User reviews

A pretty nice entry in the found footage genre. There have been a lot of these, and frankly I have stopped watching them because the premise is pretty much the same for each one. Well, this one was different. There are multiple layers to this film, and the subplots weave in and out of each other expertly. There was some good payoff to this movie as well. A lot of found footage films leave you with more questions than answers. This one has plenty of answers for the viewer. This is about a couple of film students who go missing while filming footage of trying to summon "blinkman". Now the footage has been found by a failed directer. He wants to market this footage, and has a documentary crew following him around while he tries to do this. Along the way we have one very good jump scare, and a couple stomach churning moments. I Had to hit the pause button a couple times to freeze-frame and let the image sink in. Some of the effects were marred by the typical "dying camera" glitches, but hit that pause button & you can see them pretty well. Thank God for little to no shaky cam footage. The director has made a good, well layered found footage film. I Will be interested in seeing his future works.

Yet another "found footage" movie. I have watched dozens of movies in this genre, most of them pretty below average.This one was however pretty good, and a cut above the rest with an interesting concept. A film maker comes into possession of a box of videos left in his mother-in-laws new house. It belonged to two film students investigating the local legend of the supernatural being, Peeping Tom, or The Blink Man. He becomes obsessed with the footage and begins his own investigation and documentary. That's the basic beginnings of the movie, and it takes several twists and turns from there. I did enjoy this movie, and would have scored it higher, but I found the central character of film maker Gavin York so unlikable, it was hard to empathise with him. His reactions in certain situations seemed excessive, even for someone obsessed as he was. Could have been an 8/10, worth a look.

Yes, it's been done before. However this is clearly a movie for fans of this category, not for people expecting something new. I mean, the trailer makes that obvious so don't watch it without that common sense or you're just looking to complain about a movie.

It's not the best found footage style, but it's still good. I like that the themes challenge what's real and what isn't. Do you believe something so badly you're willing to ignore possible contradictions? If you're an artist, are you telling a story for the sake of educating, inspiring, or forcing the story to go a direction it shouldn't (like Gavin)? I like that the main character was determined to foolishly pass the tapes off as real instead of letting the audience view and enjoy it as whatever they decide it to be...like this film overall! The creator/director isn't attempting to pass it off as real, at least not in the movie credits. Don't know about imdb credits.

If you're a fan of this stuff, it's not bad. Wouldn't say it's a 10, but you'll enjoy it.

"Butterfly Kisses" adds its own unique (meta) spin on the found footage genre. Definitely if you just go by the call-in radio set-piece, and its special telephone guest. Clever touch. Sure it still follows the standard low-budget sub-genre cliches, but it's how the story is presented is where it sets itself apart. Heavy on mystery with its urban legend style groundwork. A wannabe film-maker stumbles across a box (labelled 'Don't watch') of a student's film project involving research into a local urban legend; Peeping Tom. So he goes about trying to investigate if the disturbing footage is real, while trying to complete their unfinished project as his own work. He gets a seperate documentary crew to follow him around to consolidate his findings and tell his story of getting this done.

While watching I was getting 'Lake Mungo' vibes, as it focused more so on mood and discomfort than all out frights and incidents. It's slow burn, constantly conversational and sort of creeps up on you in a potboiler way. There's a documentary within a documentary within a documentary framework to the story as one film-maker's obsession becomes a domino effect for everyone involved. Meaning there's no real satisfying conclusion to it all. Probably by the end it was more interesting than entertaining.

I won't go into the details as so many others have already laid out much of it. If you're looking for a horror or thriller, this probably isn't the film for you. It's more of a character profile. It's a film with in a film. The "found footage" would be the typically generic of that genre...film students being hunted/killed by otherworldly force. The more interesting part of the film is the central character. He's a loser and a jerk. He failed as a film student, works a menial job, can't support his family, steals from his own child, is belligerent towards people who can help him and worst of all is using someone else's work in order to make a name for himself. There were annoying bits about not finding any records of the missing/dead players from the "found footage," except for one. Also the ending is annoying. I won't give that away, I will give my opinion on a stronger ending, though. I would have enjoyed the ending had it been an interview with the characters of Feldman and Crane being amazed that a failed and forgotten film project had driven someone to obsession and madness.

