Restitution (I) (2011) User Reviews (21)

Hilariously bad, but I can't hate it.

[krachtm · 5/10 · 2 March 2013]

The plot: A stoic writer investigates the mysterious death of his former partner, an immature private eye who was investigating insurance fraud.

This is a hilariously inept movie, full of cringe-inducing writing, bad acting, and bad directing. I don't know what WHAT they were thinking, except that someone somehow got enough money together to tempt some B movie actors into making a vanity project. Unsurprisingly, it was terrible. Surprisingly, I still liked it. For me, this is one of those "so bad it's good" movies. I don't know. I can't really validate my rating, except to say that Tom Arnold was actually pretty good in this movie.

Restitution is a little bit boring at the beginning, but it starts to get more interesting later on. It never really gets any better, but, if you're like me, that's not really a big issue. I'm willing to watch anything, as long it's not boring... even clichéd, derivative junk like this.

If you enjoy bad movies, check this out. It's got some gloriously bad dialogue, plus it sometimes seems a little, tiny bit self-aware, with an ironic or cheesy scene. It's not much, but it does soften the blow of all that non-ironic ineptitude. If you're looking for something legitimately good, avoid. Avoid like the plague. Do not watch. You will only be disappointed. This movie is only for Tom Arnold fans (do these exist -- if so, I may hesitantly consider myself one), bad movie fans, and people who are very bored.

THE THINGS I DO FOR LOVE

[nogodnomasters · 5/10 · 29 May 2019]

This makes a great movie...if you are Lois Lane or blind. The film starts out with insurance investigator Brian Spikes. After they build up his character, he is murdered and blamed for the murders of all the people he was investigating. Later Alex shows up to investigate the murders for a true crime novel. Tom Arnold plays the neighbor and gives us the needed comic relief. Mena Suvari is a bar tender who supplied the eye candy.

The film twist wasn't difficult to figure out. In fact shame on you if you don't. It was a fair crime detective movie that moved slowly. Most of the film was a drama as opposed to the thriller it pretends to be.

F-bomb, brief sex, no nudity.

How dare you, sir......

[lautanner · 1/10 · 15 April 2012]

The man who produced and starred in this film is a joke. He took decent actors (Et Tu, Bill Sadler?) and gave them some terrible lines to read. Then he had the audacity to put himself in the lead when he has no talent. There are PLENTY of better actors in Michigan than him. But instead of caring about the CRAFT of film-making, he just wanted to fulfill his fantasy of having Mena Suvari play his girlfriend. Mark, when Tom Arnold out-acts you, you need to WISE UP. I am begging you to stop making films. Seriously, your money could be spent on something so much better. Everything about this film is horrible: the special effects, the "action," the cinematography, and the music. The best you can hope for is that the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 crew will get a hold of this and give it the thrashing that it deserves.

Ummm...wow?

[innocuous · 2/10 · 22 March 2012]

I never thought I'd be saying this, but Tom Arnold completely out-acts everybody else in this movie. This includes Sadler and Suvari, who are simply outclassed.

But I'm willing to accept that all the B-list actors just needed a paycheck, and that Bierlin needed a vanity project. What I can't handle is that, like many of the scripts nowadays, this is just so poorly and incomprehensibly written. Bierlin continuously paints himself into corners and then introduces some ridiculous plot turn or event to get his characters free.

Not recommended.

An utter waste of time

[HueMann · 1/10 · 27 November 2011]

Like another reviewer, I would have rated this movie with a negative number if that were available. Never, never, never again will I watch a movie where the "executive producer," writer and star are the same guy who you never heard of before. This movie is an example of what somebody with too much money and absolutely no acting talent what so ever can do. The professional actors all dealt in a professional manner with the crappy dialog they were given, but Mark Bierlein has no business being involved with show business as an actor or writer. His only other movie, "Street Boss," rated 3.1 on IMDb, was another one where he was the executive producer, writer, and star (what a surprise!)probably because nobody else would risk funding the drivel that he writes.

I got the movie because of William Sadler and Mena Suvari, both fine actors, and because C. Thomas Howell and even Tom Arnold are OK to good actors, but I didn't know who Mark Bierlein was. Now that I do, I'll be on the look out to avoid anything involving this guy in ANY capacity.

Please... Make it stop....

[dudemark · 1/10 · 25 September 2012]

So this movie was really not too bad... And by that I mean that as I watched it, I kept having to wipe the bile away as it dripped down my chin, while simultaneously pinching myself to make sure that I hadn't died and gone to hell.

