Bad Ben

It's OK, far from great, but far from terrible. I've definitely seen worse... You know... Like the other two...

I fell victim to the rather derpy name "Bad Ben" as well as the odd choice of poster design on AmazonPrime. The selection kept coming up again and again no matter how often I overlooked it or showed no interest in it.

Last week, I almost gave it a shot, watching the trailer for it, and based on the trailer I honestly thought it was a joke. It looked absurd and childish, less like a horror movie than a series of bumbling outtakes from someone's home movies edited together like a horror movie.

Based solely on the overwhelming good reviews I kept seeing of it, I gave it a try, utterly astonished that this entire film was done completely and utterly by one man; the producer, the writer, the editor, the director, the star, the owner of the house, the guy who spent $300 according to IMDB to make this entire film.

this is a "found footage" film of a guy who bought a lavish house at a Sheriff's auction, and goes in to find it is still fully furnished and decorated, and equipped with dozens of security cameras around the house. As he documents his attempt to flip it and sell it, he deals with the usual escapades of these modern day haunted house situations; motion-activated cameras turning on at odd moments after detecting some apparently ghostly motion, doors opening and closing on their own, and random power outages and strong odors.

Being the only person on screen at all times, nigel bach is surprisingly good in his role, being comfortable and nonoffensive, possessing neither an unpleasant voice or attitude nor a particularly difficult accent or way of intonating. He has a way of acting that feels like he is not acting, like he really is just filming himself doing something mundane and isn't projecting or enunciating or emoting for the sake of the audience, while at the same time never coming across as flat or monotonous.

What little visual effects there are are done very quickly so as not to reveal themselves, while the vast majority of the horror comes solely from lingering creepiness and the occasional perfectly timed jump scare (such as the scene with him talking to the music box on the table).

While the name played a large role in turning me off from the film, the explanation behind it only adds to the film's creepiness and unsettling nature, in the form of a child's drawing of his mom and dad in front of the house, with himself labelled as "Good Ben" and another angry-looking creature apparently drawn underground labelled as "Bad Ben"

The film never lets itself go off the rails with a lengthy backstory or exposition dump, while only indulging a bit with its ending. For an estimated $300 this is probably one of the better "haunted house with security cameras" horror movies I've seen

I hate found footage films as a rule of thumb, and if I review them it's either because they really suck or because I actually didn't mind them. This film falls into the latter category.

I went into this film not knowing it was a solo film and a first venture, it was available on Prime and I was bored. I only found out the rest after, which made me extra impressed!

This film is simple, the effects are (generally, there is one that stands out rather negatively, you'll know it when you see it) are subtle and pretty well done. The reason for all of the cameras is pretty solid, and it's not one of those over the top "And then I was PINNED IN THE CEILING BY AN UNSEEN FORCE!" type of things. It's refreshing in it's simplicity.

While I wouldn't call it believable, the vast majority of this film feels more realistic than others of the genre and that's a nice touch. Although a bit more knowledge on the occult might have helped.

Not perfect, not very scary, but still much better than a lot of found footage films of late.

I'm mostly an art-house and indie film lover, but I've a penchant for horror, which means I watch a lot of schlock, knowing full well that budget and star-power don't mean a thing in terms of defining "good" within this genre.

Nonetheless, a single-actor, next-to-no-budget found-footage horror film in the vein of Paranormal Activity... that's the kind of thing any rational being should run away from, expecting a painfully unwatchable and sloppily structured video akin to uncle Bob & aunt Weave's redecoration home videos.

Yet, I was intrigued. A whole series?! Some of the reviews here solidified my curiosity, so I gave it a go.

It is what it is.

Haters will hate, and whiners will whine, which says more about them and their inability to understand "niche" and "objective". If you despise found footage films, just don't watch found-footage films. Easy. Unless watching them just so you can complain is your thing, which makes you far less interesting than found-footage films.

Having said that, I can respect legitimate reasons to hate this film that anyone may express... if or when I come across them. But, if you don't mind the genre, or if you love it, I'm sure you'll want to exclaim, "Good work, Nigel!" for this surprisingly engrossing one-man effort.

Well done, Nigel!

Honestly, Im not quite sure how to score this film..

Bad Ben is a very low budget film starring one man, Nigel Bach, who appears to also be the director and bizarrely, it seems the entire film is shot in his actual house. Its a found footage film. Its a Paranormal Activity style scary film. Seriously, everything about Bad Ben sounds, well...bad. But here is the thing - Bad Ben was oddly entertaining and held my attention for the entire duration and I still can't work out why.

Despite the low/non-existent budget it is shot fairly competently and doesn't suffer from the poor cinematography and terrible lightning that a lot of the low budget horror flicks I have subjected myself to over the years often do. The acting is okay, sort of, and Nigel Bach's character Tom Riley was very amusing in the way he went from mildly irritated to outright angry at the ghost's refusal to leave his new home.

Look, I'm not recommending Bad Ben. Part of me wants to but I just can't. But, if you're curious and want to get in on a potentially cult movie from the ground floor then, well, give it a go I guess. And if you like it, I hear this is the first in a trilogy. Yes, that's right - a trilogy. Good heavens.

Ive scored it a 3, but could quite easily score it higher. And some would possibly score it much, much higher and in a way I can kinda see why..