I am a sucker for found footage movies but this one was just kind of eeeeeeeeh.

I dig the idea of a movie about someone that literally found footage so he makes a movie about it, but the way *EVERYONE* acts towards him in this movie is just crazy. He's convinced the footage is real, cut it into an actual movie, and is trying to shop it to literally anyone. The problem is everyone is immediately hostile to him, including the director of the Blair Witch Project, and it just feels so forced. There are a lot of weird logic leaps in this movie.

All-in-all it's not a terrible watch, it just has really grating characters and the ending...is not good.

I believe that Butterfly Kisses is a dark comedy/mockumentary in the likes as C'est arrivé près de chez vous, Bad Ben and Digging Up The Marrow.

(mind you, I thought the same about Best Wordt Movie, still won't believe it's for real)

Watched it with my 15-year old daugter, who was really creeped out. In my opinion she missed the 'clues' that this is more of a psychological character study.

Better prove that the acting is great than people reacting that this is a manipulated documentary doesn't exist. (whoooosh?)

I found this one of the nicest quirky movies I have seen.

Whatever it is, I found it a fun and entertaining movie, and my daugther liked it too, for completely differrent reasons.

Give it a go and make up your own mind.

I realize that Blair Witch started a tradition of pretending that your found footage is real, but it's no longer even funny: it's just insulting. Note that the IMDB cast list is completely fake. The character "Gavin York" is listed as playing himself, but is actually played by Seth Adam Kallick (who is listed as being the "casting department."

Even though it's obviously a found footage fictional film, they've taken the game of making it look real ridiculously too far. It's embarrassing.

And really, it's not that original. A myth monster that can be drawn forth by some sort of ritual. A documentary about found footage that can't be verified. It's all been done to death.

I enjoy these home-movie versions of found-footage horror as much as anyone, but there's something disturbing about it when the filmmakers go to such lengths, including the fake cast list and the mocked up reviews. If it hadn't been for all the nonsense I would have enjoyed it more.

Four stars because it is by far not the worst of this overdone genre, but it's certainly not the best, either.

A self-aware found-footage film. Now there's a concept I don't think I've seen before. At one point 'Butterfly Kisses' even has a character list all the flaws in the found-footage film concept. It also features the director of 'The Blair Witch Project' Eduardo Sánchez giving his opinion on whether a film was or was not real footage. And strangely enough, it all works and even manages to create a tense horror film in the process.

The concept takes a little while to get used to, but once you start to realise what they're going for and how the format works you are able to settle in and just enjoy the ride. It is admittedly a little clunky in places, but it certainly gets better as the film goes along. Because of the way the story is told it feels like two films in one. You have a mystery and a horror being told concurrently. The horror story is almost certainly the strongest aspect of 'Butterfly Kisses' though.

The film contains one of the best jump-scares I've ever seen in a film. It got me really good, and I'm not got easily. I missed this film back in 2018 when it was released but I'm glad I went back and found it because it was an enjoyable watch. I would recommend people give this one a look.

A decent piece of work here with good moments and some really bad moments. The worst part of it was the main character. He's completely unlikeable and there's nothing about him that made me root for him. He's a failure, who is broke, can't support his wife, can't pay the mortgage and he has an ego the size of a mountain. He almost ruined the movie for me.

If you are looking for a scary movie, sadly you will be disappointed. If you are looking for a comedy, sadly you will also be disappointed. If you are looking for anything else, you will sadly be very disappointed. A "found footage" genre film. A lot of dialogue. I really don't know if the theme was to be scary and/or mockumentary, if anything at all.

The main character is Galvin (Micheal Scott). He finds a box of recorded scary tapes and believes full heartedly they are real. He is completely oblivious to the fact no one cares. The world evolves around him, his ego, and his stupidity. His wife could do much better.

The writers seem to change course randomly, panning of the plot here and there. I don't know who thinks this is an +8 score. People writing fake reviews.

I absolutely love found footage horror and try to watch each new one I come across. This one definitely took a different approach which made it fresh and engaging. I wish there would've been a bit more of a payoff, push the envelope to a final scare (or really make something dark). But overall I'd say if you enjoy found footage, this is worth a watch!