So wow. Really just mind blown. So we've got this guy, this supposed ex- womanizer (a point that was as un-believable as it was useless... We're talking serious beer gut with a kind of serial killery look) who apparently takes his job as a insurance fraud investigator very seriously, to the point of breaking and entering and lying to old women.

Then this guy, this fellah', if you will: he hooks up with Mena Suvari using his culture as a lure. Lucky guy I guess.

After his dry and slow relationship had sufficiently bored me to death, this fellah' is tricked by his employers and then drugged, brought to a bridge and finally dropped in the water with some chains on his wrists, and apparently a paperclip or key in his pocket. All this to leave him framed for some murders that they - his employers - had to commit to silence people for asking questions about the massive quantities of bath salts that they were shipping through the town in broad daylight (we're talking van loads).

Fast forward one year and we have an equally unattractive, boring and useless character as the investigator, but this one is a writer who is investigating the murders of the town's people. This writer pays $10,000 a month for his condo, and ends up getting pretty deep into the investigation, finding out some pretty dark secrets and all until finally he has to save the girl (Mena Suvari), kill the 5 or 6 thugs, and is finally saved himself by Tom Arnold in a helicopter with a sniper rifle.

Then, in an M. Night Shyamalan styled twist we find out that he was dead the whole time! No.... No... That wasn't it... It turned out that the writer guy WAS the investigator from the beginning. But he's spent a year training and getting money from somewhere. Its like the Count of Monte Cristo if it was written by a greeter from Wal Mart, which I think is actually the case after finding out that our lead actor who's name is Average McAverageson, was not only the writer, but also produced the movie himself! Bravo sir. You get one star because IMDb is kind enough to have that be the minimum.

My theory: The guy who wrote and acted in this movie really liked Mena Suvari (and I mean, who doesn't. She's absolutely gorgeous), and spent 2.5 million dollars so that he could spend four hours filming a scene with her in a bra.

Negative One

[westsideschl · 14 November 2011]

Reasons to not waste one's time: (1.) This Kiosk rental rating is less than one because it's not worth the dollar it cost to rent. (2.) IMDb rating was 2.3 out of 10. (3.) Most of the actors, writer and director have to their filmography credits either movies no one's ever heard of or lots of TV videos and shorts you've never heard of. (4.) First 20 minutes consisted of some guy driving around and then getting out to then walk around with a cheap camera and take pictures. That's it. (5.) The editing and cinematography were so bad I thought a high school student was practicing on creating a collage for art class. Poor editing, very choppy, no flow and when it did have flow it would barely beat out molasses flowing across a winter Canadian prairie. (6.) Acting, was this artificial, e.g. stare at the person in front of you and read a line then camera pans to that person who reads their line, and back and forth ad nauseam. You would have sworn their was a teleprompter off screen. Also seeing that Tom Arnold was a main character, poor soul, didn't help. (7.) Most parts of the story were just not believable: e.g. recently dug grave doesn't have grass above it that looks like the decades old surrounding grass; some guy is tossed into the ocean feet and hands bound with chains, head in a hood while his captors are above him in a boat yet he still manages to escape from them. Must be those fish gills we didn't see. Then for revenge he spends a year getting in shape, practicing martial arts and pistol range shooting to come back and kill dozen or so highly trained killers. Unfortunately he looked like the same skinny, beer belly non- athletic person that he was before the training. The worst part was seeing an equally middle aged out of shape Tom Arnold act like a Marine sharp shooter and nail three bad kills perfectly from a mile away. For his most remarkable shot he, for some unexplained reason, is in a bumpy rent-a-copter with a very shaky rifle. Just laughable. (8.) Overloaded with uncreative stereotypes such as inept police; crooked police; business that does some drug dealing on the side which supports the mansion of the son who wants to take over dad's business; cute blond girlfriend who works in the local pub; a few innocent people die as appetizers.

By far the worst movie I've ever sat through!

[movie-rater1234 · 1/10 · 30 December 2011]

This movie was a total waste of my time. I don't even know where to start in describing how horrible it was. The "twist" in the end is surprising because the movie made no sense! This fool can just decide to come back and start killing people and the cops never ask him a single question? Not believable at all. The action didn't start until like an hour into the movie, and when it did, it was people killing in broad daylight and then no questions asked later. Kind of a clue not to watch the movie since the writer, producer, and star actor are the same person, but we gave it shot since Mena Suvari was in it. Should have known when On Demand did't give us a preview either. Overall, I am annoyed that I wasted 2 hours, or however long it stole from my life, watching this terrible movie.

