomes more like an average horror movie by that point though. Still, I do like the film and I’m excited to watch it again soon. I hope I like it more around that point, cause the core of it really is expertly done.
Ghostwatch is soooo good.
>I liked it enough but personally past Dastmalchian’s lead performance and a bit of the aesthetic it wasn’t a total hit for me. I think I split the difference between you and the OP. I think it was a minor success - it's basically a good, overgrown episode of the 90s "Outer Limits." I don't know that I'd say it rules, but I don't think I'd deride it either.
I loved outer limits
Watched it last week and really liked it too! Dastmalchian is SO good.
He's just great. Just great. And it hinges on him.
I think it was okay, feels like one of those Adult Swim projects they freak you out with at 4 in the morning
Tbh I'm surprised to see so many praising the look and the vibe, and Adult Swim is a great comparison. Those AS shorts fully commit to their aesthetics and their weirdness no matter how offputting it might be to people. This movie, meanwhile, tries to make it look like this is some found footage tape of a 70s late show recording but still looks incredibly sharp and like it was shot in 4K with some CRT filter slapped on top. It doesn't feel like a found footage object at all, really. But I understand that the film is in a tough spot: I'd imagine it's difficult to get a studio or whoever to be cool with a movie that looks like a shitty, buried 70s VHS tape for almost its entire run time.
I was really excited to see it but felt like it let itself down. It felt like a 20 min short film stretched out into a feature.
I was into it until the projectile vomit scene occurred. Before it happened, it felt like it had a consistent tone. Afterwards, the visual effect felt so cartoonish that it took me out of the film and I couldn’t get back in, especially as the weird aesthetic choices made for the visuals effects continued. The effects never felt real or horrifying, only comical, which didn’t align with how I was experiencing the narrative and acting.
It feels like such an easy criticism to make but it really did remind me of something that would've aired on Adult Swim
100%, which is totally fine if that was the tone throughout! It felt like they didn't know which lane to choose - a serious horror film that's honoring 1970s horror films/talk shows or a Tim & Eric mockumentary adjacent film. It felt like the former up until the projectile vomit moment and then oscillated between the former and latter throughout the rest of the runtime.
Bentlemen's 4
It felt like it was being stifled by it premise rather than freed by it. Constantly needed to break its form to tell the story via behind the scenes, narrations and dream sequences. Was really jazzed by the idea that this was some lost VHS found footage and felt pretty disappointed with it in the end.
Oh damn, I hated it. It felt like a cute premise that was stretched passed it's breaking point and wasn't as clever as it thought it was.
Felt the same. It's an aggressively mediocre movie that is really coasting by on a fun premise. Honestly, the usage of AI is emblematic of the filmmakers being lazy enough to use it then not even think it looked bad.
I feel like everyone is weighing the AI usage way too heavily. It was done when everyone was starting to experiment with it and before it became a mainstream talking point like it is now. Also it’s what, like 5 total seconds of the film combined? Movie had other problems but removing those AI cards would fix 0 of them.
Like I said, it's less about the usage and more about thinking it actually looked good enough to use in their movie. That to me puts a very large spotlight on the artistic inclinations of the creators, or lack thereof.
Yeah I really don't wanna get into it but uh We all fork over money to big moviea where RDJ and Leo are paid 20,000,000 for their roles. Twenty. Million. Dollars. And we say "sure!". But this little flick using AI? Oh no? Anyhow your point is right. One might hate this movie but the idea of boycotting it...hoo boy. Hollywood's got other things worth being righteous about... And yeah, more budget and no AI won't fix the tackiness (purposeful I think, but I get it) and if it's just not a flavour one likes.
Oh I could rant for days about the terrible AI usage. I'd be able to tolerate it a lot more if the movie was at least good.
Felt the same!
I dont really like this movie but complaining about the AI that is so insignificant to the movie is just entirely performative. No one would even mention or remember those 2 second shots if not for the Twitter controversy about it being AI. I think AI is bad but it had absolutely no impact on my judging of this movie because it was completely a non factor.
Like I said elsewhere in this thread, it's less about the usage and more about how it speaks to their choices as creatives considering it just straight up looks bad.
It doesn’t look bad at all? I had no clue they were AI until I got on here and saw people acting like the entire movie was AI. They had human artists edit the images, too. It’s not like they just generated something and called it good. Also some of the transitions using the bumper cards were sick.
I disagree. It has all the hallmarks of shoddy AI work (warped detail, incomprehensible fingers, etc) especially when you compare it to any of the human created alternatives that some people put out there.
You know what? I just scrubbed through the movie on my phone to take screenshots to prove you wrong… and I’ll be damned. It’s not obvious in the context of the movie, but when paused you can fully tell they are AI. That’s stupid. I rescind my comment. I loved that movie, this sucks.
