Los huéspedes

So this is the movie that has made me finally get an IMDb account and start reviewing film. I have seen so many 1/10 reviews and statements on here suggesting this film is trash and I find that Ridiculous. While this is no Sixth Sense it is still a step back in the right direction for a very interesting director. I found the story line very intriguing once it got going and was actually very creeped out by some of the eerie scenes. I admit the first 5-10 minutes I thought the child stars were a little annoying, especially the rapping teenage boy lol just no! But as we got into the tale I grew to like the two characters more and started to feel a sense of dread for the predicament they are in. The acting is quality throughout and the two older actors who play the grandparents are legitimately quite scary. I had to stick up for this film as some of the reviews are so extreme. I enjoyed this movie so much more than a lot of others out right now. Also the found footage aspect of this film is good, I normally hate the shaky, blurry found footage movies. I don't care if the camera work being poor is more realistic I like to see what's going on at all times. So if you like M Night's movies aren't stuck up and just want to enjoy a creepy film with a nice twist at the end. I say give it a go!

In my opinion it's not even half as bad as people say it is. The movie is first of all entertaining which is one of the reasons why you would watch it? But also it is well made. The plot is very good and as far as i know original. The way it was filmed was great, any other way wouldn't be the same. I thought the director of this movie was great before and my opinion def didn't change after seeing this one. The acting was good. It says that it's a comedy/horror, you cant really expect to get scared in it like some people complain about. I wouldn't recommend it to a friend but it's worth the watch if you have spare time and don't know what to do with it.

Ever since the mammoth success of The Sixth Sense (1999), there's been a push to promote every subsequent M. Night Shyamalan movie as a horror film. From Unbreakable (2000) to The Happening (2008) every new movie was sold as a dark and twisty shocker; whether it was in fact a poetic romance with pointed political commentary (The Village, 2004) or an eccentric bedtime story disguising a self- reflexive observation on the writing process (Lady in the Water, 2006) the marketing always made the film appear vaguely supernatural. Evidentally, these were films by the director of The Sixth Sense and were to be promoted accordingly. Now his most recent film, The Visit, is the latest in a long line of Shyamalan movies to suffer a similar fate.

The Visit - sold up front as "a new thriller from M. Night Shyamalan" - is nonetheless drawing heat from certain factions of the online community who just wanted another straight horror movie, dagnabbit! You'd think after two decades of subverting genre expectations, whether through presenting a superhero origin story as if a gritty 70s style procedural, or approaching an alien invasion movie as a claustrophobic Bergman-esque parable on faith, the audience would know the terrain, but again, all people really want from this guy is The Sixth Sense Pt. II or GTFO!

What The Visit could actually be described as is a comedy, albeit a comedy with elements of psychological thriller, survival drama and an extended metaphor for familial dysfunction. Imagine Todd Solondz, David Lynch and the Farrelly brothers getting together to collaborate on a film that plays with the tropes of the found- footage sub-genre, but in a way that is frequently transgressive, if not actually perverse. Throughout, Shyamalan uses his set-up to mine moments of genuine hilarity, from the broad strokes of character comedy (the young Tyler and his terrible rapping becomes the film's go-to comic relief), to the subtle self-aware digs at the genre itself (Becca's film-school pretensions lead her to deconstruct the film, almost as it's in motion), to even moments of grotesque absurdity (including scatological elements that are closer to the works of John Waters than the filmmaker once dubbed, erroneously, "the next Spielberg").

If The Visit is a horror movie, then it is to the found-footage sub- genre what Blazing Saddles (1974) was to the Hollywood western. It's not a spoof, but something else; a film that recognises the conventions and characteristics of the genre, teases them, has a laugh at their expense, but also uses them to tell a story that behind the laughter carries some serious emotions and ideas. Shyamalan's main theme of emotionally damaged characters having to overcome a particular situation to regain a sense of self is once again made the focal point of the film's third act dilemma, but there are more interesting ideas relating to the subject of filmmaking, in which the writer-director once again uses elements of meta-fiction to explore his own relationship to his art.

In the film itself, the two children are using the week with their grandparents to create a documentary that they hope will heal the wounds of a long-held disagreement between the mother and her parents. Here Shyamalan splits his own filmmaking identity between the perspectives of the two children. Beccas is the sensitive, romantic one, who just wants to make beautiful cinema, while Tyler is the annoying brat that just wants to goof around and get a response out of people. When it becomes clear that the film we're seeing on-screen is essentially the film Tyler and Becca are making, this introduces notions of identity, fabrication, the subjectivity of the image, reflection, the passivity of the viewer and the conception of character as "actors" playing a role. It's all very clever, but unfortunately, as with the meta-fiction elements of the earlier Lady in the Water, it becomes something that most audiences couldn't care less about unless they're actively watching an "art- movie" and not some Hollywood genre film.

Like several (but not all) Shyamalan films, The Visit features a twist, but rather than using it to pull the rug out from under the audience during the last few minutes of the film, the twist occurs 30 minutes before the end and is used to generate tension and suspense. In this instance, it could be described as an example of Hitchcock's "bomb under the table" theory, in which the audience is placed in a more privileged position than the characters, where our comprehension of events in relation to the ignorance of the protagonists fuels an edge of the seat confrontation.

The film has several successful jump scares, but these are essentially self-aware and again playing to the conventions of the genre, and more surprisingly several scenes of genuine emotion; however, for the most part, the film is just funny and often incredibly strange. Again, I go back to that idea of the film being pitched somewhere between Todd Solondz (shocking black humour, misfit characters, an air of detachment) and David Lynch (suburban surrealism, bizarre imagery that seems dreamlike but rooted in reality), but with the familiar Shyamalan ingredients. The film is incredibly well acted and directed, beautifully photographed by award winning documentary cinematographer Maryse Alberti (who helps Shyamaln turn it what could be described as a found-footage fairy tale) and greatly entertaining.

I almost didn't see this film because of all the hate for it on this site. I was going to skip it - considering it wasting my time, but my wife insisted. Afterwards, I was pleasantly surprised and glad we watched it.

It's not really a very typical horror film. It's not even a typical M. Night film. It is scary at times, but mostly creepy. It leaves you glued, wondering what's going to happen next. Which is what a film is supposed to do.

It's low-budget. There isn't anybody in it you would recognize. Which, to me, made it seem more "real." It's not perfect. It does have some clichés, some jump out and "BOO!" kind of scares, which turn some people off. It is NOT a 'found footage' film. Reviewers who labeled it that don't know the definition. The young girl is trying to shoot a documentary and SOMETIMES you look through the camera lens as she's filming. But it's NOT the whole movie and nobody finds the footage. The camera is sometimes shaky, but they are kids, not pros, and it doesn't do that very long. It does have very few plot issues that you kind of have to "go with." What horror film doesn't?

But - I've certainly seen worse thriller/horror type movies. I've even seen worse M. Night movies. This is the best from him in years. The acting was decent and the characters seemed real and flawed. The story was intriguing and it kept you guessing. Just when it seemed like it might be getting long, it was over. Not my favorite movie, but certainly not as bad as people are panning it. It's worth your time if you like this sort of movie.

I'll make you a deal -- If you don't like horror thrillers, don't watch them or review them and I'll do the same for romantic comedies.

This is Shayamalan's second film after the Last Airbender fiasco. It's a return to his light horror and small, contained story roots. The acting and script were good, and combined with the hand-held mockumentary conceit it felt very real. If you like Shayamalan movies and scary movies about crazy old people, give it a try.