I usually like found footage movies but this one is a complete piece of nonsense, thanks to a very badly written narrative which leaves the viewer mired in a confused mess. The storyline involves a trio of friends going on a road trip and bringing along the inevitable video camera. After the slow first half, where we're introduced to these not very interesting people, the horror finally kicks in - what there is of it, anyway.

And this is where the film falls apart. There are dodgy ghostly visions of people and some of the characters go mad, but no real explanation is made. It's like there are a few events, spaced out, and a lot of ominous doom-mongering, but in the end little has really happened. I hated the incessant problems with the video camera which are vain attempts to make the whole thing scarier. It doesn't help that you actively dislike most of the main characters as well. I'm sorry, but the writer/director's refusal to provide clear explanations made me hate this one.

Skew is yet another hand-held POV horror in a similar vein to The Blair Witch Project and its countless found footage imitators. On this occasion, the person behind the camera is Simon (Rob Scattergood), who experiences disturbing occurrences while documenting his road trip with friends Rich (Richard Olak) and Eva (Amber Lewis): while peering through the viewfinder, Simon witnesses strange visual distortions that seem to predict the subject's imminent death.

Told at a very leisurely pace, with the camera even resting on inanimate objects or total blackness for minutes on end, Skew is definitely a test of one's patience at times; however, commendable performances and sporadic moments of well-handled weirdness keep the viewer watching, as does the hope of a satisfying denouement. It's rather frustrating then that, by the end of proceedings, several issues are still left unresolved, most notably the true nature of the supernatural phenomenon and the fates of several characters.

On occasion, a little ambiguity can work in a film's favour, but in this instance, after such an arduous and often uneventful haul, it only serves to irritate.

N.B. A little detective work here on IMDb has since enabled me to better understand the director's intentions, but when an in-depth explanation from those involved is necessary in order to appreciate a film, then it only seems fair to call it a failure.

I, like many others, visited the forum boards to make some sense out of the ending. I got a lot of "you just have to think about it" and "it isn't found footage".

OK.

The only way this movie makes sense is for this to all be a hallucination. There is no camera. There is a camera. Which is it? If there is no camera, why are characters asking for the camera and reaching out their hand as if the camera is changing hands? In some scenes, the camera does change hands.. from the back seat to the front. If there is no camera, how is this happening? Or is this change in POV to throw off the audience? If so, that is highly lame. Especially when the explanation for all of the confusion is "just think about it." Not a found footage? Okay. Well I'm having a hard time understanding how this film explains the numerous camera effects and sounds that all direct the viewer to understand it is a camera. Wiping off the lens, water on the lens, lens cap on the lens, digital tape stress, rewind effects and noises. And yet, Simon doesn't have a camera in the mirror.

Okay.

Most people don't enjoy movies that are confusing and touted as intelligent. If it is intelligent in design, there needs to be a director's cut to clear up a myriad of details.