ThiefHott Too much of everything

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

vindalootiger So I am quite a fan of bad horror and sci-fi movies. I was watching this one afternoon. The start was typical and quite pedestrian for this genre but it got much better towards the end. I would like to note the facility they filmed in is quite beautiful. For a low budget movie with a small cast I think the film makers did a great job, cinematography was lacking in some parts but over all it was good. Expect unanswered questions and some gaping plot holes especially near the end but I believe this was more of a psychological thriller in many parts. Character development was decent as well. There have been much worse movies that that got much better ratings. It is defiantly worth seeing.

dysamoria Spoiler free statement: Expend your time on this at your own risk. Once you get to the ending, you'll possibly be wondering how anything made any sense, even within the confines of the movie's own world in a bottle. You're not missing anything. There is not enough meaningfulness in this film, as presented, to extract solid conclusions about what you watched. It spoon feeds you clichés and so-called surprises and refuses to justify character attitudes, motivations, actions, or reactions. These aren't complex and subtle things. There's nothing to uncover except one plot point you will probably see coming from the moment the protagonist suddenly discovers the history of the building (her declaration of having finally uncovered the details comes without the film ever having given us the sense that she was actually looking). Finally, the movie tries to surprise you at the end, only to make the preceding content entirely irrelevant. This is not good story telling. It's paint-by-numbers movie industry product assembly with the illusion of depth. Actual depth requires structure and the ability to take the ending and reframe all that went before it in a new and meaningful way. It's a shame movies like this have actors in them. As in, people who's livelihood depends on the success of the films they work on. Such films as this one probably don't do their careers any favors with the next job, especially with how actors tend to get blamed by audiences for the poor job done by the writers and directors who's material the actors are performing to specification. Then again, it wasn't really given a large release. Sometimes that's for lack of access and sometimes that's for lack of quality. I'm suspecting the latter here.One specific complaint: many of the reviews talk about a spectacular filming location. All I saw was a set of disparate locations stitched together by editing that makes it clear to me that each room is a different filming locale (or fails to show that any of these rooms is even related to the rest; often, moving from one physical location to another involves an edit, rather than passing the viewer through the environment from one space to the next). I don't buy that this was one location. If it really was, then wow, the editing and directing failed spectacularly to show it. It is left entirely to the willing suspension of disbelief of the audience to imagine these rooms relate to each other. This is common in lower budget productions where you often assemble fictitious locations via editing. I don't call 1.5 MILLION dollars to be "low budget", but I guess that's how it is these days and I'm being naive to expect more for that much money.It amazes me that people don't notice this, but then I also find myself rather alone in hating so much foley in TV and film. In fact, the foley bothered me more than the disparate locations on display. At least the locations and lighting result in an interesting atmosphere. But, that's really all there is: Atmosphere and cliché.

MissOceanB I'm not even sure where to begin. This film dragged on and on and I just kept thinking "I should at least see it all." So I watched it until the end and *surprise*...the ending was likely worse than the entire film. The writer(s) tried to make this film scary but in my opinion they failed miserably. I have a high standard for Horror films and while the trailer seemed interesting enough...the trailer was the only interesting part of the film. Without giving away spoilers...if you want to watch a newly- hired confused (and boring) female character wander around an old building while her grumpy and odd co-worker tells her where to go while watching from the security camera footage...then by all means this movie is for you. And then comes the weird ending. Which couldn't have come soon enough!

mwidunn-95-631875 Girl starts new job doing security at huge, dimly-lit, and spooky building. . . . Girl meets cantankerous, wheelchair-bound cripple who is her supervisor (Jason Patric -- who's great). . . . Girl does just about everything that her Supervisor tells her not to -- like letting in homeless man and his dog and opening creepy door in basement. . . . Girl discovers part of building was used to house deformed and mentally-challenged kids, who were (of course) abused and whose ghosts are (of course) angry and whose angry spirits (of course) have now been released by the Girl's opening of "the door". . . . Girl runs around in dark corridors with -- well -- really not much happening. . . . Girl is shown in hospital bed where she -- deformed and in a coma -- sheds a tear and dies. . . . Girl's Father, the Supervisor, and Grandfather, the Bum, sit around her hospital room. . . . apparently, we were in the Girl's own head all the time. NOT poorly acted; NOT poorly directed, but: POORLY written and POORLY conceived. Not awful, just one big Y- AAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW-N.