What a bull sh!t rating, it's actually not a bad film at all.

Thats the truth man. This is a solid low budget horror flick.

This movie was a complete pile of sh!t. They don't need funding for this movie - they need to go to film school and learn how to make movies. The shots made zero sense, the story was a jumbled mess that took forever to develop. The acting was atrocious.

I give it a generous 1/10 - 1 for trying and failing miserably.

(•_•)

can't outrun your own shadow

I have to agree - I saw this on a streaming site (cough) and I was perplexed why the cover shows some nominations yet the rating was abysmal...I had to watch it because of that disparity.

I liked it (not all of it, not everything of course) and it was nice to see some mindbender film actually explain itself, though I guessed the main thrust of the ending about 3/4 way through

good, better than expected but still flawed

Biggest problem - the look, the visuals...they just seemed wrong for a horror
2nd biggest problem - the acting imho was pretty bad
Believability - there are a few scenes where you think - you cannot be serious - but it kind of fits in with the ending

This reminded me of Reeker and one of the segments from VHS

I think the 3.3/10 is spot on for what it is. 7/10 is really giving it a lot of praise so I guess you just really liked this one. It's good enough for the budget. It's a British crime(/horror/mystery) movie so it was typically slow paced and made no sense till the end.

They could have looked at some of the editing, not the technical side but the way they cut the film. When they cut to the detective following the crooks it took away all the suspense that was built up in the forest scenes. Also the cutting to the night club really made no sense to the plot line going on in the forest. It was just bad film making I thought.

Another thing that bugged me about this was the actual events regarding the characters in the forest. If this whole movie is occurring in her mind while semi-conscious why does she dream that her friends are murdering one another in the first place? I just found it all to be such an unrealistic series of events for the "it was all a dream" scenario. Dreams are most often based upon some reality or events that have happened or you might be thinking about.

If you pull the threads a little more you start to think about how the guy with no eyes also had no eyes in her dream. So I think there were some glaring disparities in the plot regarding the it was all a dream premise. It's a very juvenile story telling tool and it's always an insult to the audience. It comes off looking a bit amateurish because of it.


So that's why I think 3.3/10 is spot on for what it is.



---
Scientologists love Narnia, there's plenty of closet space.