THE LAST BROADCAST is a fake documentary executed in a similar style to THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, a very famous movie that it is often compared to whether in a positive or negative context.<br /><br />The plot of the documentary is actually very interesting. A fictional TV series is seeing its viewing figures dwindle. In an effort to prevent its end, the producers decide to film an episode showing a search for a local mythical legend known as the "Jersey Devil". The start of the movie explains how 3 of the 4 TV crew were found dead. The sole survivor was charged with and found guilty of the murders of the others. A filmmaker decides to gather the evidence surrounding the case to prove the survivor's innocence. The documentary he makes constitutes THE LAST BROADCAST.<br /><br />Despite an interesting concept (a documentary examining in great detail the evidence of a murder case in order to disprove a convicted man's innocence) and also an interesting embedded story (the search for a local legend in the woods), sitting through THE LAST BROADCAST is one massive endurance test. I barely made it to the end and was constantly looking at the elapsed running time, cheering myself for surviving another minute of this cinematic torture.<br /><br />Now I'll go through the individual elements to demonstrate why THE LAST BROADCAST is so terrible.<br /><br />First, the narration. This is a fake documentary. As such, there is plenty of narration and often over still images. For this to capture interest, the narrator has to convince us that there is some significance to these images in relation to the rest of the work. Unfortunately, the narration is - as another reviewer has pointed out on here - done in a very monotone manner that fails to invoke even the slightest interest.<br /><br />Second, the direction. For this story to work, the "interviews", video extracts, still images of exhibits and so on must all be carefully co-ordinated to ensure a clear narrative. Unfortunately, everything just seems to be jumbled up, without a specific order or structure. This makes it highly difficult to keep track of what the "documentary" is trying to tell us. Also, the home video extracts are very poorly filmed with no tension, suspense, scares, thrills or even laughs.<br /><br />Third, the acting. The actors can be divided into three categories - the narration (done by the "director"), the crew of the fictional TV series and the "inteviewees" (police investigators, reporters, psychologists and so on). The acting is poor right across the board. Anyone who has seen an episode of a real documentary series (THE FBI FILES for example) will immediately be able to tell that the "experts" in this fake documentary are actors (and very bad ones at that). The crew of the fictional TV series do not seem the least bit scared or even interested by the investigation they are doing. And as already mentioned, the narration is monotone.<br /><br />The only positive comment I can make about this excuse for a movie is the twist ending where there is actually a scene that is interesting to watch. Unfortunately it is not worth sitting through the remaining 80+ minutes to reach.<br /><br />If you want to see a truly great fake documentary, I highly recommend GHOSTWATCH - an excellent piece of work that is carefully scripted, genuinely puts you on the edge of your seat, contains great scares and still makes you question what you've seen even when you know it's a phony.<br /><br />If you want to see a great horror movie done in the style of a camcorder home video, I highly recommend REC, a fast-paced thrill ride from beginning to end that is genuinely scary and tense.<br /><br />Finally, I advise everyone to avoid THE LAST BROADCAST like the plague!