Occupant (2011) User Reviews (42)

Predictable and slow

[descartesrock · 4/10 · 13 November 2011]

Not recommended. This movie was slow and predictable. If you've seen the Shinning, then you have basically seen this movie. The acting was well done and there were some cool shots, but the actual plot is one that is constantly overdone. It never made me cringe and I rolled my eyes at the complete utter predictability of it. It's a waste of time. Really, it is. I have never looked at the clock so much during the movie, wondering when it was going to end.

And also, I am not a person that is usually good at predicting things, but this movie was so easy to predict. The other thing is, I didn't really like the main character, due to the way he was presented in the beginning, so the fact was that I didn't care at all as to what was going to happen to him made the movie even more boring. It was a well reviewed film by other users, which gave me the idea that it was original and well done. IT ISN'T.

It definitely leaves you with one too many questions.

[MissCookieMonstaaa · 5/10 · 1 September 2013]

I will start without spoiling anything and speak in general. I just finished watching this and I'm not exactly sure how I feel about it. I do think it had so much potential but didn't quite execute it all right. I agree with many of the previous reviews. I completely understand why its getting mixed and mostly negative reviews. I would only suggest this to someone who has time to kill and likes this particular type of movie. I mean the kind that keeps you guessing but doesn't really explain much so you're left guessing.

I personally found myself getting kind of bored in the last thirty minutes and I was wondering what is going to happen. I was just waiting for something to happen already... and not much happened. At the same time, I personally thought it had some good things about it as well. Such as the apartment itself, I thought it was beautiful and at the same time so easily eery all on its own. There were one or two moments that were really interesting, not necessarily scary. I think you'll either like it or hate it, depending on what you like in a movie its worth a try. My main problem and thing I want to point out is it leaves you with one too many questions.

There are some specific things I wanted to point out that I liked and disliked about this movie. Maybe it will give others another perspective if they, like me, came here after watching it to get a better understanding and/or see what other people thought.

*SPOILERS BELOW, STOP READING NOW IF YOU DON'T WANT SPOILERS*

It had its good moments (to me). For example the mirror scene... what was that about. The silhouette before blog girl died, I didn't think it looked like our main character so it did freak me out for a minute... things like that. I just think it wasn't all bad. I didn't care for what happened to the cat (exterminator spraying it, then baked). I don't understand the hole in the wall. I don't understand the door man's MO... and a lot more I just didn't understand.

I guess I'll end this review with my personal interpretation of this whole ting. For some reason being in that big apartment for so many days caused him to lose it. Maybe it was the pressure of losing the place. Maybe he was already to some degree crazy. Maybe it was a mixture of things that built up to our disappointing end with an impractical suicide. At the end we see the little boy watching the full clip from blog girls camera. We know that Danny also watched this, so maybe he couldn't come to terms with seeing himself kill her and then hide it. I thought maybe that's why the camera is found on the floor later, kind of smashed up. I still don't understand the hole in the wall, or if it was just a natural heart attack causing the grandmothers death, but I'm getting that this was mostly his insanity. Maybe the stapled wallpaper over the wall was ripped because he threw blog girl down there after killing her. Maybe later he tried to stuff exterminator guy down there but he wouldn't fit or was too heavy.

I understand in this insanity (by his words) he rationalized by saying cops and such would come to the apartment if they knew about the exterminator dying. Then he worried about being kicked out of there so he felt he had to hide it. Maybe seeing his cat in the oven really pushed him off the edge. At first I thought he put the door up as a trap as he did with all of the wire and crap. Then he looks around and remembers what was and decides to kill himself. So I'm just not sure... as I said it leaves you with too many questions.

Miserable acting by the lead to go with the not engaging screenplay.

[suite92 · 4/10 · 27 September 2013]

Young man's (25 year old Danny Hill) grandmother dies; he comes by to identify the body. She was in a rent controlled apartment. The doorman's shyster relative convinces him to move in and stay for twelve days until he can get a court order completed. This should protect him against moves by the landlord to oust him. The apartment has 3500 square feet, and the rent controlled rate was 675/month, which is cheap for NYC.

