Hidden is a classic example of what happens when someone makes a short film idea last for 90mins. With the odd piece of dialogue here and there we mostly get footage of people playing hide and seek, most of which is people running, people over reacting to being found you know the classic things that happen when there is no clear or actual narrative.Some of the camera work was OK, however the over bright white effect got annoying quick as did the Shaky cam.Now on to the misleading part, the cover art is hugely misleading, one it makes it look like a horror film, it isn't it is an alternative art house film, from the red eyed person on the front you would think it is something similar to Blair witch and the Ring. The only similarity is they all suck.The ending twist was remarkably predictable, lets see, people in an unrealistic situation, acting very oddly, well clearly something about them all is off, so either they are Aliens, Monsters, or dead. Considering how the film is shot in the over white effect, the answer was clearly they are all dead...perhaps the oldest "twist" in the book next to "it turns out it's man!".If it was a 15 minute film I would give it a good rating, but clearly it shows the director is unable to tell if a story can actually play out for that length of time. The characters are bland, with very little dialogue, in fact, there is really only an escalation of dialogue after the 40minute mark, till then it is pretty much people running, but don't worry after the 40min mark, people still run for the majority of the film.Dull as dishwater.

This is coming from a NZ'er, so I've seen a fair bit of films from this country in my time, saying that, most of them have completely bored me, or irritated me. However, I was so very pleasantly surprised with Hidden, I was impressed with how good they managed to make the film on as I would suspect a low budget, of course having the scenery is a bonus.Another thing as well, most of the actors I had never heard of before, I think it might have been only two people from shortland street (wow!). Which in my opinion was very surprising. Both people acted very superficial and professional. I was astounded at the storyline, the whole plot kept me captivated because I had absolutely NO idea what was going on, the characters were special in one way or another, you got to understand them well and sympathize if they got hurt or died. Some even gave me the creeps, the guy with the sore lip especially confused me, when I saw him do the whole act around the tree part I was thinking "oh no, he's going to end up an alien, just like that movie where the woman loses her son and everything's a mystery and suddenly there's people jumping through ceilings." But I soon realized it was nothing like that, and it had a much more appealing twist to it. One thing that worried me was there was barely no communication with the group of campers, but in the end it didn't bother me because just their actions, the close-up's of the girls faces, the expressions, it was incredibly masterful and artistic. It was like a new kind of interaction.I loved this movie, the odd feeling of confusion it gave me at the end, that almost uncomfortable sensation, it's wonderful when a film makes you feel so much.Whoever compared this to the Blair witch project must have been on crack, and I am bewildered to the fact it has such a low rating. This is one of the best movies NZ has ever made.

This movie is kinda vaguely like the Blair witch project but much much more boring and not even vaguely scary.I kept watching because some comments said it gets better as it goes on. They lied. Well I guess it did get better, after all it couldn't get much worse, but even better was pitiful.It's the kind of movie that I might watch if it was on TV and there was nothing else on and I was too tired to get up and find the remote, but I would not suggest that anyone should rent this movie.The only plus point I can see is it would have been very low budget. The scenes were probably real NZ bush and old buildings, there were no special effects, no big actors. Some of the camera work was fairly good otherwise I would have said it was made by a third form (13 year olds) drama class.As others have said you do get to know the individuals a bit and the twist at the end was unexpected but all in all not really worth watching.

I rented this DVD partly because it's a thriller (and I'm really into those at the moment) and partly because it's an independent New Zealand film that I hadn't heard of before. Hidden did the film festival circuit last year and won several international awards (including Best Feature at the Harlem International Film Festival, the Rebelfest Director's Award and the FAIF Best Director Award) before its limited local release last February, but it's on DVD that most of New Zealanders will get to know it. Tim McLachlan (the film's writer, director and producer) is pretty much an unknown even in his native country (although he was Ian McKellan's stunt double in Lord of the Rings) but if there's any justice in the world he'll be making a name for himself from this debut.I'll admit that I was a little put off by the premise – a group of teenage camp leaders go out into the bush to play hide & seek one afternoon, and scary stuff starts happening to them in the woods. Scary stuff happening to teenagers in the bush is a fairly well-trodden plot for New Zealand thrillers (the best example being the classic Bridge To Nowhere back in the 80s), not to mention for horror/thrillers in general, but I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt. Besides, playing hide & seek in the bush is something that just about every New Zealand kid/teenager's done at some point, so it kind of speaks to the national psyche. Crawling through wet "cutty grass" with mud smeared all up your pants, trying to keep out of sight and wishing you'd worn a darker jumper, itching from a dozen mozzie bites and hoping you don't sit on a tree weta… This is the stuff that Kiwi childhoods are made of, and when you see an unlucky movie character slide down a wet bank and land in the creek you know exactly how he feels.I'll also admit that the film doesn't start off terribly well. You're about ten minutes in before you hear a single line of dialogue, and the first twenty minutes or so seems to consist mainly of people running around and hiding in the bush (actually, there's a great deal of that throughout the movie). There are approximately a dozen main characters to get to know, which isn't easy when all they're doing is chasing each other through the undergrowth and climbing up trees. There's a lot of stylish camera work (most of it done very simply with home-made wooden rigs and clever editing – watch the "Behind The Scenes" featurette for a lesson in independent film-making) and a generally creepy overtone, but not a lot in the way of plot or character development for the first half hour or so.But be patient with the slow start and and stick it out, because it gets a lot better. As the film goes on, you start to realise that you ARE slowly getting to know the characters (and starting to care about them) simply by their behaviour and their reactions to each other. The film gives up its secrets slowly as you observe the characters and solve their little mysteries. Why does Carlos seem to hate Mark, and why is Brooke so edgy around the both of them? What happened to Imogen when she was a little girl? Why is Isabelle so morbidly obsessed with the graveyard? Why does Mark keep hearing his dead grandfather's voice as he goes deeper and deeper into the woods? And how are they all connected to Emily, a little girl who drowned in the creek years ago and whose ghost is now rumoured to haunt the camp? There's an air of mystery surrounding them all, and McLachlan trusts his audience enough to let us solve it all for ourselves rather than hitting us over the head with each plot point. For example, there's a rather well-turned sub-plot involving one of the girls and the creepy caretaker, which relies on the audience's assumptions - and society's suspicious nature - to provide the necessary tension and resolution.The payoff comes in the final ten minutes or so – this is one of those movies where everything suddenly falls into place in one scene. The "surprise" at the end isn't terribly original – though it pays to remember that this film was shot in 2001 and spent three-and-a-half years in troublesome post-production before being released, so it's kind of coming in after its time. Besides, the twist is managed covincingly enough – and with enough respect for the audience's intelligence – that it still packs a pretty good punch. This is especially true for a New Zealand audience, as the film's climax is almost certainly based on an unfortunate event in our recent history. I won't say any more, but you'll know what I mean when you watch it.For a movie that was shot in the bush on a shoestring budget with a film student cast who doubled as crew, this is a surprisingly slick and powerful little thriller which proves once again that imagination, talent and Kiwi ingenuity is worth more than all the digital orcs and giant monkeys in the world. Not only will it give you the jitters, but you'll probably shed a tear or two by the end. Highly recommended.