It's sooooo bad it is fun to watch for about 15 minutes

[S-demirla · 1/10 · 26 January 2013]

I was ready to enjoy a bad movie, but honestly It bogs my mind this even got made. Thanks Bierlein & Kawas

I especially love the scene where the rich boss is coming out of his office building where the poster of your previous "movie" is on the side of the wall and oh wait the dude is getting into his limo from a theater where he saw your last home project.

And gotta lova the stolen scenes from godfather and casino. Did you guys lift those scenes all by yourselves or did someone help you copy them down?

It is hilarious indeed. The only thing not funny is money being wasted on this crap.

What did you have on Mena Suvari to get her involved? :)

Anyway all jokes aside I had to stop after 35 40 minutes as much as I had decided to go with the flow and be a part of the joke to enjoy the movie for how bad it was I just could not bear it. So no spoilers here if you but the dude that got killed with the fake nose and the toupee looked a lot like the writer I was itching to laugh some

This may be more fun for a MST3000 type screening with a few drunk friends to watch and joke over.

Dear God!

[Adriano_Galliani · 1/10 · 30 November 2011]

This is, by far, one of the worst movies I ever witnessed! I really like Mena Suvari, and shes giving too much in this movie (comparing to her colleagues), but by that effort, shes just proving that this is complete waste of time! Plot is not too original, but its not that bad (in the beginning) but ending and "twist" is disgrace. Yes, you wouldn't expect what will happen and how will end, because it doesn't make ANY sense! Lets just say one guy get killed by mob, then somebody else is trying to find out who did it. For those who are Mena's fans, sex scene is okay, but shes in bra. Probably they didn't have enough money, but nevertheless, shes gorgeous and it will help you to go through.

Loved this movie

[eglantz-320-855686 · 10/10 · 17 March 2012]

I watch a lot of movies and commonly go against the reviewer grain. This movie had me hooked from the beginning to the end. Great quality production at only $2.5 million? Unbelievable. Stellar cast as well (Tom Arnold is great; C. Thomas Howell shares top billing but is seen less frequently; Mena Suvari from American Beauty and American Pie is stellar providing continuity throughout the movie). I will watch this movie again. Writer/director Lance K. R. Kawas and writer/star Mark Bierlein--you have the "gift"! Some criticism for style twists were not a problem for me. In fact I became more hooked as the circumstances escalated. My favorite story is when ordinary people are called to respond to circumstances they did not create. This movie did not disappoint.

Mmmm. It was OK, in fact, I was surprised. It was better than OK

[Gladys_Pym · 7/10 · 13 November 2011]

I was - whatever - absorbed?

PI unearths plot, and pays the price. OK. It wasn't too noir, wasn't over-hip. Mena Suvari (bra on sex scene contract not withstanding) was real, and genuine, and it could almost have been a romcom. (I don't think I've ever had a sex scene with bras on, personally).

And then, it just suddenly revives. A new character, a new phase, act 2.

And then, suddenly, Act 3. People stop being who they were, and use guns. Who knew? Even, when it all calms down, another twist, and we have act 3.1.

My son-in-law is the acid test. If there are plot holes, he disses the film, and I wish I hadn't suggested it.

This got a 'pass' on his radar, (though he agreed with the 'stupid no tits rule'.

Worth a look. I was surprised, a few times. And that no longer happens often.

Are you kidding me?

[ritera1 · 2/10 · 2 June 2012]

Uh?....eh?...what?....

This is my fault. I can't stop a movie after a few minutes. So most of this very bad feeling is 'cause of me.

And this startling clunker. I've seen bad movies. Movies that make you angry. And this rates up there with them.

But you don't do this bad unless you are doing it on purpose for some really strange reason. Mental illness?

All that money down the drain. I know actors have to eat like everyone else. But you didn't have to do this.

How 'bout a revenge movie where you talk your nemesis into financing your really bad movie and it's this one?

I'm forgiving enough to actually admit that Tom Arnold has done some decent acting in the past. But he was bad and probably the best thing in this at the same time.

The two bright spots were some decent cinematography and a good final fight scene. That's where I awarded the 2 points.

But the pain, oh the pain!

An amazingly stupid story where this guy is framed for several murders to cover-up the dealings of the bad guys. He's then tossed in the river alive. (Just shoot him? Oh no!) Then his friend arrives a year later to investigate the situation. Bad scene, bad scene, bad scene. The friend's body was previously discovered. Bad scene, bad scene. Good fight scene.

