The Atticus Institute (2015)

I was not sure what to expect before watching this. I now understand why this is shown on cable more than most POV horror out these days.

"Was it interesting?" For the most part. Framing it as a legitimate documentary helped it. The dated setting, lack of technology, and inability to see the characters away from the action hurt it some. 2 out of 3

"Was it entertaining?" That is it's biggest problem. Little drama beyond emotional storytelling and only a few real good paranormal scenes. 1 out of 3

"Was it memorable?" The form of the movie was, but otherwise didn't make too much of an impact. It mostly just trys to stand out among it's sub-genre. 1.5 out of 3

Start with 1, 1+2+1+1.5=5.5 I'm rounding up for just using decent actors and good editing. A 6 with these type of movies is definitely above average.

Fmovies: This could have been a good movie. They have the cast, they have adequate budget from what I see, HOWEVER, they had a poorly structured script, attempting to create a scary "documentary". The result was a boring, "flat", emotionless and BORING movie. Me, as a viewer, did not manage to feel any sympathy for any of the protagonists, since they were only been interviewed like it was "the news at 10". So, when they start falling like flies it is more likely that you'll be cheering for the demon (who seems quite cool) than the boring humans... Like I said, the general idea of the movie was not bad. The typical possession followed by many killings. It was something we have seen many times in other movies, and it is always great to see a good possession movie as long as it is scary and well made ! But this wan not one of the good ones...

I don't really know what the point of this movie was.

It's not scary at all and it's made as a faux documentary style but all the footage of course is fake and all the people interviewed are actors, William Mapother off 'Lost' fame with a very recognisable face plays one of the psychologists maybe if they would have gone with people who weren't as famous it would have worked a little better.

But on the other hand there are plenty of faux documentaries that does work so it's not all just that, it's just really boring.

I don't really know what more to say about this movie cause there's really nothing to say, a real big bore of a movie.

The Atticus Institute fmovies. Seriously how can you hate this movie?

Clever, interesting and original The Atticus Insititute gets a thumbs up from me, hats off to writer and director Chris Sparling.

Filmed as a mockumentary, it initially revolves around telekinesis and one particularly gifted woman, Judith Winstead. Rya Kihlstedt who plays Judith gives a brilliant and totally believable performance.

I really don't want to say much and spoil any of it, I'd just say give it a go.

How many noses does a monkey have?

'The Atticus Institute' is a documentary. Only it isn't. It's one of those films that is shot like one, yet scripted – I think they call them a 'mockumentary.' I've seen the genre before and they can be pretty entertaining; normally they're quite funny and this one is supposed to be scary. It's about the first 'government sponsored' institute which studies the paranormal. The story is about the facility's first 'genuine' patient with paranormal abilities.

Therefore you get a load of 'talking head' interviews shoved in every few scenes. It's set in the seventies, so all the scenes 'recorded' back then are nice and grainy, while the 'interviews' are supposed to be filmed with modern cameras, therefore being clearer in picture quality. Yes, both sorts are well-filmed. The overall effect is certainly one of watching a documentary on past times. Only the interviews totally take you out of what little scary mood has been created (and there's not much of that to begin with). Whoever's being interviewed basically tells you a bit about what happened back in the past and then we see what they've already said in grainy 'stock' footage.

So, everything that's going to happen is first told to us by an interviewee. And you can probably guess what's going to happen anyway. Once the institute gets its first 'real' person with psychic abilities then you know it's going to go wrong for them. And it does. Only it doesn't really crank up the mood to anything because it's being told to us in retrospect and you sort of already know what's happened because it's all taken place already (that's assuming you couldn't guess what happened anyway).

And, what few scares are in here aren't that scary. The lynchpin of any 'found footage' film is that it doesn't have much of a budget. And it shows here. Basically, if you like horror films, there are better. And, if you like 'found footage' films then you'll probably have seen better also.

Plus there's a British actress who plays one of the doctors who completely overacts every time she's interviewed. She wound me up.

It presents an interesting direction for possession subgenre with authentic documentary flair. The film portrayal of titular institution goes beyond average found footage gimmick, its understanding of the presentation makes it as though audience is watching real documentary from science channel. However, parts of the film aren't as consistently polished and these issues stutter the pace and occasionally derail the tension it has built.

Dr. Henry West (William Mapother) runs a small lab to research individuals said to have paranormal abilities. After a few failed endeavors, a woman named Judith Winstead (Rya Kihlstedt) is admitted to his lab. He and his colleagues have seen anything and anything like her, and the tests progress so sinisterly that eventually military is involved. Characters are pretty convincing at their roles, the use of exclusive camera footages without first hand interaction create credible effect.

The Atticus Institute offers several unnerving thrills, although the production has few technical flaws. Half of the movie is witnesses' interviews, which sets up more psychological and scientific approach. At its best the film delivers timely bizarre occurrences that are effectively chilling. However, it doesn't pay off every time. These interviews can be tedious and predictable, especially since their testimonies alone aren't sufficient to produce tension.

At midway point it feels that characters are overly narrating, especially since the scenes they mention are only partially captured. The film also describes events with clips and still images, they are short and some even look like slideshows. While this enhances its pseudo-documentary feel, its production is shabby. Furthermore, there are fumbles on editing as well as audio clarity. These issues could've been just minor hiccups, yet they are persistent enough to hamper the movie.

The Atticus Institute has intriguing concepts, its clever style almost overcomes the genre familiarities, but ultimately the production isn't adequate enough to fully convey the suspense.