Live Search

Stream Beyond Limits

Title Spotlightخوفناکی

388 Arletta Avenue

خوفناکیسنسنی خیز

A young couple find themselves in an unnerving situation with a mysterious stalker.

سال

2012

دورانیہ

1h 27m

IMDb

4.8

ابھی دیکھیں

Hero Poster

کاسٹ

Nick Stahl

James Deakin

Mia Kirshner

Amy Walker

Devon Sawa

Bill Burrows

کاسٹ

Nick Stahl

James Deakin

Mia Kirshner

Amy Walker

Devon Sawa

Bill Burrows

Aaron Abrams

Alex

Charlotte Sullivan

Sherry

Krista Bridges

Katherine

Martin Roach

Officer #1

Graham Abbey

Officer #2

Gerry Dee

Boss

Daniel Lévesque

Felix

Kyle Labine

Co-Worker #1

David Reale

Co-Worker #2

ٹریلر

Featured Picks

مزید entertainment چاہتے ہیں؟ ہمارے recommended gaming hub اور short-drama destination کو explore کریں۔

Instant Games

Gamixo

Puzzles، cards، sports اور quick challenges والے casual browser games چند سیکنڈ میں کھیلیں۔

Short Drama

VSKIT Drama

Trending mini-series، romance stories اور نئے short dramas کو fast daily updates کے ساتھ دیکھیں۔

تبصرے

10 تبصرے

gilsandra_spencerJan 11, 2025

Not exactly scary, or thrilling; but creepy it is. James and Amy(Nick Stahl & Mia Kirshner)live at 388 Arletta Avenue. Just an average married couple working through a less than happy relationship. But they love each other and this house might just be able to keep them together. They have no idea that a faceless voyeur will begin manipulating them into a cat-and-mouse game, watching through dozens of hidden cameras. Simple little pranks will set tensions at a snapping point. Manipulations will become more mysterious and serious when Amy disappears with hardly a trace. Every time James has a chance to help his own situation a bad decision only prolongs his torment. If he could only identify who is causing the anguish and why. Sad to say the characters are neither interesting or likable. Sympathy is even hard to come by. Others in the cast: Aaron Abrams, Charlotte Sullivan, Krista Bridges, Devon Sawa and Gerry Dee.

Poppington_1ZJan 11, 2025

The trailer for this promised much, but in actual fact there is very little here. Maybe a great movie for a voyeur, everyone else should stay well away. At around 1hr 26mins it is quite probably a good 26mins too long, and could have been done as a TV special or similar. The main problem is that very little happens apart from the stranger watching them, which is happening from the opening shot, this is then dragged out for the rest of the movie and you find nothing out about the stranger or his/her motives. After an hour we just wanted it to end, and when it did, it gave absolutely nothing away and left you just thinking you should have maybe washed the car or done something useful rather than waste your time on this. This maybe harsh but, sorry, a complete waste of time.

sway house fanJan 10, 2025

This is a movie that rides on the trend of the whole found footage/hidden camera movie sub-genre. But is it doing anything new or interesting enough with it? Not really. It's of course hard to come up with something new and remaining fresh and interesting, since most had been done with the concept already and there is only so much you can do with it, since it's a quite restricting concept. It's restricted with its settings and movements and it is hard to keep things interesting for about 90 minutes, without starting to repeat yourself. This movie however does become a bit tiresome after a short while. It mostly becomes a tiresome movie since it maintains its 'mystery' for its entire running time. You don't know what is going on exactly, or what direction the movie will be heading at. This all sounds like some good and positive points about the movie but it's actually more sort of annoying, since basically everything can happen at the end, when the big 'reveal' comes. The movie doesn't drop any hints and stuff just happens, without you feeling involved with any of it. I kept thinking to myself; there better be a good resolution to all of this by the end, that explains everything as well, to let all of the events make sense. But no, in my opinion the movie takes a cheap way out and it absolutely wasn't satisfying enough and it's the sort of ending that leaves more questions than answers, especially when you start thinking back about the movie. It of course still could had been good and worked out all if the movie was a bit more tense. For a thriller it is surely lacking some good tension at times and doesn't ever gets you involved enough as a viewer, though the movie still tries to achieve this through its concept. The concept and camera-position are supposed to place you in the mind of the stalker. It's a voyeuristic movie but again, since you don't know any of the motivations or reasons for the events, you don't ever feel involved with it. It just doesn't do a good enough job at making and keeping things interesting and fresh enough to keep you interested in the story, its mystery and to what will happen with its characters. I did like Nick Stahl in his role, on a more positive note. He has to carry most of the movie entirely on his own and does a pretty good job with it. Too bad that the movie didn't really knew what to do with his character. It's not the worst thing you will ever see but it just isn't exactly a good or original enough movie to recommend either. 5/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

jameskofyJan 9, 2025

This film is shot from the perspective of a stalker who torments and manipulates a young couple. He installs some sort of monitoring devices in their home, and much of the action is seen from the perspective of these hidden cameras that follow the couple around the house. Thus, the film has the feel of the Paranormal Activity films, despite the different subject matter. The villain breaks in on multiple occasions to set up traps to toy with the couple. Fairly early in the film, the wife (Mia Kirshner) leaves following a heated argument that ensued as a result of one of these traps set by the stalker. The vast majority of the film, then, involves the husband (Nick Stahl) trying to figure out where she went and who the person is who has been messing with him. The sense of danger escalates as the film progresses. The one major complaint is that the film requires some pretty major suspension of disbelief regarding the capabilities of the villain stalker. Specifically, he is almost like an omniscient puppet-master who is able to manipulate Stahl's character to do exactly as he wants. There were numerous times when Stahl could and SHOULD have reacted to some provocation by the villain in a completely different way, but instead reacted exactly as the stalker wanted, thus propelling the plot to its desired end. Stahl's troubles are compounded by some stereotypical inept, unsympathetic police and pesky in-laws who are suspicious of his story. Overall, it's a decent little film, in my estimation certainly better than the low rating here. Just go with the flow and the film will give you some genuine chills.

