I'm thinking about changing my user name to "Bad movie watcher" because of my incredible and uncanny ability to watch bad movies through to completion. There have been the occasional stinkers that I couldn't bear and turned off midway, but by and large I gut it out.This bad movie is a found footage film taking place in an abandoned mental hospital. To use a baseball term, the movie starts off in the hole with an 0-2 count.Although found footage films have significantly improved over the years, this one is of the type I can't stand. This is the single camera, POV, amateur video. So, what do you get with that? Quick scans, out of focus, and shaky. Then, whoever edited it made it more unwatchable with constant cuts from shot to shot. It's enough to give you a headache. There were plenty of times when I didn't know who was holding the camera because different people would be in the shot when they weren't before. And tell me, how does a found footage video have a musical overlay for intensity? Granted it was subtle and brief but it still detracts from the overall principle. The movie took too long to get going and offered very little in the scare department. Ultimately, you had three ghost seeking youngsters that found just that and paid the price. It was all rather cliché. At one point, at the beginning of the movie, someone even said: "This is how all horror movies start," when commenting on a ominous shot of some old homes--almost as if the movie was making fun of itself. Really poor taste.There's nothing cutting edge, nothing original, nothing redeemable about this movie. I'll stay away from the overused: "That's (x amount of my time) of my life I can't get back," because I made the choice to watch it. But what baffles me is: what is cool as a stunt isn't always cool as a movie. Why did they think this could make a good film? "Greystone Park" could've done a lot better as a 15 minute YouTube clip.

I won't deny it, I was gripped by the movie. I don't think it was super bad, it was just super messy. Too much shaking the camera, too much light that flickers and to much weird cutscene's.I did like the movie, yes. I don't think it deserves that low. I was surprised by the fact that it wasn't gory. Don't get me wrong, I like gore now and then, but in some movies it just doesn't fit and I am glad they left it out of this one.But in the end, I wondered what the hell I just saw. Because of the messy filming I didn't get a clear image what was going on in the asylum, and some background story would've made it a bit better (or not, maybe it was the same old story). Oh and suddenly those 2 people popped up, weird.But I liked the setting and I liked the creepy dolls and that people sometimes where possessed and then back to normal. It was creepy and I liked it. I wasn't super freaked out, I was just hooked.

It has been said before, but there comes a moment in everyone's personal 'mapping out' of a genre when one has to put their foot down and say 'here be the bad stuff'. Note the curious non-found footage intro bit with the director's more famous dad Oliver talking around a full dinner table and languidly huffing pot. Eh? Anyway, three unlikeable ADD-afflicted idiots (they can't keep a torch trained on something for less than a split second) break into a 'haunted' asylum to look for ghosts. Here's the sort of incomprehensible, tedious item full of improbably filmed content in conditions of poor visual clarity (honestly, this movie has the worst lighting I have ever seen) which gives the 'found footage' genre a bad name. Camera and torches flick and dart in non-stop headache-inducing spurts, rarely synchronising for longer than a second or so, and of course if we had a video camera and there was a serial killer or vengeful spirit (or both, as seems to be the case here) on our tail, we would take care to do our 'panicked running' with the camera carefully pointing ahead. And so it goes, until the thoroughly mystifying finale, which although frustratingly unsatisfying, nevertheless brings a welcome 'cool side of the pillow' relief that the ordeal is over. Over for the viewer, that is.

I had to give a 1 because of IMDb but seriously, this movie shouldn't even have that, everything about this movie could have made it a great one, but sadly the idiot who wrote it (sean stone) didn't seem to either understand how to make a decent horror movie, or it was constantly played for $h!its and giggles, which it failed at-abysmally. When watching I constantly got the feel that it was supposed to be the "spirits" or whatever it was, was attempting to drive them insane, and if the movie had been played like that, the whole spiritual power thing was both messing with their minds and the camera as a sort of "its trying to drag the audience in as well" that would have worked out perfectly well, especially with the scenes at the end with 'crazy Kate' (again, as portrayed, doesn't make sense) but we're just supposed to believe that a story told to them at the start just happened to appear at the end? No, it doesn't work like that in storytelling, even if its supposed to be 'inspired by real events' it wouldn't work like that. Ah, getting off topic, this thing just feels draining, you don't like the characters and it never pays off with creepy moments or jump scares, so when you've had the built up feeling of adrenaline in your system flow out of you, you'll feel tired and bored, is that what you want in a movie experience? I just wish people wouldn't make things like this, its insulting, tired, lazy and trotted out, but most of all - a complete waste of money that you could spend on anything else to give you a better experience than this movie will give you.