THEN the friend and the framed friend turn out to be the same guy!

He apparently survived being dumped in the river and then spent the next year preparing himself to come back and avenge...solve....I don't know. But he left Mena Suvari floatin' the wind for a year?

And I have a few more questions.

If the "hero's" body was found, who's body was it? Why did he dig up his own grave if he knew it was empty?

What exactly were the bad guys doing? Drugs? Did they bother to try and explain? 'cause I'm not going' back in there to find out.

Why were all the bad guys doing their bad guy activities in broad daylight with plenty of witnesses around? Was workin' nights overtime?

In what reality was it a good idea to let the "hero/lead" actor anywhere near the set (he's also the writer and in another movie he wrote)? Oh dear Matilda he is bad! Being a bad writer wasn't enough. Absolutely he had pictures of the director with a goat to get that part. In a bad movie with bad acting he outstripped all of the other cast. I'm not a good lookin' man but could easily sell the part better than he did. He looked like a bad, over-the-hill comic.

There are a lot of things in life that I don't understand. George W was elected twice? Obama and Romney (at this moment) are runnin' neck and neck? And someone read this script and said "okay, let's do it" and wrote a check, too?

Now I have to get an industrial strength shredder that will tear through a DVD. (I'm not going to be the one responsible for anybody else ripping 101 minutes out of their life.)

A very average action movie with very average acting. Tom Arnold and Mena Suvari are best actors in movie..so yeah...I say C-

[cosmo_tiger · 8 November 2011]

"I liked him, I just can't believe he killed those people." After an insurance investigator is killed and blamed for a string of murders a writer comes into town to write a book on the events. Talking to his girlfriend and his new neighbor he begins to uncover secrets that may lead to his innocence. This movie seems better then it is. The acting is passable...but with Tom Arnold giving the best performance that should help you with the quality involved. Besides the performances the editing was very strange and seemed very choppy. But all that aside this movie was very ordinary and kinda boring. For an action movie this was not full of action and was rough to get through. All that being said I have seen worse. Overall, worth watching only if you love action movies more then any other genre. I give it a C-.

*Also try - Blood Out

I thought this was a bad Canadian comedy

[kakamuna333 · 1/10 · 11 April 2013]

Seriously, Tom Arnold was the whole movie...the star was a boring out of shape very average looking guy..that looks like he works at Sprint or Verizon....seriously my first thought was, " oh, great another Canadian B movie...something to fall asleep to " The music awful, acting was crap, choppy filming... I agree with the first 3 reviews Tom Arnold cracked me up The leads sneakers were so wrong for what he was wearing and he moved like an out of shape 35 year old first day at the gym Personally, I watch more movies than the average person and I know a great film when I see one... This is the type of movie I will watch at 3am when I can't sleep or when I can't watch my favorite movie, "Tower Heist" for the 7th time ....but after seeing this, I don't mind watching Tower Heist one more time

Low Rent x10

[Marc_Action · 2/10 · 2 January 2014]

I don't think I've ever seen choreography of action sequences this sloppy or acting this horrible. Talk about low rent! (Starting off a review like this, you know what's coming is bad. But read on!) By the way, has Tom Arnold fallen this far from A-List? Come to think of it, was he ever really A-List?

Anyway, Restitution is a film directed and co-written by Lance Kawas. If you've never heard of him, don't beat yourself up too badly. Nobody has... (Moving on!)

The film follows the actions of a rookie author, Alex Forrester, as he lands in a sleepy town on Lake Michigan trying to uncover the truth behind a pair of odd killings committed by a highly intrusive, but otherwise decent, insurance investigator. The insurance investigator then ends up dead, himself. Forrester intends to write a book on his findings, but if he digs too deep, he might end up dead just like the insurance investigator.

There are a few plot twists along the way as we build up to the climax and then there's a final plot twist at the very end that puts everything that precedes it into perspective. Some savvy viewers might call the big plot twist way before the ending. If you do call it, then get up and pop in another movie right away! If others are still watching, quickly leave the room and find something else better to do. Like watching a cup of ice melt. Why? Because despite the horrible directing, acting, dialog, cinematography, and everything else, the plot was the only thing remotely interesting Restitution had going for it. So, if you figure it out before the ending, you'll be really angry because nothing else is worth the wait. Furthermore, I don't even think the ending was a big enough payout for the prolonged suspense the writers created to get to the end result.

