Just so...so bad

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

There are women in the film, but none has anything you could call a personality.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

I just got floored by this movie. I can only assume the low rating is because so many horror fans have absolutely terrible taste in movies.This is the kind of low-budget miracle that often lacks a lot—the acting is spotty, the effects aren't great, the pacing is awkward—but somehow manages to make up for it with heart, with an original idea, with a strong, strangely evocative narrative. This film is Decadent, in the aesthetic sense of the word. Like some of Baudelaire's best poems, its imagery and narrative are truly horrible, and in fact it's extremely gory, but somehow it manages to say something new and somehow very darkly beautiful. It helps that the emphasis is not on scares, but rather on telling a story.In that way, it reminds me very much of "The Hamiltons", another super-low-budget, kind of quiet, unambitious indie film that puts any kind of cheap thrills in the back seat in favor of telling a redemptive story about relationships... unusual relationships not quite like anything seen elsewhere, and rather horrible ones at that, but with just enough familiar about them, portrayed with enough depth, to make you care about these monstrous characters. "Found" shares those qualities.I really enjoyed it, not as a horror movie, but rather as a movie that happens to require horror to tell its story. As an added bonus, it ends far more satisfyingly than most low- budget films, despite not providing the least bit of resolution. It's a neat trick, and casts a favorable light back on the whole movie, even the earlier parts where it's still trying to find its footing. Again, if you're looking for shocks, ingenious torture and over-the-top imaginative brutality, this is absolutely not that kind of movie. But those whose tastes lean towards Poe and Baudelaire will probably enjoy this very much. It works.

After reading some of the reviews I though great a decent horror/Thriller! But after 15 minutes realised that the acting in many cases was very bad and very wooden. The school stuff from the detention scenes and after that the acting was pretty bad. The main actors were OK, but outside of that was very bad in many cases. How so many positive reviews is very weird. I will continues to give the rest of this film a try but, so far. If you can get forget about some very bad acting from many it otherwise looks promising. I hope the rest is better and the lesser actors are minimised. The main actors seem OK, so I think if you can get past that it may turn out better. I will see if I can get through this and update.

if you're reading this, then the chances are that you're into lower budget, independent horror films. this is a perfect example of how well a horror movie can be made on an extremely limited budget. i'll caution any (potential) viewers by stating that there is some pretty brutal violence, the vast majority of which takes place in a film within the film: HEADLESS (which has now been made and will be available on DVD/blu-ray shortly). the violence is unrelenting when it takes place, so don't dive into this film if you're sensitive to gore. having got that out of the way, the style of the film is just AMAZING!!!! its one of the few films i've watched recently that's really drawn me in. i especially loved the atmosphere, it genuinely felt like an older horror film which really added to the viewing pleasure... especially the HEADLESS film footage (a supposed 'lost film' from 1978). acting was top notch, and beats the h3ll out of the majority of modern films that have grown to depend on Hollywood stars and a multi-million dollar budget, rather than originality and the 'guts' to do something new. i must applaud Scott Schirmer, the director on managing to create such a brilliant film, and i cannot wait to watch HEADLESS (which is supposedly the most brutal and disturbing film made).

I got interested with the plot line. It has good potential and it's original not only for a plain slayer, but for something more developed and even deep. But from the beginning of the movie we see how amateurish and poor are some important technical aspects of the movie. From minute one, we see a not very polished photography, saturated with excessive close shots and a lack of creativity on framing them. Also the sound and lighting could have a lot of improvement. The worst part (and for what I've read, it bothered most of the people) was the acting. It's quite cheesy and overacted from most of the characters in the movie. I liked the main character, the kid, and the one I really liked in the role was the old brother, the killer. All the rest of actors felt very fake and a lot of the lines they were saying and lots of scenes were really cheesy (sometimes felt like trying to resemble or honour comics or 80's movies, maybe, but it wasn't clear and I didn't enjoy it). I know it's a low budget movie, but still this are actually the aspects that indie movies should take care the most, as it all depends on the creativity and skills of the director and the actors, and not in post production and expensive special effects. I got over all this because I was interested in the story, and it worth the while. It's not an amazing story, but still original and refreshing, not because it's nice maybe, it's quite gory and disturbing. But maybe all the credit is on the novel in which the movie is based... There's a few boring slow paced scenes, but it all adds up to the feeling on the story. Not a bad movie, but feels like it could be so much better.Good story, poor acting (most of actors except the two brothers, let's be fair with them!), fair/poor photography and sound, directing and writing could be better... Still, even saying it's an amateurish movie and with all it's flaws, it's still interesting and it's not painful to watch.