After finishing the film, I was supposed to be emotional, even for a bit. Unfortunately, I was nonchalant, forcing myself to question what had happened? Why I didn't care that much? Then I realized what's wrong with this film.

First of all, I only at best superficially empathized with June while she's trying to find her mom. Why's that? I think I know the answer! I recently read a book called 'The Personal MBA' by Josh Kaufman, there's a lesson named 'Novelty', which basically says that if you throw new new things at people after short intervals, they'll never get bored, many companies use this strategy, that's why we never get bored at scrolling facebook, playing video games, or surfing the internet. Now, this film is far from boring, because there's new developments in every 2-3 mins, the writers used the 'Novelty' concept successfully to grab the attention of the audiences. But in doing that, they failed to develop something crucial, they forgot to develop June's character and her relationship with her mom properly, so it's difficult for the audiences to be emotionally invested in June's Story.

Secondly, the end of the movie was anticlimactic at best, even the villain is underdeveloped here, used a stereotypical villain to wrap things up, which accentuates the writers' incompetence in engaging the audiences emotionally with the film's characters.

It's not a bad movie, acting was good, no complaints there, but this film had great potential, which is squandered by the people behind this film.

"Missing" is an anomaly - for a January movie that had little to no marketing behind it, perhaps the most shocking thing about "Missing" is that it's a surprisingly high-quality thriller with a focus on true unpredictability.

"After her mother goes missing, a young woman tries to find her from home, using tools available to her online." This IMDb synopsis is literally all I knew about this movie as I wanted into the theatre to watch it opening night; I dragged my cousin along with me, who did not read this synopsis before entering the film; as we sat down in the plus, ultra-luxury reclining seats and the lights started to dim, my cousin leaned over and whispered into my ear, "I still have no idea what this movie is about." And besides the short plot description that I read, neither did I. And after watching this movie with only a vague idea of its plot, there is no doubt in my mind that seeing "Missing" totally blind as to what it has in store for you is the optimal viewing experience.

A true missing person's mystery, "Missing" has more twists and turns than a roller coaster at Cedar Point. The story organically unfolds to slowly reveal more pertinent information to the viewer - coupled with fast-paced editing and a rapid, heart-racing soundtrack, the 1 hour and 51-minute running time flies by. And this breakneck speed of the film only adds to the intensity, as you really begin to feel the struggle of having to find who is missing before it's too late. I literally found myself stressed out in the best way while watching this movie - and for a thriller, that's really all I want.

Now, how is the so-called found footage style of the movie - does it get in the way of the experience? Not at all; found footage movies historically get a bad reputation, but "Missing" is an example of found footage at its best. There is no annoying shaky camera where you can't see what's happening, or bizarre editing that hinders you from seeing pivotal story moments. Everything feels fluid and purposeful with a singular goal: To allow the audience to clearly follow the story in the most entertaining way possible.

Honestly, I loved this movie, and I'm having trouble figuring out what more to say other than, "I loved this movie." I'm not sure what's going on this January, but all I have to say is that if you're looking for an edge of your seat thriller, you found it.