This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Candyman's Tony Todd growls his way through the role of Ruber, caretaker to the infamous Jericho Manor. Todd gleefully hams his way through his scenes, but manages never to send up the subject matter.Two policemen observe footage left behind by a group of internet documentary makers. They have been locked in the Manor overnight and the policemen, Detectives Anderson and Jenkins (Joseph Milson and Gary Mavers) are determined to find out what happened to them. Paul (the essential unsubtle idiot of the group), Jason, Anne-Marie, Sheila (the clairvoyant) and Amanda the hostess with ideas above her station. The cast are enthusiastic but not always convincing, which is a common trait with low budget projects like this. The characters have their flaws of course, but are never as needlessly unlikable as several other groups portrayed in 'teen' horror films.It might be easy to dismiss this as 'Blair Witch in a haunted building' - and there is a scene in which Amanda (Cicely Tennant), having been brought down to size by her experiences, records a goodbye message to her parents much like Heather did in the 1999 film - but here the protagonist is not quite spectral. Furthermore, this is not quite a found footage film. It is a film about two Detectives looking at found footage - with that in mind, the addition of jump scares and an incidental score is somewhat explained. And the reactions of Jenkins are very effective.The twist at the end also really impressed me. The reveal of the killer is very well handled, as is his habit of gently kissing his victims before they die. Good fun.

I didn't expect too much from this movie due to the low budget but was pleasantly surprised. I felt some of the acting was very good (Stuart Boother in particular was believable, fun and his fight scene was great). Others were not so good...the policemen were wooden and overacted their hearts out! The story was a good concept and the twist was believable, if somewhat predictable. This movie has the great Tony Todd and he was great as to be expected and lent a gravitas to the scenes he was in. Is this the best horror ever? Well, no! But taking into account the budget I thought it was well-made, fun, generally well acted (Tony Todd and Stuart Boother in particular) and well worth a watch. Not a gore- fest but it didn't need to be!

An important reason for me, to get the movie and watch it was Tony Todd. He is always so magnificent and when he is in a movie even in a small part, you always talk about his role. I really love some actors like him, Robert England etc and I really want to see them again, having an appearance in a movie that is more than a few minutes. So back to this movie: a film crew goes to a haunted house for their internet show. The caretaker (Tony Todd) warns them about the house and that the doors during the night will be locked. The film team doesn't listen and they want to stay in the house during the night. Alone… in the dark... In the night … no one can hear them… Lucky for us, the footage was retrieve and so we can watch what happened to them. I am really tired of the 'found footage' type of movies. When it was done for the first time you had fun watching something completely different. Now so many movies are done like this. Some are good like Rec (2007), but most of them

I must say I had been looking forward to watching this for quite some time, and it wasn't just because of Tony Todd (CANDYMAN) having a somewhat sufficient role in it. No. I was intrigued by the plot. A found footage film about the paranormal with a slasher element added in for good measure. Take that and surround it all with an ongoing detective investigation and you have DEAD OF THE NITE.I really wanted to like this film, and I tried, but it just couldn't deliver. The acting was nothing spectacular, but better than one would expect coming from a film with a $20k budget. The kills were a major let down, very unimpressive and practically bloodless. I really had a big problem with the filming/editing. As we are watching the found footage from multiple cameras, it is edited to look like a normal film instead of what actual found footage would look like. It was also quite predictable. Several things were apparent before they happened. I knew the "twist" ending long before it was revealed.Needless to say (but I'll say it anyway), I was very disappointed. DEAD OF THE NITE had the potential to be a really decent film, but ultimately it failed. Not even the presence of the great Tony Todd could save it. What a shame.