Another major problem is Kawas' inability to commit to a specific genre, especially early on. At times I didn't know if I was watching a comedy, a mystery, a lost footage film, or even a spoof flick. Directing 101: it's hard for an audience to take a film seriously if they're too confused about what direction the "director" is taking them.

I think if this film had been given a larger budget and great writers that would have tweaked the ending and delivered decent dialog, it could have been a hit. The plot had plenty of potential. However, suspense and a decent plot aside, everything else about this film screams "low rent" to the 10th power. It stinks!

I was hooked from the get go!

[michaelasiclari · 8/10 · 7 April 2013]

I just finished watching " Restitution " and was blown away by the twist ending. Maybe my brain was on standby because of it being a Sunday afternoon and all, but I did not see it coming. I was also shocked to see how many rated this film so poorly. Sure Bierlein is no Pacino, but to write, produce and star in this film is quite impressive, considering how intriguing it was. I was pulled into the plot line immediately and never looked back. Mena Suvari and Tom Arnold were exceptional and it was nice to see C. Thomas Howell again. I won't spoil the plot for anyone who might want to check this movie out, but I will say this movie is not what it appears to be just like some of its main characters. A captivating murder mystery with enough action and plot twists to keep you enthralled for 100 plus minutes!!!!

mysteriously shadowy

[wwwkeh · 6/10 · 1 January 2014]

My wife and I watched this movie New Year's Eve day. This action movie seems to start slowly. Mark Bierleim portrays Bryan, an average Joe who muddles along as an insurance fraud investigator. Mena Suvari plays bartender, Heather, whom Bryan charms after playing the incredible piano music of Chopin. After being yelled at, chased, and later shot at, Bryan decides to quit the insurance fraud business. His boss drugs him and he finds himself chained on a pier with some bad guys who toss him into Lake Michigan. A year passes in which the people Bryan had investigated are killed and he is implicated in their deaths.

Crime novelist, Alex Forester, shows up researching the book he is writing on Bryan's murdering these people. Everyone he talks to ends up mysteriously dying and the film quickly becomes fast-paced and interesting. Tom Arnold plays Alex's neighbor, a sweet, nervous, too-talkative retired marine who is always in the way. The movie ends with an unforeseen twist. While researching this movie online, I discovered it cost only $2.5 million to make. The cinematography was a little shadowy, but my wife liked it and the Midwestern setting lent it familiarity. All-in-all, we enjoyed this fast-paced (after a slow start) movie.

In a world, where any idiot can make movies, one man dares to go further...

[dusksky · 13 July 2012]

So, I saw this movie... And... It exists....

This movie is completely un-note worthy except for how inexplicably bad the script is. The production value is fine. This isn't Birdemic. And the general effects, although sometimes over the top, aren't bad. But in story and character, this movie is clearly lacking.

For example, the "twist" at the end is completely unexpected only because it is impossible. Flat out impossible. It could NOT have conceivably happened.

Also, it manages to be very dull. Fast paced is not a phrase that is brought to mind as we are introduced to our characters through a very long, dragging "romantic" act. Holy crap. It just goes on and on, with nothing happening. The romance in this movie is... cold. There's no sense of passion or love or... anything, really. You can practically SEE the script being typed out. Clichéd and overly long, I suspected trouble by the end of the first ten minutes.

Bryan Spikes is a "insurance fraud investigator." A job I was clearly misinformed about. I believed that this would involve... Oh, I don't know... Talking to the people who had filed the insurance claim, doing some background checks. This movie set me straight. An insurance fraud investigator wanders around the home of the person who filed the insurance claim with a video camera and lies to them about having a tire blown. The female lead is a hot bar-tender with a broken family. That's really all to her. And then, for whatever reason, the guy who hired Spikes throws him off a bridge and he drowns.

ONE YEAR LATER!

Some guy named Alex claiming to be a writer comes looking for evidence about the death of Bryan who we now learn has been used as a scape-goat for several murders. It is then that I realized that Tom Arnold's character, also named Tom, was going to be a regular occurrence. This brought joy to my life. Truly. Alex investigate by digging up graves and getting very angry at people. He corners Dr. Pinklady, who supposedly did the autopsy and demands names. The doctor is attacked... IN BROAD DAY LIGHT! On a crowded dock, with people all around who, apparently, don't notice an old guy being beat up. Honestly, they don't even act freaked out or like they're scared. No one calls the police. Alex tries to save him, but ends up being saved himself by Tom.