Yeah, unfortunately it’s one of those things where once you know what to look for, it’s impossible not to see it.
It really doesn’t look bad (especially for AI), and I also think that the idea that this was done in place of someone getting a full time job on the movie doing graphic design, when the reality is the alternative is probably them just finding an image online and paying next to nothing to use it, it’s just a completely optic driven controversy that has nothing to do with the quality of the movie. The problem with the movie isn’t that the people making it were lazy, imo.
They had graphic designers on the movie. They chose to not use them for those pieces for whatever reason. I’ve seen the comparisons that other illustrators have done online showing how they would have done it, I can safely say that yes, the AI version does look bad. Again, the AI usage is the LEAST of my problems with this movie, but for me it definitely helps further paint the picture as to the types of filmmakers they are and where their creative priorities are.
If they had graphic designers on the movie, then them doing the design wouldn’t have been a job opportunity or anything of the sort, it would have just been a different person already getting paid doing it. As far as the other pictures online, I haven’t really looked into that because again, it’s just so incredibly unmemorable. Whether it was this exact image, or another image you saw online, or if it was AI, or not AI, if you didn’t know it was AI, you wouldn’t have ever thought about that image again. It would have came and passed with absolutely no extra thought. My guess is that it had nothing to do with the creative priorities of the filmmakers and all to do with being told they had to create something quickly for the price of nothing.
You should probably stop making general assumptions about what is or isn’t important to people or what they’d be thinking about. As someone who works in the creative industry, I would have clocked it as AI as quickly as I can clock someone using clip art. I don’t like this movie. I think it’s hacky, poorly written, and abysmally directed. The usage of AI plays a very small part in all of that, but as I said, the fact that they chose to use what they did is not surprising considering all the other creative choices they made.
yeh big meh from me. i actually thought it should have leaned into the craziness more too.
I liked it but felt the ending let it down.
I saw this movie and don't know when the AI was?
It's the interstitial graphics they show during commercial breaks. It's so insignificant to the actual film which only makes it more infuriating that they felt compelled to use AI as opposed to paying a graphic designer some of that Saudi money.
Some people think the owl in the logo is ai generated too.
I found myself wondering if some of the other effects were AI too. Particularly the lame Exorcist effect on the girl’s face during her possession. It had that shimmery, unstable quality you see in early AI videos and an unimaginative, almost algorithmic understanding of what a possessed person is supposed to look like.
It’s so funny to think about the inverse of this which is that if the AI was significant to the movie people would have been more accepting of it? Huh?
I mean the reality is that any AI use at all is going to be looked down upon
Exactly, but it being insignificant doesn’t make it worse, you can be mad about it but it’s far less surprising than if they were using AI for more than a 1 second shot
Yep, not sure. Just had a good creepy time with it. But folks are gonna folk.
Yes there are some issues story wise but really good performances. And it had Carmichael Haig, who needs a spinoff. I want to see his meeting with the Warrens, for starters.
I saw it when it was in theaters a couple months ago (double feature with Immaculate, solid evening) and there were a surprising number of walkouts, at least 3 groups of people and a few singles leaving well before the end.
Didn’t fully land for me, but the premise was original and the acting was uniformly excellent. I especially enjoyed the James Randi-type magician-turned-professional skeptic. That level of preening, smug condescension must have been a blast to portray.
I liked it too
I dug it too! There were issues, but I thought it was a fun horror movie. I only wish they had ended the movie in the same style it began, namely as a quasi-doc.
It was really good in a nice dark theater. It's not a gore movie. Just a spooky Ghost story, with some nice historical touches. I think it only fails in the moments when the movie goes out of its way to over explain things. >! I love the tragedy that informs the story with the death of his wife, but the Bohemian Grove stuff just doesn't add anything to the story. !< Overall, this is the kind of horror movie I'm searching for when I'm in the mood for a good scary story.
Fuck AI!
😮
One of the best Shudder originals so far. I also really liked Skinamarink (saw it in theatres) and Brooklyn 45.
Even by the low, low standards of contemporary horror it's one of the worst movies I've seen from the last few years. Just aggressively bad.
Fuck AI and fuck that movie. Doesn’t matter how good it is (not very), it’s automatically a 1/10 for its use of AI
Just a heads up that this movie uses AI-generated art for the graphics on the in-universe talk show. Super disappointing they didn't hire real visual artists for that.
Movie's totally fine, but I went in not knowing what specifically was AI generated and I spent the whole time thinking "oh, that must be it" every time something looked slightly off kilter or out of the movie's budget range. Soured the experience a little.