I usually hate 'this movie is underrated treats' but this one really is IMO. I mean, sure the story isn't original and it's been done better before (isolation=the shining, clown=it, etc.). The acting isn't great, and no other technical aspect is spectacular.
But still, for such a low budget movie I think the result was quite nice. I certainly did enjoy it...
Does anyone else feel the same way??
Wait until the film is seen by more voters. If you notice, it is very rare for a film with many votes to be rated extremely high or low. A film with a rating of under 3 or over 9 is usually one with only a handful of votes (surely under 1000), which hardly says much of its quality either way. Now, if after 5000+ people vote it still has this low of a rating, it is likely it won't gather many more votes as at that point it becomes pretty clear its an utter waste of time. My guess is that if it does get voted on by at least a couple thousand voters, it will stabilize around the 5/10 mark, perhaps a bit lower.
As for me, my voting system is as follows:
***** - absolutely perfect, a favorite - IMDb 9/10
**** - excellent, recommended to all - IMDb 8/10
*** - good, enjoyable, recommended to fans of genre - IMDb 7/10
** - above average, not a waste of time, but room for improvement - IMDb 6/10
* - average run of the mill film, perhaps good on a boring rainy day - IMDb 5/10
I do not give 10/10 to any film, and I do not vote on any film that does not at least deserve a star (5/10), so I never contribute to a film's low score, I just ignore that film.
As far as this film is concerned, I did vote, which means I think its at least a 5/10, average, and certainly not deserving of 2/10.
"You were assimilated, resistance was futile!"
"trypt," i like your voting system. i employ a similar one, myself.
nothing gets a "10," and everything deserves at least a "1" (l.o.l.)
i not only don't bother rating anything that wouldn't (can't say "doesn't" because i've yet to see anything that doesn't) merit at least a "1," i couldn't watch something i felt wasn't good enough for a "1."
i saw this film last night on the encore movie channel. as some others have expressed, i think the premise is rousing (being a writer, myself). it's a little bleak...even for a film about a typically (and, i say "typically" because nobody ever makes a film about "well-adjusted" artists) neurotic writer.
the parts i like: the "muse/model", the computer (because i never use one for my own personal writing), which it'd seem you have to have for a psychological thriller about a depressed writer, the set (those dark corridors - a metaphor for his mind), and the premise. can't say i like much else about it. maybe i would if i'd ever experienced "writer's block"?
i do think this film is provocative enough to justify a "5," though...
gregory 062508
Although, yes, all of this has been done before, I found this movie to be very enjoyable. Maybe its just because I love movies featuring paranoid schizophrenic-type characters, but as a cheap indie flick, I thought it was superb. A fun watch.
shareI just watched this movie in the Super Channel. I find that movie a bit hard to sit through, the story is someways, it reminded me of "Secret Window" at times. It`s only watchable thanks to a decent performance by James Van Der Beek. He certainly deserves much better than this instead forgotten independent feature. It`s certainly an average film, others will find this extremely boring and off-puting. **/*****.
shareI thought it was okay. Maybe because I had just watched Hostel Part 2, and that was stupid, and way over done. Hostel Part 1 was gruesome and a bit scary. It seemed like something that may happen. Hostel II was just so over the top, and gross for just the sake of being gross. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but please, make a better movie.
This movie was subtle, and I enjoyed it somewhat. It was not a classic by any means, but pretty okay. Recommend it? Eh, maybe--especially to people who just watched Hostel Part II. Final Draft: C