Contains spoilers
Since the release of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, a less well-known shaky camera effort released the year before has had to endure countless comparisons with its more famous counterpart. One day perhaps reviews of The Last Broadcast will not make such a lazy comparison, but clearly that time has yet to arrive. On the surface, they are similar: an eclectic group of people go into secluded woodland and end up in peril with only a video montage left of their final few days. But whereas The Blair Witch Project provides you solely with the footage of the gang's descent into jeopardy, The Last Broadcast comes at the event from a different angle, that of retrospective and revisionist documentary.
First off, it has to be said that the events are totally fallacious. While to some this is blindingly obvious, I had gone into the film without this knowledge and had naively assumed that what I was watching was factual. I had no reason to doubt that what I was being told was true, given that I had never heard of the Fact or Fiction' murders of some seven years ago and that the style of the film seemed thoroughly convincing. Certainly the message at the outset about the cast not being actors had me fooled. So with that in mind, perhaps my review of the film will be slightly more generous than those filmgoers who took being duped rather badly.
The ostensible filmmaker David Leigh sets the scene, describing the murders of two cable TV show hosts, Steven Avkast and Locus Wheeler, plus production aide Rein Clackin. The only apparent suspect is Jim Suerd, a weirdo loner and computer geek who was recruited by the TV hosts as their guide into the paranormal for a live tele/web cast from the Pine Barrens of New Jersey. In a bid to arrest flagging viewing figures, the quartet head into the icy woodlands on the hunt for the legendary Jersey Devil to film the show. Suerd leads the way, taking the group three miles from the nearest access road. This homevideo footage is interlaced with a talking head documentary style as Leigh quizzes those who knew Suerd and those involved in the investigation into the case.
Things start going awry when Suerd reacts badly to a wisecrack from Clackin which is caught on camera and replayed throughout the film. It forms the basis for the prosecution's video evidence of a man capable of committing the homicides. When blood is found on his shirt and given the remote location, there are no other viable suspects. Suerd is handed two life terms but shortly after sentencing, he dies in prison in `mysterious circumstances' leaving the filmmaker without a crucial piece in the jigsaw. Nevertheless, Leigh, as narrator, sets about sowing seeds of doubt in the viewers mind as to Suerd's guilt in a thoroughly convincing manner. The evidence he puts forward suggests that what looked an open and shut case may not necessarily be so. But the turning point is the unexplained delivery of a box of videotape footage of the night the murders took place not seen by the jury. Now, having had much of the tape digitally restored, Leigh has crucial evidence that seems to suggest that the killer almost certainly was not Suerd. As the film progresses, the film restorer says that one frame could reveal the face of the guilty, proving once and for all the guilt or innocence of Suerd. It takes until five minutes from the end for the tape to be enhanced sufficiently to identify the murder. Needless to say, it's both shocking and wholly unexpected.
The Last Broadcast cost a reported $900 to make. If that is the case, the filmmakers deserve fulsome praise. This is a clever, interesting and well-executed idea that convinces as both a horror flick and serious case study into a flawed criminal investigation. Bearing in mind that (perhaps foolishly) I had no idea of its dubious authenticity, I was totally engrossed as the story twisted and turned down paths I never expected it to go. It was a far more convincing proposition than The Blair Witch Project (which cost $22,000 to make) and to my mind a whole lot more frightening too. Perhaps this was because I knew the Blair Witch was a hoax when I watched it but believed the Fact or Fiction murders to be genuine. Regardless, it remains a creepy proposition. There are plot holes certainly. For instance, how did blood from all three that led the police to assume Suerd's guilt get onto his shirt if he was not the killer? And how was he online all night on his run-of-the-mill laptop out in the middle of the woods given that `the Innernet' (as the Americans love to pronounce it) was a relatively new phenomenon when the film was set? Some things just didn't add up in retrospect but it would be churlish to pick apart the film just for the sake of it. The acting on the whole was good (well they had this gullible viewer fooled anyway) and the film, while in no way of studio release quality, looked like it had a budget considerably higher than just under a grand. The twist at the end of the film surely ranks up with The Usual Suspects and Fight Club in the `I didn't see that one coming' stakes. Some have criticised the ending for letting the film down. I disagree but, as ever, it's a subjective thing. Make your own mind up.
What we're dealing with here is a complete lack of respect for convention. Not only was it exceptionally low budget, it was also the first film in US motion picture history to be released without having used any celluloid. It had been edited on a home computer and dispatched by satellite. Had I seen this film before The Blair Witch Project I would have been even more impressed with its unique approach. As it stands, the two films should stand apart from a horror genre that has been treading water for so long it must be in danger of drowning. Rather than bangs, gore and all-too-predictable panto-style shocks, the film creates its own eerie atmosphere and scary believability by relying on the environment and the actors to create a sense of unease and impending doom. It offers a new perspective and new techniques in going about putting the fear of God into you. And for that reason alone it comes highly recommended.
