Clay Moffatt, Adam Berardi
"The Last Five Days: 10 Years Later" is a sequel to, well, "The Last Five Days," but in case you're wondering, don't worry. You can watch through this flick without seeing the first one. The broad strokes of part one are more or less covered, and this particular story has no problem keeping the story easy to follow. More or less.
In the film, Chuck Sanders has been invited to the old house from the first film to look for and collect any belongings that may be of interest from the late Greg Sanders. As I'm sure you've guessed, Greg was Chuck's brother and the face of the once viral video that was seen by the nation. Chuck "Chuckie" arrives at "what looks to be the place" and so begins his fact-finding adventure. If you are wondering about the quotation marks - it's because this is the line Chuck uses when he arrives, and I found it odd that he wouldn't know for sure. Perhaps it's because he and his family were not close? Who knows.
The rest of the film follows Chuck around, a-la found footage video, as he attempts to uncover what exactly happened in the first film. Eventually, he ends up at an Airbnb where the majority of the film takes place, and filmmaker Clay Moffatt has no problems showing us everything that happens while Chuck is there. Maybe a little too much, but I'll get into that later. For what it is, "The Last Five Days: 10 Years Later" is a decent enough found-footage low-budget indie film but does have its Achilles' heel. Attempting to detail Chuck's adventure in such detail has vastly increased the film's overall length but more to the point? A lot of those "details" are were far from needed. With some significant shaving of the footage, Moffatt's film would have flowed so much better. In my humble opinion.
As an example of all the footage I believe was not needed, I return to the whole segment when Chuck first arrives at the Airbnb and has a few drinks. To be completely honest? The entire film, from his first sip until his eventual nap, was completely unnecessary. It added nothing to the story except some considerable length. This segment is not alone, but I feel my point has been made. This is one of those movies that could have been done in around half an hour with no change to the story - so why all the extra?
Now, reader, I'm not trying to politely write "steer clear" because frankly? There were some really good moments and even some cool practical effects. That thing with the thumbnail was pretty gross, and even though technically probably pretty easy to pull off, the bite of fruit was pretty cool. I simply think that a tighter film would have garnered a higher rating and opened it up more to people who are not into found footage movies. Other than the length, I don't have much to say about the film except to repeat that it was a pretty decent flick.
You almost certainly have to be a fan of found-footage movies to "really" enjoy this one. However, even if you're not, you may still come to like this particular creep-fest. I personally am not into the minute-by-minute, found-footage style movies, but I still thought this one was good enough to hold my attention—a solid three stars, and if you're a fan of the genre, perhaps a little more. For me, "The Last Five Days: 10 Years Later" was an excellent reminder that not all found-footage movies are bad. Enough said.