#123movies #fmovies #putlocker #gomovies #solarmovie #soap2day Watch Full Movie Online Free – After his teenage daughter goes missing, a desperate father tries to find clues on her laptop.
Plot: After David Kim’s 16-year-old daughter goes missing, a local investigation is opened and a detective is assigned to the case. But 37 hours later and without a single lead, David decides to search the one place no one has looked yet, where all secrets are kept today: his daughter’s laptop.
Smart Tags: #internet #social_media #father #missing_person #father_daughter_relationship #digital_footprint #missing_child #webcam #search_and_rescue #police_detective #police #live_streaming #instagram #widower #smartphone #instant_messaging #email #computer_screen #video #internet_search #disappearance
|7.6/10 Votes: 141,906|
|7.6 Votes: 2644 Popularity: 47.288|
**_Terrible plot, but aesthetically well-crafted_**
>_As of January 2019, total worldwide population is 7.7 billion. The internet has 4.2 billion users. There are 3.397 billion active social media users. The average daily time spent on social is 116 minutes a day. Social media users grew by 320 million between Sep 2017 and Oct 2018. That works out at a new social media user every 10 seconds. Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp handle 60 billion messages a day._
>_Google processes 100 billion searches a month. That’s an average of 40,000 search queries every second. 91.47% of all in__ternet searches are carried out by Google. Those searches are carried out by 1.17 billion unique user. Every day, 15% of that day’s queries have never been asked before. Google has answered 450 billion unique queries since 2003. By 2014, Google had indexed over 130 trillion web pages. To carry out all these searches, Google’s data centre uses 0.01% of worldwide electricity._
– “122 Amazing Social Media Statistics and Facts” (Kit Smith); _BrandWatch_ (January 2, 2019)
_Searching_ is a film with two main organisational principles; there’s the thriller plot, which ostensibly keeps everything moving, and to which everything else should, in theory, be in service. Then there’s the aesthetic design, with the entire film taking place online, the images presented taking the form of what is seen on computer screens, iPhones, security cameras etc. One of these principles is exceptionally well handled, the other isn’t, and it shouldn’t take a genius to guess which is which. If we’re being really honest, in fact, the plot becomes more and more incidental as the narrative progresses and ever more ludicrous flights of fancy are introduced, transposing the story from a search for a missing girl into a litany of clichés and melodrama. On the other hand, the main reason, indeed probably the only reason any of us saw the film at all is because of its unique visual schema, and thankfully, this aspect is realised with an impressive degree of craft. You know you’re in reasonably secure territory when the filmmakers are self-aware enough to begin an online film depicting the latest in consumer technology with the sound of an old dial-up connection.
Written by Aneesh Chaganty and Sev Ohanian, and directed by Chaganty, the film begins with a montage of video clips depicting various events in the recent lives of David Kim (John Cho), his wife Pamela (Sara Sohn), and their daughter Margot (Michelle La). The montage covers several years, taking in Margot’s childhood, Pamela’s diagnosis with cancer, the disease going into remission, her relapse, and, finally, her deterioration and eventual death. This brings us up to roughly the present day, with Margot now a teenager who has drifted apart from her father, although David himself doesn’t seem to have noticed. In the early hours of the morning on a night when Margot left the house to attend a study group, she calls David three times, but he is asleep and doesn’t hear the phone. Seeing the missed calls the next morning, and realising Margot isn’t in the house, he tries to call her back, but her phone is turned off. Assuming she left early to attend a piano lesson, he calls the teacher, but she tells him Margot cancelled the lessons six months prior. Thereafter, he discovers that the money he had been giving her for her lessons was instead being deposited into her bank account, and, several weeks ago, the entirety was transferred to a now deactivated Venmo account. Frantic, David reports her missing, with the case assigned to Det. Rosemary Vick (Debra Messing). However, as David and Vick begin to delve deeper into Margot’s life, David is shocked to learn she has no friends at school, and has instead an online existence of which he knew nothing. Meanwhile, every investigative avenue seems to throw up another mystery, and as time passes, it begins to look more and more as if Margot has simply run away. David, however, refuses to believe this, with his wildly vacillating suspicions regarding who may have been behind her disappearance ranging from a friendly YouCast (video blogging site) user, a disrespectful pot-smoking Facebook user, his own brother Peter (Joseph Lee), and everyone in between.
Although the plot has a reasonably strong forward momentum, with a well-judged pace, it comes across as initially insipid, and ultimately rather ridiculous. If this was a standardly shot film, without the unique visual design, no one would be giving it a second glance – the thriller plot is clichéd, derivative, and trite, and despite the foolishness into which it descends, it’s also fairly predictable (I guessed who the villain was, although not why they were so villainous). In this sense, the film reminds me of something like Robert Montgomery’s _Lady in the Lake_ (1946) or Sebastian Schipper’s _Victoria_ (2015). Both feature dull and hackneyed plots that serve only as something onto which to hang the structure, rather than the other way around; _Lady in the Lake_ is shot entirely in the first-person, whilst _Victoria_ is shot in a single continuous take, and neither is worth looking at for their plot, characters, or dialogue.
With this in mind, the aesthetic aspect of _Searching_ is much more successful, with almost the entire film taking place on a computer screen, with Facetime conversations, iPhone messages, security camera footage, and TV material rounding out the design. It’s a fascinating hook, and thankfully, it does more than simply exist to carry a poorly written plot – the filmmakers actually have something to say, albeit nothing too revolutionary.