AlexiaJan 9, 2025

This is not a good movie... Even though it has nick stahl and devon saw a, this film falls flat on its face immediately. There is a TOTAL absence of any real atmosphere, dread, or tension. I literally own at least 200 found footage movies on dvd and blu ray and I am VERY fair when judging a movie because as a filmmaker myself, I understand just making a movie is a huge feat. However, Arletta Ave will always be remembered amongst all my ff movies......as being one of the worst right along side "the house on the wrong side of the tracks" super low budget ff films are better than this drudge because, in them, there is usually some level of tension... 388 Arletta Ave: what not to do when making a movie

🔥Rachid Akhdim🔥Jan 9, 2025

The idea/concept behind this movie is a really good one. The way it is shot though, may appall a lot of people from the get go. Having the "shaky cam" and fuzzy cameras including sound variation is actually pretty annoying (although you do wonder where some film material is coming from, but that's another story). Nick Stahl plays the lead role and he has a lot to carry. Too much for him in my view. He can't pull off that transformation the character is going through. His outbursts are actually silly and look more like he's crazy than an actual human being. But for this movie to work, it has to be believable. And it just isn't. If you can't overlook the many flaws this movie has (like me), you won't really like this either. Acting wise it's unfortunately not up to the task (though the story/character changes do not help at times either).

anaifjfjjffjJan 9, 2025

I enjoyed the heck out of 388 Arletta Avenue. No bombs, no bullets, no intrigue; just a slice of life, and another, and another, all progressing toward another slice. What is happening, next? But Why? How can he? Why doesn't he? Since that didn't work, should he? The viewer is the creep by perspective but has the plagued man's identity. No thoughts of creep's purpose are revealed, the reactions of all others were reality-typical. It did have a few over-long moments, but whose life doesn't? I didn't miss the bombs, or the bullets, and the intrigue WAS there, upon reflection, but just from my own mind. The ending was mostly expected AFTER I saw the ending, but NOT before, which to me is even more of the attraction. If you want the easy-answers-ending tied in a happy bundle, go elsewhere; if you want a very possible real-life nightmare, watch it.

ICONJan 9, 2025

I love being scared, but I hate slasher flicks or movies where they are just finding new and more gruesome ways to kill people. 388 Arletta Avenue is the very best kind of thriller. Criteria for a great horror pic include: 1. Something that could really happen (no risen from the dead or supernatural beings). 2. Characters who behave rationally. Who don't choose to do something completely stupid that nobody would ever do. 3. A plot that makes sense. (Some of the other reviews on the site are obviously written by people who didn't "get it". Especially the ending. It made perfect sense, just not what those people expected. I thought it was a brilliant and terrifying ending) This is a movie that plays with your mind. You become so involved because something like this could happen. What if you were being watched? If someone had access to your house and would come in without you ever knowing? If they set up cameras everywhere and could see and hear everything? Deakin does a fantastic job, so frustrated and bewildered about what the hell is going on. Long after the movie was over, we were still talking about it.

SallJan 8, 2025

The only good things about this movie are the directing and the acting by the lead character Nick Stahl who plays the frustrated (and frustrating) husband James. I actually watched the movie a second time to see if it was as bad as I thought the first time and if i missed anything first time around. Nope, apart from a few minor details. Quite frankly, James Deacon is an idiot and probably deserved some kind of incrimination but what happened to both James and his wife is disturbing in the sense that it could be acted out like this in real life without neighbours, friends or work colleagues being able to rationalize what was happening. Actually the Bill Burroughs character, I assumed, was critical to the plot of the movie in relation to the song which was played - what was the song title by the way? This was no ordinary stalker or voyeur, not sure actually if he was either or both - and he certainly repeated his crimes. Why did he do it? Why and how did he select his victims? Was it purely entertainment? What would such a person get out of it? I was very dismayed with the ending. Personally, I thought police officers went around in pairs - and were not any neighbours or other folk who could have known what went on? How did James not suspect all the cameras hidden in his car when he was suspicious early on about the music CD? I do not agree the characters were developed. At work, James looked out of place and dysfunctional, while what did Amy do all day anyway? Bill was the trump card for me, he said little but his acting was spot on and for me he was the star of this movie, not James Deacon or any of the other characters. My guess also is that the time frame of the story was meant to be over several days and not any longer, gauged from the many reaction of Amys sister Catherine. The film is enjoyable and worth seeing. It is not as dull as some have made out but it is no blockbuster. Nevertheless, thought provoking.

Giovanni ReyJan 8, 2025

This whole "found footage" genre is really being run into the ground. "388 Arletta Avenue" attempts to take on genre in an original way, but due to unlikeable characters, a dull plot line, and a terrible ending this film just falls into the endless pit of bad "found footage" films. The main character in this film was just one of the dumbest characters ever in any horror film. His actions will frustrate you to the point where you will want to shut the movie off. The way he goes about things is just so unrealistic and stupid, this makes it pretty much impossible to root for him. The main problem I had with the movie was the fact that it was just plain out uninteresting. I honestly didn't really care about anything or anyone in this film because they did such a terrible job of setting everything up. Things start out very fast but not in a good way. You never really get a chance to get to know any of the characters, so once things start happening to them you don't really care. "388 Arletta Avenue" was a very dull experience. A huge waste of time, avoid this one. Only positive thing I can say about this movie is that it wasn't the worst "found footage" film I've seen. 2/10