>>198609987
two more weeks

File: vlcsnap-2024-04-26-09h45m(...).png (1.45 MB, 1920x1080)

1.45 MB PNG

this is supposed to be the Devil? lmao. total garbage.

>>198609987
>8 minutes in
kek i bet you're still seeing the intro logos

>>198610105
the Indian mystic is now on

Sadly it doesn't, really. An incredible premise is marred by a combination of indulgent horror genre camp for fans of the genre to basedface at, out of place special effects, over ambition, and internal inconsistency.

Upsides: the setting is cool, and when she isn't doing the cheesy demon voice the possessed girl is great. So is the main actor.

>>198609987
I just wanted to see this happen though, I was waiting for the host's head to turn into fire and it never did so I gave it a 7/10 for that otherwise it would be an 8/10

>>198609987
marathon another 15 minutes and then reassess

>>198609987
>when does it get good?
The first hour is the good bit, I'm afraid. You may as well shut it off.

>>198610298
This. They had a good idea but didn't really know what to do with it.

>>198610424
Felt like a direct steal of that inside number 9 episode as well.

>>198610401
35 minutes in. James Randi character is a bit on the nose.

>>198610424
>04

What I wish they would have done is allow the setting to carry it more. You don't need a Bohemian Grove connection. You don't need everyone to die in the end. You don't need the girl to levitate or shoot lightning from her head. You don't need the trite "cost of fame" deal-with-the-devil stuff. Just be a creepy found footage tape from the single airing of an episode of a lesser known 70s syndicated talkshow. Throw in some creepy film artifacts, low quality footage, the girl who looks at you through the screen even fifty years later... It's a recipe for something truly unsettling that doesn't need much of a budget at all.

>>198610298
>>198610424
Lmfao both fags

>>198609987
Sorry but I don't watch AI slop.

>>198609987
To be fair, that is the entire premise of the show. You're just watching a late-night talk/variety show as it slowly goes off the rails. The opening segments are relevant (and I think the psychic stuff ends up getting a good payoff, it's kinda eerie to hear that he died off-screen), but they're naturally going to be less extreme as the stuff towards the end.

It was a cool premise, and a nice watch ... but it feels like it was let down by trying to fill in too much of the gaps. I feel like they should have leaned into the "found footage" premise and shown much less of the between-segments stuff (doubly so given how hamfisted it felt ... despite the premise, they didn't even try to make it look like it was captured as "natural" behind-the-scenes footage), so you'd be getting bits of context but still left in the dark about *exactly* how/why people are acting the way they are. That would have given the skeptic a little more credence too - you wouldn't know if the staff were laughing and plotting behind the scenes, or if they were freaking out. It'd also be nice if you were more in the dark about the host's state of mind, especially when the supernatural elements start to get more overt. Even without any of the behind-the-scenes content, the opening montage would give you the understanding that he's pushing too far for the sake of ratings ... but you might believe that his attitude during the show itself is more genuine than it is. And that might give the reveals at the end a bit more of a punch.

Still a fun watch though.

>Satanist leader
>Mr. Diablo

>>198610298
the campiness is charming, special effects were fine except for a few (lightning for example) I think it's a tad overambitious with the somewhat abstract backstory (the grove, cult and whatnot). Internal inconsistency is something I don't remember being a problem really

>>198610700

The consistency issue comes from the behind the scenes footage during commercial breaks, and the entire ending. Is doesn't make sense in the context of found footage.

Tbh the campiness just isn't for me, but I see how some folks would like it. I think that for horror to work it needs to take itself seriously.

File: vlcsnap-2024-04-26-11h00m(...).png (1.17 MB, 1920x1080)

1.17 MB PNG

how did the James Randi dude fake this? doesn't make sense.

I watched it last night and thought it was pretty good desu.

>>198610066
kek'd

>>198610700
>I think it's a tad overambitious with the somewhat abstract backstory (the grove, cult and whatnot)
Was that abstract? I thought they played that about as straight forwardly as they could without explicitly saying it out loud.

>>198610993
They explicitly say how he did it. It was hypnosis, he hypnotized (almost) everyone who was on the set or watching through the TV. The very next scene demonstrates that none of it ACTUALLY happened, the idea is that *we* were also under the influence of the hypnosis. That's why they played the tape back - and why it was a big deal that none of the stuff in the possession segment was similarly fake when they played that back.

Granted, it was goofy as fuck.

>>198609987
>what big eyes you haaveeee
When Mr Pipes is seen at the bedroom curtains and one of the little girls gets scratched up by cats.