Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Joanna Mccarty Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Rainey Dawn The film started out good - I enjoyed the first 30 minutes or so of it... but it started going down hill after that... I ended up fast-forwarding through it to see how it ended. You are better off with House on Haunted Hill than this film -- same basic idea but My Little Eye is a month in the house instead of over night. 4/10

atinder This was kind of re-watch, I saw this movies on TV years ago, I stay up watching, I didn't remember much from it, I know that fell sleep in some places. I saw this DVD in shop for 75p, so what the hell, So gave it another shot, I was hoping I would not fall a sleep, which very hard not too.As movie was far to mess, from annoying, unlikable people in the movie, you could not care less. I found this movie drag for to long, with nothing really happen in this movie for first hour! Then when things start to happen, they were kind of bland, the acting was very weak from most of the cast. I just found the whole movie really messy!2 out of 10

Kevin xaverius I just watched this film one day ago and I found this film has a very interesting storyline, about 5 people who accepted a challenge to live together in a small house in the isolated wood. But, soon they found something's wrong with the competition.The film use a semi-mockumentary style camera and make it more scary to be watched. The scoring and lights effects also very great.But the film has some weakness. First, the acting of the actor and actress were okay but not very good. I couldn't see a well scared expressions from them.And I also hate the ending. It's the worst part of the movie. I think why should the villain kept one of his victim alive in a small room instead of killed her?

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.