I’m fine with you not digging it. That works for me. And yeah, I’m not a review site. I add review scores to my write ups just so people have context about what I liked/didn’t like about the film. I’d prefer to not give ratings because I do give indie filmmakers a break. If you go out there, with $10k and make a film, I’m not going to rate you as hardcore as I would Christopher Nolan and his next film. So yeah – like I said, I am LITERALLY not trying to be a review website. If I’m bringing something to you, I pretty much liked it. I want to find films that are decent, and on top of that, encourage small movie creators. That is my goal here.

As for the poem that shouldn’t have rhymed in English, I failed to register that at all the first time around, and almost missed it at the second time of asking too, ha! Anyway, at a stretch, might it be possible that the translator is taking some artistic license with his interpretation of the ancient Aramaic text? It’s possible the poem might not even have rhymed in its original Aramaic form, who knows? I believe most classical poems written in ancient Greek or Latin, like the Iliad, did not even rhyme in their native language. I think the ancients were more concerned with rhythm or meter, neither of which I have half a clue with, so there’s just no way for me to tell if the instantly translated poem from the movie has these things in place too. Well now, if someone can instantly translate Aramaic text into an English poem complete with rhyme, rhythm and metre, he’s either a genius, or more likely we be the idiots taken for a ride by the filmmakers. While a rhyming poem may sound good, it comes at the expense of suspension of disbelief, so yeah, I’ll chalk this up as a plot hole too. Well spotted! Henry.

Finally, if I may just add some personal observations regarding the shaky cam or found footage style employed by the movie. While a shaky cam point of view provides that added bit of immersion for the viewers, which is always welcome, it also introduces a limitation, and that is … reality (as opposed to illusion) is to be suggested at all times by what the cameras may capture. It’s fair to say audiences have long been taught that cameras as depicted in a movie do not lie, especially those hand held by actors in a movie, however paradoxical that might sound. So I think I am right to suggest that what the camera sees, i.e. the viewers’ POV, has got to be 100% real and not just hallucinatory, yes?

And yet with this movie, the viewer is never sure if they are seeing a mere hallucination, as with George’s little brother, or 100% real, as with the old style telephone. It all seems rather arbitrary. Just because the viewers’ POV is from George’s headcam does not make it acceptable that he (which translates to the viewers too) is seeing a personal hallucination. Imagine a scenario where the CCTV in a Paranormal Activity movie captures a ghostly image sauntering across the hall, only for it to turn out to be a hallucinatory sequence on the part of a character!!? It just does not work that way, right?

I likely watched this because it was on some horror movie list. Or maybe it was recommended by some algorithm because I liked the Descent. Who knows? But I’m sure I watched because I’ll try just about anything.

Agree with Lisa that the 4s are too high for what this is. I recalled the pay-off being a little better, and maybe on a first viewing that’s what caries the movie. However, it’s also good enough for what it is.

Lisa – I have a soft spot for guys that just pick up a camera and go for it. Is it Inception? Or Nolan? No. But lots of movies I love have these same sorts of problems. For example, Monos. The back quarter of that film sort of fell apart due to editorial leaps, and mismatches. But, I give grace to films that don’t know any better and are just going for it. Same for movies with crappy acting but big ideas. They get a pass.

This movie had a laughable “female Indiana Jones” thing going?? Really? Hahaha. And that was a foundational idea for the movie. I’m OK with your not digging the movie. Perdita Weeks was fantastic. (The rest of the cast was meh.) And I just adored the idea of these humans crafting a film out of the Parisian Catacombs. Sure, it got bumpy towards the end. But I thought it worked. I just had a lot of fun with it.

Should I knock a star off of it? Two? Probably. But I’m not going to because I just love the guts of this crew basically guerilla’ing this movie into existence.

@Dekev – love to hear what you think of it second time around. I’ve watched it twice since discovering it. But that’ll probably be it for me. But I’m glad I was introduced to it.