Ratter (2015) Movie Review - Extremely Dull Voyeuristic Horror Borefest

Welcome to Knockout Horror and to our review of Voyeuristic horror movie Ratter from 2015. Who’d have thought that spying on Ashley Benson prancing around in her underwear would be so utterly dull? Well, that’s exactly what we do in Ratter and that is exactly what it is.. Bloody boring. Let’s take a look.

Found Footage With a Bit of Screenlife

Focusing on the story of young student Emma (Ashley Benson). Ratter sees our main character moving to the city of New York for university. Having experienced a somewhat traumatic relationship. She is looking to get away from it all and start again. It isn’t long, however, before she begins experiencing strange events. Her photos disappear, she receives strange text messages from a blocked number, and it appears she is being stalked. The question is, who is the culprit and how far will they go?

So where does the name Ratter come from? Well, supposedly, it is a person who hacks devices to stalk someone. I have never actually heard this term used in this way before. I doubt that it is a common entry into the general public’s lexicon and it makes for a pretty craptastic name for a horror movie. But, alas, here we are.

Ratter is presented in the much maligned Found Footage style. Filmed through the eyes of Emma’s phone camera, Kinect and laptop. I suppose you could also class this movie as something of a screenlife horror. Not in the traditional sense, of course, but certainly in the method of filming. Wherever Emma is, there is a phone or a laptop providing the footage. Naturally, it bears mention that this style isn’t for everyone. Ratter is guilty of all of the usual sins of the medium and even a few more.

A Weak Premise

We, obviously, recognise that Emma is being spied on but the premise of this movie really doesn’t hold up. The need to present scenes from different angles undermines the entire structure. Shots that clearly couldn’t have come from any particular device litter the movie. Making it so as the concept doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, especially when you consider how oblivious Emma is. How many devices does she have and how many are filming her? Emma is oblivious to any kind of security concerns and does nothing to protect herself from any level.

Despite Emma exposing her entire life to myriad cameras, the window into her world proves to be a somewhat boring one. Filled with days of staying indoors, dancing in front of the television or playing tennis on her Microsoft Kinect, singing along to music and shaving her legs. It’s all horribly mundane. I understand, this is probably the average day for a lot of people but it does not make for decent horror content. Where’s the intrusion into privacy? Where’s the moments of intimacy? Where’s the reason to care?

Whereas movies like the fantastic Alone With Her constantly up the threat, spying on our protagonist in her most vulnerable moments, and consistently upping the tension. Ratter chooses, instead, to focus on Emma’s most boring moments. Almost never engaging in escalation and presenting minimal malicious interference in her life. Ratter never really goes anywhere and never feels particularly serious. 

PG Voyeuristic Horror

This is an almost PG presentation of voyeuristic horror overly keen to avoid depicting the truly heinous side of the crime. There is no real violence, no physical stalking, no grotesque moments of personal interference in Emma’s life and very limited scares. There isn’t even any nudity, something that is a staple in movies like this. This is despite the movie willingly engaging in gratuitous cleavage shots, purely for the sake of titillation (Ha!). Ratter completely misses what makes voyeuristic horror scary.

By the time the ending rolls around, it is very clear that the movie is out of ideas. This leads me on to another point, Ratter has one of those endings that will really piss people off. It is utterly inconsequential. I can only describe it as a shoulder shrug from the writer. Ratter barely has a story at all so I suppose this should be entirely expected but it is still disappointing. Ratter was based on an 8 minute short movie and it shows. There is no substance to this movie at all. It is thread bare with very little to offer.

Acting is Fine

Acting is fine. Ashley Benson stars as our protagonist Emma. She has, obviously, gone on to do pretty well, including starring in a similar role in Pretty Little Liars. She does a good job here, particularly in the final scenes. Benson does fall into some of the familiar traps of screenlife horror. She struggles to react authentically to text messages she is receiving, despite them being crucial to the plot and, seemingly, shocking. She also has a tendency to steal from the intimacy of the presentation, pulling her top down to hide her underwear etc. Something that someone is unlikely to bother doing in their own home. It’s not a huge thing, though. 

Everyone else is fine in minor roles. The movie throws a few red herrings at you so there is a fairly wide cast. Matt McGorry has the biggest side role as Michael and does okay. Rebecca Naomi Jones, as Emma’s friend Nicole, is absolutely fine. She brings a little levity to the movie. Her character’s constant dismissal of Emma’s concerns can be annoying, though. Kaili Vernoff has a small voiceover role as Emma’s mum. Her performance towards the end of the movie is noteworthy. A good example of effective, emotional, voice work.

Cinematography is okay given the source. Obviously the static shots can get old fast. The shots from inside Emma’s bag or on her lap are annoying. Many of the shots make little sense, as well, especially given what they were supposedly recorded from. It’s what you would expect from this type of movie, though.

Should You Watch Ratter?

No, you probably shouldn’t bother watching Ratter. This is a voyeuristic horror that is as bare bones as they come. Featuring little more than an idea, this movie is poorly fleshed out and completely lacking in scares. A barely developed story offers little in the way of intrigue. Voyeuristic elements are PG levels of tame, never really making you feel as though the character’s privacy has been invaded. The story is slow and boring, there are absolutely no scares and the ending is incredibly frustrating. It’s just not worth your time.

Our Scoring Philosophy: A Fair Fight

Horror is a genre that thrives thanks to indie film makers and low budget creators. At Knockout Horror, we firmly believe that every movie that we review deserves a fair fight. That's why we grade on a curve. Our star ratings are all about context, judging a film on what it achieves with the resources it has.

A 4-star rating for a scrappy indie horror made for $10,000 is a testament to its ingenuity and raw power. A 4-star rating for a $100 million blockbuster means it delivered on its epic promises. We don't compare them side-by-side; we celebrate success in every weight class, from the back-alley brawler to the heavyweight champion. Please keep this in mind when considering star ratings.

Disclaimer: Images, posters, and video stills used in this review are the property of their respective copyright holders. They are included here for the purposes of commentary, criticism, and review under fair use. Knockout Horror makes no claim of ownership and encourages readers to support the official release of all films discussed.