One of the worst movies I've ever seen

I agree this was possibly the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life EVER(not having seen For Your Consideration).

I started watching this movie on cable in the middle of the night and thought it was a 1960s low budget Lifetime movie. I was shocked to see it was made in this decade and even more shocked to see people actually liked it on here. That is an houf of my life that I will never have back.

Really makes me doubt the credibility of the rating system on IMDB. This should be a negative rating and the actors should have paid me to watch it even if I did see it for free on cable.

Besides the horrible acting, the unbelievable story line and the ridiculous ending the most painful painful painful thing to endure was that ACCENT! Oh the humanity.

Well first, moondoggiedaddy2007, you must be 12 years old.

Secondly, this movie was not that bad. Sorry it wasn't Avatar or Dark Knight or anything, but for as low of budget this movie was, it at least hit the point it was trying to make. Now the acting was not very good at all, and maybe people are not unfamiliar with the whole college film thing, but I've seen quite a few well directed college films. It is very true to life, and no it isn't edgy but it isn't necessarily supposed to be a thriller, is it?

It was a decent movie IMO.

Looks to me that 12-year-olds abound in this thread. It's a sad state of affairs that the youths -- if not in chronological age, at least in mentality -- commenting here are so conditioned by the wham-bam Hollywood cookie-cutter output, that when something comes along throwing a curve, they just can't deal with it. I liked for example, what the one who started the thread (markjaynes) wrote:

The people who have called this film a "sleeper hit" or a "real gem" must be completely unfamiliar with any movie made outside of the world of low budget first time college film projects.

This is the most peculiar irony; in other words, viewers who have taken a liking to this film are the ignorant ones; they are the ones with such little cinematic knowledge that their judgment winds up impaired. In contrast, people such as the thread-starting writer have so much their finger on the pulse of what a real movie should be, the kind of glossy, predictable crap that they've been weaned on, they feel outrage and intolerance with an effort that doesn't follow the rules.

And then there's this note of brilliance:

"Not true to life."

Probable translation: there's no blood, fisticuffs or shooting, and the actors don't look like they came out of modeling school, so the film comes across as fake.

Quite the contrary, a major factor why WHAT ALICE FOUND succeeds in holding the viewer's attention is precisely because the filmmakers have laudably made the goings-on as realistic as possible. They did not resort to stupid Hollywood plot twists, and they did not take the easy way out. Our new generation of film viewers have sadly become so dumbed down, they have really lost their grip. To them, up has become down.

And would you get a load of the opinions here regarding the "bad acting"! What planet are they living on? There was not a single poor performance in the film, with the leads shining, Emily Grace's Alice, and especially Judith Ivey's Sandra; simply outstanding.

Another intellectual, "sweetestgirl044," actually started her own thread called "bad acting?"; listen to how she put it:

im sorry i dont want to be mean but i watched a little bit of this movie and i had to turn it off because the acting was so bad... i felt like i was watching a reality tv show trying to act.

I think she inadvertently stumbled upon a sort of explanation as to why there are now, sadly, so many whose sensibilities have become corrupted, to the point that their conclusions define topsy-turvy... and that's with the reference to "reality tv show." We are now living in an age where the outlets to make one publicly heard has mushroomed, and where everyone (through blogs, YouTube, Twitter, digital video) can become a "celebrity," at least in their own minds. They want to appear smart, with the wide variety of ways to sound off, and they think they are being smart by pointing out to the rest of us what so obviously falls short of quality. They have little idea, of course, of proverbs such as "A fool's mouth is his destruction."
.

OK, let's see, "bad acting." First, be specific. I thought every character was portrayed perfectly, from the lead roles down to the bit parts. As for the "poor direction," maybe you mean the low-budget nature of the cinematography. Personally I have no problem watching a digitally-shot movie if it's worth seeing, and this was really an excellent story about a clueless girl who gets in way over her head and is suckered into something she never expected. For some of us, a sympathetic tale about the pitfalls of 21st century life is more interesting than whether the film has whizbang special effects.

[deleted]

This movie is truly horrible. And before some bitter old person tells me that I am a child and simply cannot recognize a good movie without special effects, I am 30 and all of my favorite movies were made before 1970. Skip this one, it isn't worth the time investment.