I hate "Found Footage" movies. The main reason is because I lack the ability of "Suspension of Disbelief" when it comes to Found Footage. The best explanation for Suspension of Disbelief is accepting a concept(or conceit) in order to enjoy what is before you(comic, novel ,tv show, play, movie, etc). I hate Found Footage films because I can't accept:
1. Why was this film found footage? What benefit was making this particular movie this way?
2. How come practically everyone accepts that a camera is on all the time as if it's not even there.
3. Why is the camera on all the time(especially when certain plot moments just happen to occur)?
4. The majority of the time there is a lack of narrative.
5. It gives a false sense of realism, when in fact if this where a real life scenario it couldn't ever happen like this.
6. Shaky Cam(also related to #5).
I don't think that it's a coincidence that in a majority of these films the main characters seem to be under 30 years old. I believe that is the demo that the film makers are going after. I suppose the thinking is that film goers of that group aren't that sophisticated and will accept this.
Found Footage as a genre also seems very limiting. For one you're only aiming at one age demographic and the type of films you create is either horror or usually teen comedies(there are exceptions Chronicle being one). The reason horror has a bad reputation I believe is because it’s seen as cheap(figuratively and literally) and needing no skill to do(I disagree)rote, with bad acting, and an absence of ideas(originality). "FFF"(Found Footage films) seem to play into that stereotype. It's tough to get to know the characters if there are constant jump cut, shaky cam, not showing how you got from one place to another in the movie. To not show the interaction that had to have happened between cuts is simply a lazy practice. The worst thing about a found footage horror movie as well is you know how it ends. Everyone's dead. That's why the footage had to be found.
A major flaw with this way of film making is you can only see this type of film once. It comes off as a gimmick. Don't believe me? Check the opening weekend box office and then the next week. The drop isn't simply 30 - 40% it can be between 70 - over 90% dropage. The commercials for these films are chopped in a way that makes it seem it's more scary than it is and show all the best parts in the trailer. Really all you need to do is watch the trailer and then there is no need to see the actual movie.
Another thing, if a giant monster or a devil is running after you why are you not dropping the camera and running as fast you can away(less to carry = faster getaway speed)?
I believe only one "FFF" was a real success horror wise in weaving(found footage) into it's narrative. "The Blair Witch Project" worked because most of the audience believed that it was new and edgy and hadn't been done before("Cannibal Holocaust came out before it but most people haven't seen that)heck some believed that is was real(even after the actors of the film would appear and talk about the film on talk shows). The problem with "Blair Witch" and other films is when you see it once and experience all of it's beats it's no longer interesting enough to want to watch again.
Another issue I have with "FFF" is Some films I believe would come off better if there weren't filmed this way. "Chronicle" was a good movie and "Cloverfield" had it's moments. However I feel that those movies would have done better if they had been shown in multiple perspectives of the the different characters instead of focusing through the eyes(camera) of only one throughout most of the film. Also "FFF" are relatively cheap to produced so they don't necessarily have a ton of money for special effects and by filming it this way you can cheat a little and abbreviate an action scene.