That is bs. You know the theaters are not the ones who pay for movies. They pay for the theater itself. They barely make shit on ticket sales anyways. Most of their cash comes from selling overpriced snack foods and soda.

The Top Five Most Profitable Movies:
1 - Paranormal Activity (2009) - (433,900% ROI)
2 - The Blair Witch Project (1999) - (414,233% ROI)
3 - Road to Ruin (1928) - (99,900% ROI)
4 - Birth of a Nation (1915) - (8,354% ROI)
5 - E.T. (1982) - (7,451% ROI)

I have yet to see the movie but I still heard it was good.

The part in the trailer where something(looks like a body) flys at the camera does not happen in the movie...

that's because you saw the original ending, not the theatrical one.

Why would you equate production cost with quality?

Also, when you pay for a movie ticket, you're taking a gamble on the finished product. It's easy enough for anyone to find out if its their kind of movie, with all of the media and reviews available these days.

Put money in the pockets of the filmmakers, whether you like an individual movie or not. I'm sure you probably see a movie you like once in a while.

The movie rocks. Finally a good horror movie not like the retarded ones with heads beeing cut off, lots of blood and quiet dialogues, just so they can stress people with loud sound effects.

That's because there are three different endings.

**SPOILERS***
Ending you saw was the one that was screened in the festivals, with cops arriving, right? The theatrical ending ended with her killing the bf on cam and then jumping at the cam looking possessed. There's a third ending which has only been screened once where she kills the bf off cam, walks back upstairs and slits her throat on cam.

Whats good about this movie is watching it and thinking:

"I bet I could come up with 11k, get my semi-attractive girlfriend to act with me in it and make 70 million dollars"

When you think about the alternative being an amateur porn tape that maybe you could get 200 for, its a nice thought.

I've heard it is very scarying!

The movie never got my attention at all.

Whether a film cost $1 or $100M is irrelevant to the cost of your theater seat. Studios would love to charge based on the same business models as music concert, but then much less people would go out and see movies, so over the years everyone accepted the fact that movie tickets prices are uniform.

The original amount of money spent on making the film was around $12,000 (borrowed camera, renting of a few gears, and other expenses)
The actual cost of blowing the film, editing it, paying for the E&O and other licenses and fees to make it ready for theatrical release is closer to $200k.

People go see movies based on how much it cost and who is in it. Studio always inflate the budget of any given film, some will even cast a well known actor, put his name on the cover and let viewers discover that the well known actor only plays a couple of scenes.

Regardless, it costs almost 3 times as much to market a film than to make it. Still a pretty good investment in most cases.