MovieChat Forums > It Watches (2016) Discussion > Small budget, small plot...

Small budget, small plot...


I'm guessing this was fairly small budget, since the main character is also the writer and director. Here's the main plot:

A whole 1/3 of the movie consisted of nothing more that the lead dude walking around a home he is supposed to be house-sitting, looking through the different rooms. Which, for some reason happen to have mannequins in them, covered by sheets. All of which he is filming "for his grandam's birthday" because that's what grandmothers want -- video of someone walking around a house, filming himself.

Nothing happens for the first 1/3 of the movie. Then his girlfriend shows up to have dinner, and there's some poorly-acted scenes with her, where they eat, drink wine, and then walk around looking at the house.

Suddenly some dude shows up and claims the police called him to warn him about some escaped convicts on the loose, and (like a good neighbor) warns him to lock all the doors and windows. Inexplicably, he just walks into the house and starts walking around checking all the window locks. More poorly acted dialogue ensues. The main dude then leaves neighbor/stranger with the girlfriend while he goes around to check the doors/windows. While he's gone, stranger/neighbor makes creepy/offensive sexual comments to girlfriend, then tells her to leave. Then stranger/neighbor tells main dude his girlfriend left because "5 inches"? Some sex insult. So he tells him to leave. Then there's more wandering around looking at the house, finding creepy photos, etc. By this time the movie is over half done and nothing has really happened yet.

So then main dude gets a flashlight (he somehow knows right where it is in a house he's never been to before) and proceeds to.... wait for it... walk around the house looking through the rooms again, once again. It's about 3/4 of the way through the movie by now. Then he sees a creepy video on a flash drive that hints that maybe he's a killer. But the lights go out, so (you guessed it) he goes walking around the house with the flashlight, looking for the circuit breaker. But, he thinks his girlfriend is outside, so he goes wandering around outside looking around for the circuit breaker. Then someone/something chases him and grabs his leg. He escapes back inside the house.

Then suddenly the house is full of cops who wrestle him to the ground. He tells them to watch the flash drive video, which ends up being his girlfriend being murdered -- and surprise! It shows him as the killer. Apparently, he has a split personality.

No explanation, really, for how the killing or events really happened. For example, on the film it shows someone pulling the covers off him... which he couldn't have been filming, since he was in the bed asleep in the video. Also, the stranger/neighbor ends up being one of the police that busts in and tackles him. No explanation for that. No explanation for why he'd been taking photos of women, and his girlfriend, or the implication there were other murders... or how he had time to do any of it since he was supposedly only housesitting for one night.

If you want to watch a movie about some dude mostly walking around a house, this is the flick for you!

It really seems like the main goal of this movie was to see exactly how many different "weird" camera angles/affects/filters the cameraman could use. Shots from above, below, odd angles, just his feet, just the ceiling, peeking around this or that, moving along the side of the house, an inch from an eyeball, a long shot down a hall... I mean it was almost like a school project where he was going to be tested on each camera angle/type. The soundtrack effects person also was amateur-ly heavy handed with all the "something creepy is happening","now something is building up to happen" music and "gotcha!" effects. I rated it a three, and I think I was being generous.

reply

SPOILER

I quite liked it. The clues are dotted throughout the film.

The whole house sitting thingy was a sting operation by the police. When he was filmed sleeping - the police. Chased in the garden near the end - the police. Once he'd settled into the house there was a news report on the tv about a car found in a ravine with a mutilated woman in the boot yet no sign of the driver. And before that, when his friend dropped him off at the house. All of a sudden he seemed rather cold and just wanted to leave in a hurry and made a mention that he'd been to the house before and his previous "conquests". Remember the main character was suffering from memory loss most likely from crashing the car into the ravine. It was his house and he was the killer all along. That's why he couldn't remember and was confused about the photos in the locked room.

reply

Well, thanks for trying. The plot still doesn't make any sense.

Why would the police have had to do a "sting" at all? The movie makes it clear that the photos and film were there the whole time. Surely they knew whose car was in the ravine?

Why did the policeman pretend to be a neighbor, walk around the house checking all the windows, and then make rude sexual comments to the girlfriend and the main character? Why did the policeman/fake neighbor leave the girlfriend there if she was in danger with a serial killer? Why was a policeperson in the house dressed head-to-toe in white with eyeholes cut out?

Why was a policeperson outside wearing a bush camoflauge costume? Last, but not least, what exactly was the "sting" even needed? Why couldn't they have just gotten a search warrant for the premises?

I'm sorry, but the movie was just a hot mess.

reply

The movie is not great, but it's not nearly as bad as you say. For example:

1. The photos and film were hidden. Apparently the police didn't find them in their search.

2. The car in the ravine was probably stolen, thus not leading back to Adam/Andre. We don't know how the police figured out Andre was the killer

3. The policeman made rude comments to Rachel to get her out of the house without revealing what was really happening. He didn't "leave her there"; he got her out. Presumably, once she was extracted, the police explained, which is why she was present at the end.

4. I don't know the reason for the strange camouflage outfits. Maybe to keep Andre off balance or make him think it was all a prank?

5. The police had obviously already searched the house. How else would they have set up all the surveillance? They didn't find the evidence they needed because most of it was hidden. A bit weak, yes, but without that device there'd be no movie.

While this is not a great movie, the plot elements you cite as mysterious plot holes are not really not that hard to figure out. I'm not sure why you missed them.

reply

Well, first of all, I don't recall mentioning any "mysterious plot holes". I simply said it had a "small plot", and much of it made no sense. Your comments really didn't clarify any of that.

1. The photos and film were hidden? Well, I did guess that, since they were in a flash drive in the freezer. No solid information was given as to why the *only* evidence they had was photos/video they *suspected* he might have made. So, that's not answered.

2. Nothing in the film implies that the car in the ravine was stolen. And yes, it is problematic that we don't know how the police figured out the dude was the killer. That's why I mentioned it. So, neither of these are answered.

3. Even if you go along with the idea that the fake neighbor/police made rude comments to get the woman out of the house, it doesn't explain why he made rude comments to the killer as well.

4. There is no explanation for the camo outfits.

5. If the police already searched the house and were able to set up surveillance, they did a crappy job.

Yes, the movie is weak. The whole premise that they needed some hidden evidence that they weren't even sure existed was lame, and the fact that the movie depends on that device makes it even weaker. I mean, these were just the most basic questions I had about the plot... I could have gone on and on. I chose to mention only the biggest flaws.

So, essentially, you posted to scold me about the unanswered questions I had, and claim that they're easy to figure out, yet most of your comments are either admitting there was no explanation, or coming up with "presumably", "maybe", "apparently", and "we don't know"?

Like I said, small budget, small plot.

reply

I am kind of curious why you created a new IMDb account just to comment on this particular movie. Are you related to/involved with the production of this movie, or are you friends with the people involved?

reply

No relation to anyone involved with the film! Only trying to be helpful in explaining what the film was about or my take on it is all.









reply

How big is Jimmy Duval's part in this film?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]