acidburn-10 I have been a fan of this movie for many years now, and it's the first I've seen that uses the reality TV angle in a slasher movie, although not a fresh idea anymore but at the time it was. The story line which I found was pretty solid and creates mood and tension the entire way through. The house was genuinely creepy which makes the perfect setting and the snowy outside was eerie as well.Okay this movie may take a while to kick off, but it still kept me interested with the surprise twists and turns and the interesting cast when they interact with each other kept me hooked the entire way through. But there are a few small flaws like some the gaping plot holes and some things that didn't quite make sense and why would anyone in their right mind stay in a house in the middle of nowhere for 6 months, for something that would be obviously fake. But other than that this movie still packs a punch especially when the true intentions are revealed at the end and comes fast and thick and the creative camera angles and split screens was used to good effect.Laura Regan was spot on as the obvious final girl, and found her likable and believable while displaying her moods and emotions. Sean Johnson was unfortunately the more underplayed and underused cast members in this movie, but he did a pretty okay job. Jennifer Sky was simply stunning and fun and can act as well, which is always a bonus. Stephen O'Reily gave a credible performance as the unofficial leader of the group, he quickly becomes more interesting as the movie goes on and Kris Lemche as the rebel of the group acted really well as the unlikeable and selfish member of the group.All in all "My Little Eye" is an interesting addition to the horror genre that fully kicks in and becomes really brutal towards the end, with some awesome kills and a cool creepy house.

kluseba Once I came home from a party with some friends and just wanted to relax and watch the television before I would go to bed. I switched from one channel to the other and found this movie. Although I had missed the first fifteen minutes of the film and my television magazine rated the movie as a rather average stuff, I decided to watch it and got drowned into a really creepy atmosphere that made me forget the funny evening with my friends. I got completely addicted to this movie until the very end. As it was a low budget movie, written by English writers and directors, played by mostly American actors and turned in the beautiful landscapes of Canada, I didn't expect that I would be able to buy a copy of this movie, but in over three years after I have watched this movie for the first time, I couldn't get it out of my mind and finally decided to look for a DVD copy and got it a few weeks later. I was able to listen to the whole movie this time and I liked it as much as the first time.There are many special things that distinguish this movie from other ordinary psycho thrillers or horror movies.First of all, the actors were all quite unknown at the time when this movie has been done, but they all do an excellent job, especially Kris Lemche in the role of Rex. It could have been a big risk to take only amateurs or unknown actors to make a movie with only seven actors in it and where two of them only appear a few minutes. But each actor plays a very special and unique character and has a strong presence and the concept works very well.The second thing that makes this movie so special is the way it is filmed. It is filmed in a "Big Brother" style with many web cams and little cameras and this way creates a very intimate and realistic atmosphere. You are able to feel with the characters and the natural style of the movie makes it more shocking and intense than what I would rather call paranormal fantasy movies with weird creatures.The third great thing about the movie is that you can't really figure out how it ends. In fact, the movie ends with a surprising double twist. What distinguishes this movie from the Hollywood horror movies is that there is - and I think I don't tell too much when I say this - a really disturbing and haunting ending instead of a happy end.The only negative points are that the movie has a beginning that is maybe a little bit too slow paced and that there could have been more shocking elements that happen instead of putting the whole tension in the very last night the five people live in the house. I also think that the women in the movie could have done a better and more profound job and that the man actors are way better and save the movie somehow.But all those three positive points plus an excellent atmosphere make this movie a very special one and I am even looking forward to see this movie again or present it to some of my friends. There are more and more reviews of this movie on this website and I think that this film is really worth the interest.

kosmasp But I don't think that was the main intention of the filmmakers. It's not like they went out to criticize something and make an art movie about it. There are hints and stabs (forgive the pun) at some things that are happening socially, but in the end the movie wants to entertain and not to teach/pray.There is one song in there, that got my blood pumping. A song that might was very intense and for a special purpose, which it fully created. Nicely done. The acting is decent for a horror movie and there are not too many (or at least none too obvious) flaws in the script. Big Brother might not want to you watch this ... or was he wants you to watch it? On a more serious note though: This is a decent effort and an entertaining enough movie to watch

keith-moyes I missed My Little Eye when it first came out but remembered it getting some good reviews, so when I spotted it in the 'remaindered bin' at my local video store I hooked it out to give it a view.Like many people, I found it hard to get into this picture. However, I stuck with it and by the end it had delivered enough to justify the effort.The story is quite intriguing. It was a very quick response to the 'Big Brother' phenomenon and gave an original twist to the familiar 'House on Haunted Hill' plot. It is also stylistically interesting, being shot on video using the locked-off CCTV cameras that pepper the house.Unlike most viewers, I have no strong feelings about it one way or the other. For me, it is neither a minor masterpiece nor an excruciating bore. I wouldn't have bothered to write about it at all, except for one extraordinary statement in the DVD commentary that set me thinking.We have long lived with the cult of the director, but in Hollywood they will tell you that only two things really matter in a movie: the screenplay and the casting.In a picture like this, the casting is not that much of an issue. It is appropriate to use relatively unknown actors so long as they can deliver. For me they did. Those reviewers that have castigated the performances are probably just blaming the cast for their frustration with the movie as a whole.The problems all lie with the screenplay. In a well-constructed screenplay the early scenes, in particular, have to do a lot of work very efficiently. Ideally, every scene (almost every line of dialogue) has to do at least three of four things simultaneously: give vital information; move the story forward; reveal character; and set up things that will pay off later in the story.The first half of this picture ladles on the atmosphere, but with insufficient context. We never learn enough about the characters or the set up to get really involved with what is happening. How were these people recruited? How did they get to the house? What are their back stories? What happened in the previous six months? What relationships did they form? How does this affect their behaviour at the end? It is the lack of this information that makes the picture so frustrating to watch: which brings me to the staggering revelation in the commentary.The rough cut was four hours long!Rough cuts are always too long, because the editor just dumps in all the relevant footage, which is then tightened up, scene by scene. Sometimes you can lose whole scenes because the point has been made elsewhere in the story. But you cannot lose two-and-a-half hours just by trimming a bit of fat.If the rough cut was four hours then this must be because David Hilton's screenplay was far too long. It probably included most of those things that are so conspicuously missing from the picture, but in a form that was always going to be too unwieldy for a tightly-budgeted little horror movie like this. But surely this this must have been obvious to the producer and director: all they had to do was count the pages.I find myself asking how this picture could have gone into production when it must have been clear that the screenplay still needed a massive amount of work. If you start out with four hours of footage you cannot expect to make a coherent 90 minute movie just by some nifty work in the editing suite. It is a miracle they manged to extract a releasable movie at all from that mass of footage, but there was no chance that it could ever be really good.I like to see gifted newcomers getting their chance in the movie industry (and I suspect that Marc Evans is gifted) but the lack of professionalism and discipline shown here can only make that more difficult in the future.PS:I understand from the IMDb trivia section that a four hour version was actually previewed. I would be interested to see it, but I doubt that anybody would actually want to spend four hours of their life on this story, or that a cinema would ever want to show it.