Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Jack Bennett A father hunts social media and the internet for clues to his daughter's disappearance, but has to ask what if she wasn't abducted? What if she simply ran away?We live in a world where our every action, thought and impulse can be broadcast to the world if we chose (or even if we don't). To therefore see a film where that plays into the hands of people on both sides of the criminal spectrum forces the audience to decide as to which side the fence they sit with regard to personal data protection, as well as tackling the effects of catfishing and leading multiple 'fake' lives online.The story circles around the efforts of a recent widower whose daughter isn't returning his calls and appears to have gone missing in an abduction case; however, her social media and banking accounts leads the police to suspect that maybe she ran away. Not content with the version of events, the desperate father follows his own line of enquiry to attempt to uncover what really happened to her.Since we're looking through the online world for the majority of the time, the film has a lot to say on the vindictive nature of a mass online audience with no moral boundaries or sense of individual responsibility. There are the 'Best Dad' memes, the needlessly speculative neighbours who just want their 15 minutes of fame on NBC, the trending 'dad did it' hashtag, the endless "thoughts and prayers", and the flip-flopping of people, through crocodile tears, who now claim to have been best friends his daughter for the sake of 'views' and 'likes'. The way the film is delivered exclusively via laptop screens - from the revelation of a family tragedy via calendar invites to characters' inner thoughts being typed in a text but then deleted - is one of its top strengths and gives it the draw that keeps the audience 100% engaged up to until the final (incredibly satisfying if exposition-heavy) whodunit reveal. It would be wrong, however, to say it was unique or pioneering; let's not forget that 2014's Unfriended did it to a lesser degree than Searching manages.There will be some people who will hate the way it's presented as being on a PC monitor, who won't like the ending twists, who will despise the use of social media as a plot device. I think they're wrong; it's deeply refreshing to see something new, vibrant and different done so well for a change.Best Quote: "It is the police's job - not yours - to act on flakes of evidence."

Louis-Éric Bacon If you want 90 minutes of a guy highlighting stuff for the audience like we're morons who can't spot the only thing on the screen, YOU'RE IN FOR A NON-STOP THRILL RIDE.Now, if you're not that impressionable, you'll soon notice how there's close to no content in this movie. Dead-ends that take up a third of the movie, twists that make no sense whatsoever if you listen carefully and of course, the whole point of the movie is that it's all on various computer or phone screens. The thing is, unlike Unfriended which is in real time, this movie is set over a couple of days... which end up showing the character sleeping in front of his open webcam? Or a police officer answering a FaceTime call from a civilian at 2 in the morning? This is just the tip of the iceberg on how very little sense this movie makes by trying to tell a convoluted story with limited fields of imagery.Cho's performance is nothing more (or less) than average, but I can't say the same for the rest of D-list actors in the cast. Everyone seems to be delivering their lowest effort possible, or maybe just don't have the talent to play even the simplest of all roles. You don't care about any of the characters already and that kind of performance doesn't help. I honestly couldn't care less if the daughter was alive or dead, because it really didn't change anything.And as I said in my very first paragraph, the director seems to take his audience for idiots by making sure the character highlights every important clue to try and make some sense of his "twists". I'm not exaggerating when I say the main character does that AT LEAST 30 times over the course of the movie. And if it isn't a highlight, it's the a straight-up ZOOM IN on the detail that needs to be seen, according to the director. An immersive experience would make the whole screen visible and let the viewer find his own clues. This feels like the director taking us by the hand to explain his stupid story.In the end, this movie fails on every single level and doesn't deserve all the praise it's getting (I guess for the fact that it's all on screens, but other movies have done WAY better). Save some money and skip this one, as for the twist isn't even worth the watch. It's barely a twist at all actually, as I said, since it makes no sense if you pay enough attention and don't get distracted by the constant highlighting.One of the worst movies of the year.

marklakey This film was utter dross. I saw this as a preview screening perk perk with my unlimited cinema package. I left the cinema after 40 minutes. If watching someone have text chats, with all the drama of pondering whether to use an exclamation mark or a full stop, (yes, that happens), and look things up on a laptop is your thing, then this is the movie for you. Garbage. Worst film I've (part) seen this year and the first one I've abandoned in ages. I couldn't care less what happened to his daughter, and I couldn't bear any more of the slow paced internet searching.