Since the release of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, a less well-known shaky camera effort released the year before has had to endure countless comparisons with its more famous counterpart. One day perhaps reviews of The Last Broadcast will not make such a lazy comparison, but clearly that time has yet to arrive. On the surface, they are similar: an eclectic group of people go into secluded woodland and end up in peril with only a video montage left of their final few days. But whereas The Blair Witch Project provides you solely with the footage of the gang's descent into jeopardy, The Last Broadcast comes at the event from a different angle, that of retrospective and revisionist documentary.
First off, it has to be said that the events are totally fallacious. While to some this is blindingly obvious, I had gone into the film without this knowledge and had naively assumed that what I was watching was factual. I had no reason to doubt that what I was being told was true, given that I had never heard of the Fact or Fiction' murders of some seven years ago and that the style of the film seemed thoroughly convincing. Certainly the message at the outset about the cast not being actors had me fooled. So with that in mind, perhaps my review of the film will be slightly more generous than those filmgoers who took being duped rather badly.
The ostensible filmmaker David Leigh sets the scene, describing the murders of two cable TV show hosts, Steven Avkast and Locus Wheeler, plus production aide Rein Clackin. The only apparent suspect is Jim Suerd, a weirdo loner and computer geek who was recruited by the TV hosts as their guide into the paranormal for a live tele/web cast from the Pine Barrens of New Jersey. In a bid to arrest flagging viewing figures, the quartet head into the icy woodlands on the hunt for the legendary Jersey Devil to film the show. Suerd leads the way, taking the group three miles from the nearest access road. This homevideo footage is interlaced with a talking head documentary style as Leigh quizzes those who knew Suerd and those involved in the investigation into the case.
Things start going awry when Suerd reacts badly to a wisecrack from Clackin which is caught on camera and replayed throughout the film. It forms the basis for the prosecution's video evidence of a man capable of committing the homicides. When blood is found on his shirt and given the remote location, there are no other viable suspects. Suerd is handed two life terms but shortly after sentencing, he dies in prison in `mysterious circumstances' leaving the filmmaker without a crucial piece in the jigsaw. Nevertheless, Leigh, as narrator, sets about sowing seeds of doubt in the viewers mind as to Suerd's guilt in a thoroughly convincing manner. The evidence he puts forward suggests that what looked an open and shut case may not necessarily be so. But the turning point is the unexplained delivery of a box of videotape footage of the night the murders took place not seen by the jury. Now, having had much of the tape digitally restored, Leigh has crucial evidence that seems to suggest that the killer almost certainly was not Suerd. As the film progresses, the film restorer says that one frame could reveal the face of the guilty, proving once and for all the guilt or innocence of Suerd. It takes until five minutes from the end for the tape to be enhanced sufficiently to identify the murder. Needless to say, it's both shocking and wholly unexpected.
The Last Broadcast cost a reported $900 to make. If that is the case, the filmmakers deserve fulsome praise. This is a clever, interesting and well-executed idea that convinces as both a horror flick and serious case study into a flawed criminal investigation. Bearing in mind that (perhaps foolishly) I had no idea of its dubious authenticity, I was totally engrossed as the story twisted and turned down paths I never expected it to go. It was a far more convincing proposition than The Blair Witch Project (which cost $22,000 to make) and to my mind a whole lot more frightening too. Perhaps this was because I knew the Blair Witch was a hoax when I watched it but believed the Fact or Fiction murders to be genuine. Regardless, it remains a creepy proposition. There are plot holes certainly. For instance, how did blood from all three that led the police to assume Suerd's guilt get onto his shirt if he was not the killer? And how was he online all night on his run-of-the-mill laptop out in the middle of the woods given that `the Innernet' (as the Americans love to pronounce it) was a relatively new phenomenon when the film was set? Some things just didn't add up in retrospect but it would be churlish to pick apart the film just for the sake of it. The acting on the whole was good (well they had this gullible viewer fooled anyway) and the film, while in no way of studio release quality, looked like it had a budget considerably higher than just under a grand. The twist at the end of the film surely ranks up with The Usual Suspects and Fight Club in the `I didn't see that one coming' stakes. Some have criticised the ending for letting the film down. I disagree but, as ever, it's a subjective thing. Make your own mind up.
What we're dealing with here is a complete lack of respect for convention. Not only was it exceptionally low budget, it was also the first film in US motion picture history to be released without having used any celluloid. It had been edited on a home computer and dispatched by satellite. Had I seen this film before The Blair Witch Project I would have been even more impressed with its unique approach. As it stands, the two films should stand apart from a horror genre that has been treading water for so long it must be in danger of drowning. Rather than bangs, gore and all-too-predictable panto-style shocks, the film creates its own eerie atmosphere and scary believability by relying on the environment and the actors to create a sense of unease and impending doom. It offers a new perspective and new techniques in going about putting the fear of God into you. And for that reason alone it comes highly recommended.