I wasn't expecting much when I came across this found footage movie, but after watching it I was pretty impressed how it was made and put together. Keeps you entertained and keeps you in suspense about whats going to happen next. Acting was pretty good. Overall I was impressed with it. Way better than most found footage movies. It would go in my top 10 and I've seen a lot of them. It definately deserves a watch.

Aspiring film-maker Gavin York (Seth Adam Kallick) discovers a box of video tapes that once belonged to film student Sophia Crane (Rachel Armiger). Watching the tapes, he learns how Sophia, along with cameraman Feldman (Reed DeLisle), tried to prove the urban legend of Peeping Tom (AKA The Blink Man), a creepy supernatural character said to appear if one stands at the end of the Ilchester railway tunnel at midnight and stares for an hour without blinking. Once conjured, Peeping Tom is said to get closer and closer to the person with every blink, until his eyelashes can be felt on their own eyes (the titular 'butterfly kisses'), after which they die! Gavin tries to assemble the footage into a finished movie and convince sceptics that what he has found is real.

Strictly speaking, Erik Kristopher Myers' Butterfly Kisses isn't a found footage horror: it's a faux documentary about a struggling film-maker who tries to turn a student's raw video footage about a local urban legend into a finished product. So in effect, it's a film within a film within a film. That said, it's still riding on the coat-tails of The Blair Witch Project, so much so that Myers even drafts in Blair Witch's Eduardo Sanchez to add some extra clout. Of course, at the end of the day, 'this has been done a thousand times before' (as one character in the film ironically acknowledges), and despite taking a somewhat meta approach, Butterfly Kisses is neither clever, fresh nor scary enough to stand out from the crowd.

2.5/10, rounded up to 3 for IMDb.

It's well made and has a clever premise showing not 1 or 2, but 3 different documentary/amateur filmmakers descent into desperation to finish their movie. It's obviously taken a lot of inspiration from The Blair Witch Project regarding the gritty, black and white parts, but falls short, actually, way short of building the mythology or the antagonist. It's definitely worth a watch, especially for found footage fans but I don't think it'd grab the attention of many others.

They really went overboard trying to be "meta" in an attempt to generate an air of credibility in an overly saturated, cliche'd genre, and it might have worked if it wasn't for the amateurish acting.

The "Peeping Tom" character wasn't even remotely scary, and the only real tension the movie delivered was the obvious panic they were in to convince the viewer it was a true story.

Only worth watching if you're young and haven't seen many found footage movies.

BUTTERFLY KISSES is about a man who uncovers a film student's project, which may or may not have captured an authentic paranormal event. Allegedly filmed in 2004 by Sophia Crane and Feldman (Rachel Armiger and Reed Delisle), the footage is found years later and given to Gavin York (Seth Adam Kallick).

What makes it work is the inclusion of real-life technicians, experts, authors, and filmmakers (i.e.: Matt Lake, Eduardo Sanchez, etcetera), most of whom are critical of the whole thing, calling it a hoax. Mr. Kallick plays York as a rather unlikeable, high-strung sort of person, which actually helps in the realism department. His drive to get all of the original footage analyzed leads to a very dark place.

If you enjoy the "found footage" subgenre, then you'll probably like this. It's fresh enough to be scary, although the main spook might remind you of other urban legend-type characters. It has some genuinely creepy moments, especially toward the end...

I don't get how some of us here get accused of creating fake reviews. If the accusers here aren't familiar with how reviews are done including NOT agreeing with their negative opinions then there's nothing anyone can do towards these ignorant stubborn people. I found this film to be quite fresh among found footage films and it really creeped me out throughout its duration. Perhaps the end wasn't that conclusive but that's OK considering the film couldn't have ended better. Solid acting, great camera work to give this eerie feeling of old early 2000 feeling. And best of all, the story of this director which was pretty much going downhill and I seemingly enjoyed it as it wasn't predictable that much. Overall a really creepy film that will satisfy horror fans.