The first thing to know is that the aesthetic is extremely well crafted; from Chaganty’s direction to Juan Sebastian Baron’s cinematography, to, especially, Nicholas D. Johnson and Will Merrick’s editing; logistically, this can’t have been an easy film to plan or shoot, and the fact that the various components that go into making up the final image all work so well together suggests a great degree of care. In tandem with this, whilst the overarching plot is poor, Chaganty and Ohanian’s writing is excellent in terms of how it continually finds natural ways to confine the action to a screen – whether it’s David looking into Margot’s finances, Vick watching FaceTime conversations, TV news showing security footage – never once did it feel like a gimmick, like it was being forced to stay within the computer screen simply to satisfy an abstract aesthetic rubric. It all worked reasonably organically, and after a few minutes of acclimating yourself, you barely even register it anymore.
Within this, the filmmakers are even able to throw up a few surprises. For example, the structure grants us more access to David’s interiority than would be possible in a regular film. How so? Simple – by employing something we’ve all done, many times. On several occasions, David is shown typing something during a conversation, only to delete it, and send something completely different, whether because the first message was angry, or emotionally revealing, or accusatory etc. Anyone who has spent any amount of time talking online or via text will be familiar with this, and the use of it in the film allows us a glance into his psyche, showing us where his mind is in an unfiltered sense, before self-censorship kicks in. It only happens a few times (if it happened too much, it would become meaningless), but it really does impart a degree of psychological verisimilitude that I wasn’t expecting.
Additionally, as mentioned earlier, the film actually uses the visual design to offer some social commentary, which is, again, something I wasn’t expecting. Chaganty himself is a former Google Creative Lab employee, so he would know a thing or two about issues such as the uses and over-uses of technology, the unpleasant side of online culture, and the notion of digital footprints, and it is these areas where most of the film’s more salient points are concentrated. For example, the addiction to technology and social media so prevalent in today’s culture is right there in the set-up – the entire Kim family are obsessed with speaking to one another via phones and computers, and recording pretty much everything, often at the expense of having more natural face-to-face conversations. Another subject is the toxicity of the internet, the prevalence of online troll culture, and the tendency for people to say things online that they never would in person, believing that the anonymity afforded by the internet gives them the right to be unpleasant. This is communicated primarily through one scene – after watching a news report about Margot on YouTube, David begins reading the comments, which almost immediately start making jokes about him having killed her, and being “father of the year” (presented as a meme, obviously, because typing is such a drag).
A very pertinent topic in the wake of Trump’s election is the dissemination of fake news, and this is conveyed through a half-funny, half-unpleasant scene – shortly after realising Margot is missing, David speaks to Abigail (Briana McLean), at whose house the study group had taken place, who confesses that she barely knew Margot. Later on, however, when the media is swarming all over the case, she is seen on the news, tearfully lamenting how much she misses her “best friend.” The impossibility of ever being invisible online is another topic. Yes, the film is about a person who had an entire online existence that no one knew about, but that was only because no one had looked. Once someone did, and once a few threads were pulled, everything is exposed, as the impossibility of erasing ones digital footprint becomes manifest in the story. Anyone who has spent any amount of time online will be familiar with many of these issues, and the fact that they all ring so true, without the film becoming preachy, is a testament to the quality of the filmmaking.
Finally, and this cannot be overemphasised, the film includes a pitch-perfect, perfectly timed, perfectly delivered Justin Bieber joke that is absolutely hilarious, and has to be seen to be appreciated.
Definitely the best use of this format I’ve ever seen. I also picked a lot of the mystery ahead of its reveal, but not everything! And I like it when I can’t pick everything. John Cho is an absolute champion, and _Searching_ genuinely met my expectations.
_Final rating:★★★½ – I really liked it. Would strongly recommend you give it your time._
Don’t skip this movie just because of the “gimmick”.
I was not planning on watching this but I saw the high rating on imdb and considering how bad most movies with this gimmick are it peaked my interest that people actually like this one. I am very surprised at just how good this movie was. I went in with low expectations despite how well received it was but this movie really did it right.
First thing first, they managed to get the internet right, or atleast as right as you can expect a movie to get it. It featured mostly real websites and stayed within the limits of reality when it comes to his snooping around the internet for clues.
Secondly the pacing is pretty good too with a solid story that keeps you engaged and offers surprises throughout.
While not the best acted movie, the acting is certainly solid enough to get through the movie and they manage to make you care about the characters in a short amount of time.
Overall I’m pleasently surprised and the high rating is a combination of the solid story and that fact someone managed to finally pull off this concept correctly. It definitely earned a bonus point for its uniqueness and willingness to be something different.
Innovative and groundbreaking for being GOOD at what it does
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. Comparatively, my biggest gripes in this film stem from things like characters typing messages lightning-fast and perfectly (and people responding faster than they would even be able to read the message sent to them), plus off-screen voice acting was very wooden. That’s pretty much it. 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.
Original Language en
Runtime 1 hr 42 min (102 min)
Genre Drama, Mystery, Thriller
Director Aneesh Chaganty
Writer Aneesh Chaganty, Sev Ohanian
Actors John Cho, Sara Sohn, Alex Jayne Go, Megan Liu
Country USA, Russia
Awards 6 wins & 10 nominations.
Production Company Bazelevs Production
Sound Mix Dolby
Aspect Ratio 1.85 : 1
Camera GoPro, iPhone 7
Film Length N/A
Negative Format N/A
Cinematographic Process N/A
Printed Film Format Digital (Digital Cinema Package DCP)