silvertongue-44832 It has nothing new and full of cliches that fall flat. Disappointment!

nabokov95 It's winter in the American Mid West. A young newly married couple, the husband a teacher with a new job at the local school, the wife unemployed, move into their newly purchased first house in the wife's home town. Almost immediately things start to go bump in the night. That suggests a pace the film doesn't have. It's a melancholy, bleak, almost artsy ghost story with shots of empty winter scenery, open skies and dripping icicles. The characters are well played, likable and intelligent, the horror mostly peripheral and special effects sparingly used. There are some genuine unforeseen twists in the plot. It's not a classic of the genre but, considering how bad many films in the genre are, I found it difficult to dislike. Nothing to write home about but, if you don't go in expecting a CGI filled gore fest, it has a bleak charm. 6/10.

Flow Not a horrible way to spend 1.20h but it will be pure blood deja-vu. Absolutely nothing new, different, just a tired old formula, same plot, same "find me" ghost message and a very slow problem solving.Any pros? Well they made the best of its budget, the "spirit" was OK overall, the acting was decent, some tension and pretend scare jumps and then the solution. Could I possibly recommend this tho? No way, no point in wasting too much time when you can do a lot better with some indies, so go and throw an eye in that direction. Some actually have better plots or executions: "It's in the Blood ", "Deep in the darkness", or "Savaged". These ones are better and you'll get a kick or two. Sure, nothing out of the usual, but still, at least the plot is more complex, it does try a lot more and succeeds. So, "Find me" could actually be directed towards the viewer, as this little movie does wanna be found and watch, but bare in mind, it does have something in common with The Ring: you see it, you might die! Boredom hits hard with this one!Cheers!

chrismackey1972 I saw this, and it was OK. Everything about it was slow. In the beginning, she's looking at a picture for about 10 seconds. They did tend to drag out scenes. It was an hour/26 minutes, but it would've been better had they made it a short film of about 60 minutes. The flow would've been better, and they could've cut out a lot of unnecessary dialogue and gazing at pictures for an unnecessary amount of time. It was entertaining enough, but I did find myself looking at my watch. The acting was good enough, so was the story. Again, they tended to drag out the movie that should've only been about an hour long. Sometimes less is better than more.