I saw it and to be honest I was disappointed. I felt more could have been done with it, since the set up was too slow and non-eventful. Alot of the scares were cliched, false alarms, which I found to be a bit tiresome and predictable. After waiting twenty minutes for a scare, I was hoping a bit of momentum might build, but it didn't and the scare in question was just a typical, cheap scare of no consequence. I much preferred Blair Witch, although the ending was intense, but would have been more satisfying if I had cared more about the characters. In terms of the audio and visual aspects of the film, I thought it was well executed, as both helped create a claustrophobic atmosphere, so vital to the success of this type of movie. Its just a shame more wasn't done with it overall. I'd recommend that people watch John Carpenter's classic The Thing instead, a film which is similar in some ways to My Little Eye but which ultimately achieves a great deal more, because its quicker, scarier, has better characters, and is a lot less predictable.
'Rock n' roll, lets all have a pear!'
reply
share
luckycharm91
22 years ago
My Little Eye started out strongly, but some reason it went downhill as soon as Charlie was killed off then it got stupid. I mean, come on, a policeman putting handcuffs on a innocent woman? Why didn't that strike her as being strange? Whats also strange is that you got to see both women breasts and yet it seems the men in the house never took a shower in all the time they were there! It had good ideas, although some flaws,like the camera on the pen? Why the hell didn't she see it? The pen would of been heavy! Oh and yeah, the characters pretty....*beep*. A token slutty girl, (thanks Jennifer Sky) and another Scully type person who is self involved. I thought the characters were pretty under developed.
reply
share
wildstrawbe
21 years ago
I don't think the characters were underdevelopped. You could say that the reason they picked these different characters for the game was because they believed they were the more interesting of all the characters that were interviewed. All they needed was 5 suckers.
A cynical dude (Rex)
A slutty girl (Charlie)
A weirdo (Emma)
An emotional guy (Danny)
And a psycho killer.
reply
share
TheSubstitute
21 years ago
Thing is, reality isn't as interesting as fiction, otherwise the non-fiction section should dominate book stores seeing how you don't risk "unoriginality" from fictions.
That's the trouble with this film, it's meant to be "realistic" so the characters had to be somewhat realistic, ignoring Matt I guess. But the "realistic" (arguable) portraits of the character made the film dead boring, which suggests the film should have focused on plot elements for a good balance. It didn't, so it failed to become something good.
reply
share
TheSubstitute
21 years ago
Actually I disagree with your take on the cop putting handcuffs on "an innocent woman". If he was genuinely a cop, how would he know she's not some crazy bitch lose in the snow jungle? Cops cuff everyone involved when they're called to a street fight unless it's dead obvious a beating than a street fight.
reply
share
activista
8 years ago
@Luckychannel
Why was the girl "slutty"? She only slept with one dude in the entire flick! Hell, in most films, the men sleep with way more women than that---what a silly sexist,statement. I mean women like sex as much as men do, yet only they get penalized and demonized for it. She saw a dude she thought was cute, and he didn't have a problem kicking it with her,plain and simple. Funny how the men who sleep around in films never get called "sluts" even when they clearly are.
reply
share
wildstrawbe
21 years ago
Well you see that's why you didn't like it. Because you thought you were watching a typical horror movie and you were waiting to be scared. And when you realized that there were no scares you got bored. But you failed to realize what this story really is about.
reply
share