The film seems to try and comment on the tiredness of the found footage genre, trying to do something a little different with it in order to be original, but in the end it is still the same cliches, in a needlessly convoluted film. Instead of focusing on horror and the simple, unoriginal, but nonetheless effective premise, the film goes on an exploration of the truthfulness of not only the found footage, but the footage about the found footage. It is just pointless and annoying. I am one of those people who will gladly watch found footage, if it is well made. I don't require from this genre to evolve. It is fairly simple. It has that wonderful documentary quality, it is cheap to make, and talented people with a small budget can make quite enjoyable films within this format. The fake documentary posing as 'real' footage gimmick is ok, as far as I'm concerned. And if you can make the audience forget about it, and get immersed in what's happening, congratulations, you have a very successful film on your hands. This film, however, seemed contrived from beginning to end, and the meta quality of the film, exploring the genre itself, doesn't really work for me. I say keep it simple, but make it scary. It's enough.

Working on a thesis project, a film student attempting to explore the truth behind a local boogeyman falls victim to the terrifying being, forcing a filmmaker to assemble the footage and complete the film for a documentary crew only to wind up going down the same roads of insanity himself.

Overall, this was an interesting and somewhat chilling effort. As with the majority of these kinds of films, the fact that the central premise of the project is based on a creepy concept works nicely. The central core of the local legend, a hooded figure that appears out of a local tunnel after performing a specific ritual and then begins to haunt the individual based on the ritual, is the kind of story that easily fits within a small-town urban legend that would exist. The manner in which this springs out of the film into their world as his obsession to get to the truth about the strange phenomenon he's filming soon grows to incredibly lengths due to the desire to get the adulation for having been proven true through the guise of several familiar and effective jump scenes regarding the figure as it seems to appear in their footage. There's plenty of unnerving and chilling work of the creature throughout here as the concept for its appearance offers several chilling encounters. Likewise, the other exceptionally enjoyable aspect of this one is a truly fascinating look at the concept of found-footage verses the documentary. As the filmmaker attempting the original project rightfully observes, the original footage in the truest context of the word is found-footage yet the documentary he is making clearly isn't so his claims about them being otherwise clearly is false. That this is in turn being covered by a documentary film crew exploring the realization of the original tapes brings the entire concept into a wonderfully meta conception invoking the commonly-known concept of the director letting the audience see only what he wants you too which allows the lines between reality and fantasy to get blurred as he begins to spiral out of control in an effort to get people to believe the truth about his project. This is what drives the final half of the film and is what really holds this one up. This one does have some flaws to it. The majority problem here is the fact that the majority of the documentary is about the arrogant, self-righteous filmmaker who alienates everyone around him, thinks everyone has to bow down to him for what he's found and has to be the authority on the matter at every situation. Whenever he gets any kind of negative feedback or even just general criticism about truly genuine issues here, the first response that it's not seen as a masterpiece results in a crybaby breakdown that's entirely unappealing to sit through and just makes him entirely unlikable. As well, there's also the fact that the film drops off the boogeyman entirely instead by focusing on the guy which drops off the horror elements entirely as these tactics are brought out. These here are what holds this one back overall.

Rated R: Graphic Language and Violence.

You add one more reasonably produced piece to the two movies and you'd have the start of a whole found footage horrorverse.

I didn't expect much. I just picked this out on an idle Tuesday and with the run time figured why not. Originality is hard to find in horror any more, but the way they do this one is just different enough to make it not completely bland. It's kind of like that movie "Synecdoche, New York" with Philip Seymour Hoffman; about a guy making a play about making the play sort of thing.

Overall went over like a generic brand you buy and are unexpectedly pleased with... not enough to buy it again, but you enjoy it well enough while it lasts.

The only actors in this film that know what they are doing are the seasoned actors and "non-actors" that are only 50 years old.

The cinematography, sets/scene setting, writing, costumes...all very amateurish. The only plus side, shakycam is kept to a bare minimum.

Found footage films from every angle have been done, so you better know what you are doing if you jump into that side of the pool - this film does not cover that area.

Unless you want to feel like you are watching a film done in a college dorm room by students that think they know more than they actually do...this movie is not for you. Better off spending quarantine time watching films made before 2000.

The idea was good. Beginning created curiosity and it was a good start. But, slowly it lost the pace. It was like overdoing it, to make it convincing, that made it so unconvincing. This is like adding an extra layer to the found footage genre. Watchable for a different experience.