Also, somewhere in there there's a scene where Alex's car blows up. It's the best part of the movie, in terms of stupid.

And then violence is released upon the men who killed Bryan, unrealistic violence, in which the sound effects for the impacts are slightly out of sync with the picture.

I won't ruin the wonderful surprise at the end, but allow me to summarize the whole movie.

It makes no sense. Nothing in it makes any sense.

Who financed this? Who put money into this? We live in a time where anybody can make a movie, which could be great, allowing the underdog artists to step up. But it also allows sad attempts at thrillers like this to make it to the public.

It's unpredictable, but only in the worst sense of the word.

Solid 8

[j-lee-586-154847 · 8/10 · 19 January 2013]

Greatfully NO CG. Realistic. Unpredictable. Likable Characters. It was more surreal that real, but what do you expect--it was Detroit. It was not overly verbose. I don't expect it to get an Academy mention. Well written, acted, and filmed. Original and entertaining. Direction and cutting were crisp - did not leave any gaps The pace was perfect. The ending was perfect. Camera work was not distracting - no typical chase scene. Had a lot of context. Lots of wide shots - little character lock- in which gave it sense of reality. Not a lot of foul language. Loose ends were knit together at the end. Not a lot of blood. Nobody could have been offended watching the movie. Fun to cheer the white hats and boo the black hats.

For me, this was an interesting enough crime drama

[jimrin · 6/10 · 5 August 2012]

When I tried to see why some people had a lower opinion of the movie than me, some of the reviews complained that the plot made no sense, but I saw fewer plot holes in this movie than I did with Hard Candy, another movie I just saw recently.

I'll get into my review first and then cover some comments about other reviewers' complaints.

From a story point of view, I thought it was an interesting enough twist. Acting was OK. OK, I'll have to agree with one of the reviewers that perhaps Tom Arnold did shine the best with his typical Tom Arnold type of character (annoying but somehow likable). To me, I would say the biggest complaint I had about the movie is that it had a Made for TV feel to it. Part of it was the script where it was a partial comedy with Tom's character, but a type of crime thriller, too. However, what gave it most the Made for TV feel was the directing/camera handling. I also just saw the movie Colombiana recently, and it's day and night difference between the two movies how to give a movie the "big screen" feel. With this type of directing, it's not surprising that the actors were able to do more than just a passable job.

*** SPOILERS BELOW ***

To comment on some of the reviews which said that the movie did not make sense, one reviewer complained about the doctor being brutalized in broad daylight. If the viewer had been paying attention, the two thugs were simply "escorting" the doctor, most likely to a boat where they can dump him in the middle of the river. They didn't start roughing him up until they got toward the end of the pier where there was no one else around. Perhaps to give the story line the benefit of the doubt, this is when they needed to "convince" the doctor to get into the boat. However, since Alex came along, they decided to just shoot the doctor right there. Actually, this makes sense since if their objective is to kill the doctor, it would be a lot dumber to not finish the job just because someone caught on to what you were doing.

Now, the scene itself was a bit odd because Alex was shooting and it wasn't clear if he was just shooting, not really aiming at them, because he didn't know what else to do... Or in case he was aiming at them, then he didn't seem to care whether he accidentally hit the doctor or not.

So this scene could have been better planned, and there were others as well, but to me, it didn't detract from the enjoyment of the movie since I already was in the opinion that this had a Made for TV feel to it.

Another reviewer complained that when Alex appeared, people started dying...? I am assuming this is what he meant and not when Brian first appeared. If he meant Brian, then that is one of the reasons they pinpointed the murders on Brian. But if the viewer meant Alex, technically speaking, Alex did not start killing people until the end. It was Tom's character who killed the first guys after Alex's arrival.

For the reviewer who complained about the role of an insurance fraud investigator... All we know is that Brian was hired to videotape these people. Perhaps in a real fraud investigation, there are different people who have different roles, one of which is the person who does the videotaping. But anyway, as we find out anyway, he was not hired to do real insurance fraud investigation. This was a down-on-his-luck kind of guy who was taking any job he could get... so he was told to videotape under the pretense of fraud insurance. Since we find out it was not fraud insurance, then there doesn't need to be any connection to reality to what a real fraud investigator does... How is Brian supposed to know?

Anyway, so I enjoyed the twist in the movie, and while definitely not one of the better movies out there, I thought it was worthwhile watching on a lazy Sunday afternoon.