Brandon Robinson The word "gimmick" can be thrown around to describe a major element of a film that changes up the ordinary tropes we'd expect from a rather straightforward flick. There is 3D, timeline splicing, animation, found footage, you name it. Some films almost even fall into these places as a genre. When they do, you get the inkling that the people responsible for thinking up the movie likely have these elements in mind at the forefront with the story as an afterthought. Only when that occurs do I call those elements gimmicky. And it's not that a gimmick is a bad thing, but if that is what you rely on to make your story compelling, it will often become a crutch for poor storytelling or one-and-done enjoyment. Sometimes it is done right, in which case the gimmick works... but most of the time it has that negative connotation for good reason.However, there is another breed of films where you can get that feeling that a story was thought up, and ultimately it was decided that the best way to tell that story was by use of something like 3D, etc. When that happens, it is no longer a gimmick nor does it fall into that genre, so to speak. It is just the best way to tell that story, even though the story could work very well without it. I am no longer attracted to the film because of the device being used, but rather I can almost ignore that it's happening because I am so engraved in the story being told.Within the found footage narrative realm has come screencasting, where we see the world through somebody's computer or phone screen. The first and only film of this variety I have seen was Unfriended, which takes place on one user's laptop screen as she does a group webcam chat. This played off as a gimmick because it was the only way to tell the story. Searching is now the second screencasting film I have seen. It has a bit of a hybrid feel though because there are jumps to other footage needed to tell the story (perhaps from the news or something) and there is also a score that the characters otherwise wouldn't hear. Gimmick is also the last term I would use to describe what it does. Of course, this is plainly because the story is what drives the film and could be done without this style, but also because this style is doing more than tell a story: it is telling of our generation's attachments to/reliance on technology, the internet and most of all social media. The right audience will connect with this very well because they will feel very comfortable and familiar. This is where the film gets to breathe and even provide what one could call comedic relief (in just how real it all is to our technological experiences).Director and co-writer Aneesh Chaganty came up with something extraordinary, and very smartly crafted this film into something where the main character's (played by John Cho) computer and phone are not devices (no pun intended), but they are now characters. There is an inaudible dialogue between him and screen, and the audience fills the gaps of what each of them are saying to each other. I say the story could be told without the screencasting in play, but the audience would need another way of being exposed information through needless dialogue, either to oneself or other characters. That, or we would still be looking at computer screens for a very long time, or time would have to be served filling scenes in other ways, so restructuring the screenplay would be required (which is possible, but I think Chaganty found the best way to tell his story).I am still on a high with this film, to the point where I temporarily feel comfortable saying this is my favorite film of the year so far. The trailer that I just watched on this film after the fact would lend you to believe that it is a suspense/thriller, and even though it is suspenseful and thrilling I would not identify it as that. I would call it more of a drama/mystery. I think the first ten minutes of the film easily define what the entirety of the film will play out to be with regards to what emotions it will tap into you, and the opener of this film is one of my favorites in a long time. Thinking back on it, it's probably what really seals what I really think about Searching as a whole, and puts your mind at ease for the screencasting style that Chaganty tells the story with.This film is about a father whose high school daughter turns up missing, and he cooperates with the police in doing his own personal detective work through means of his electronic devices to help aid their investigation. Thinking back at some of the missing persons films I have seen in my days (Gone Girl, Prisoners, Taken, Man on Fire, Gone Baby Gone, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Flightplan, Ransom), these stories have ranged from: straightforward to conspiracy-laden, kidnappings to runaways, found alive to found deceased to never found at all... and Searching gives you reason to believe that any of these possibilities could be true, all within staying very real. I think that's what makes this movie work most, that by the end of the day you convince yourself that you felt you saw something extremely grounded and strangely relatable. I mentioned the technology/internet/social media aspects, but the characters also relate well, and because it takes place in the Bay Area it also gives more bonus points for someone like me because I have an extra connection with the locations that are mentioned or utilized. It's best that you try and not decide for yourself what kind of film or outcome you hope to see going into it, and instead commend the shrewd genius in weaving the pieces together in a very levelheaded manner.Absolutely none of this works without the sturdy acting by John Cho. You clearly see the image of a wrecked and broken father attempting to find his daughter. He has a compelling way of making us feel his his hurt and desperation. Chaganty once again used the screencasting element well here in having his character's on-screen actions say so much as well, from his mouse gestures to the things he starts to type but deletes before sending to other people, etc. The audience will not have to work too hard with these facets because of competent directing and brilliant acting. What I suggest you do work really hard at while watching, however, is what I would call the Easter eggs this film has. When a screen pops up with a bunch of e-mails, news articles, or chat conversations, you want to pick up everything that you can because you won't be able to pause and rewind in theater. But furthermore and most importantly, every revelation of this film can be grasped if you work and look hard enough at everything that Cho's character works and looks at. This is a good thing, and what makes it even better is this film is never predictable (mostly because you know as much as the protag does, because you are literally seeing the film through his eyes). You get to stay on the edge of your seat through this process, even if nothing is really going on, because you feel like you get to take everything in at the same time that he does. There is a lot to process here, and again it is all in such a very real way.This one is such a good time at the theater, and I think the only people who will be disappointed in this flick is if they: find the screencasting to be too much of a gimmick for their taste, feel misled by the trailer's overly suspenseful tone, or they already have one or two predetermined outcomes in mind that they want to happen and it doesn't suit their liking. As it stands tonight though, it is my favorite film I have seen this year. I don't want to call it groundbreaking what Chaganty did as far as influence goes (I don't expect many of these films to suddenly churn out as a result), but as far as accomplishing intent in a unique manner I think he did what no one else has before, and it works far too well for the story he told.For those who are curious, this film is not yet rated but I can easily say the MPAA will give this a PG-13.