Cody drops by and stays the night. She had inquired at his work to find out where he was. She's gone the next day without explanation. Eventually he finds her camera and tries to reconstruct what she recorded.

The landlord tries a number of ploys (cable guy, pizza guy, the painter, exterminator) to get him to come out and get locked out.

The mirror scene is where the film jumped the shark for me: the mirror image keeps looking back and talking; the primary image goes quiet and turns away. Hm. The moving shoes was an ongoing joke I could have done without.

The exterminator kills the cat. Gratuitous. Someone kills the exterminator. Whoever could that be? Also, who is the old guy who keeps showing up at the elevator?

By day nine I had given up on the film. Danny had left the exterminator in the stairwell. The doorman explains how the exterminator has a bottle of heart medicine in his pocket. Amazing how that works. Later that day he re-finds evidence that the cat is dead.

He gets into altercations with the neighbors when he starts hacking down walls in the middle of the night.

Danny's descent continues after the landlord cuts his power. The doorman seems willing to enable anything Danny wants. He starts building with the materials the doorman brings.

Eventually, though, they change the doorman. When the lights go back on, he loses it for a while, again, in the middle of the night. He gets to talk to the police. Perhaps that should have been a major clue. Then he finds the cat for sure.

Day twelve. Danny's circling the bowl. He can't get in touch with the lawyer. He still has a dial tone. He loses it once again. He catches himself in one of his own traps.

After Danny's dead, the lawyer shows up with the court order. Now Danny can leave the apartment safely.

Joe, the old doorman, returns; someone else moves in. Someone who pays full price, I expect. The child of the renter views the full clip of Cody's video recording, including Danny dragging her dead body away.

------Scores-----

Cinematography: 6/10 The camera work uses some odd filters in several places. There are periods where camera shake is just too irritating.

Sound: 9/10 The incidental music is about ten times creepier than the screenplay.

Acting: 2/10 Van Hansis does not have the chops to play the lead. Unfortunately all the other roles are more or less unimportant and of little note.

Screenplay: 4/10 Somewhat mysterious, but not engaging.

Weird atmosphere building up to absolute nothingness

[dschmeding · 3/10 · 2 January 2012]

OK, considering the plot about a guy who has to live 12 days in the flat of his recently deceased grandmother to be the legal tenant with a nice low rent in NYC no one would expect much. Sounds like a Scooby-Doo Movie with kids who have to sleep a night in a spooky house to win a bet.

So my expectations weren't high and I have to admit the first 40 Minutes had me positively surprised because the location and weird atmosphere keep you interested. So in the beginning you take the whole strangeness of that guy in his huge flat, isolated with only a strange Doorman helping him get his groceries as weird foreshadowings of eerie things unfolding. People appear in the flat, others disappear, there is a strange hole in the wall and the main character gets more and more paranoid regularly stamped with "Day X" on screen to count the 12 days and announcing some terrifying finale. So I give to the creators of the movie that they managed to create atmosphere with minimalism but that just falls apart after 40 Minutes because then the strange incidents get tedious and don't follow any build up. Many things don't make sense and are never explained until the guy suddenly (really pretty much out of the blue to me) snaps and delivers one bloody scene towards the end that follows the whole strangeness of the previous minutes perfectly but is totally incoherent and random... and cheap considering a 12 day build up and then having a guy snap some hours before his lawyer knocks at the door.

Spoiler alert.... If you go for the psychotic episode/its all just in your head motive don't drop red herrings all over the place that have no meaning whatsoever. After all the basic premise of granny dying with a horrified look on her face makes which is the base for everything here.... it makes no sense unless the whole family is genetically pre-disposed to schizophrenia.

So watch the first 40 Minutes, enjoy the weird atmosphere and then roll the dice to decide if its a Paranoid Psycho or Haunted House Movie. No matter what ... this movie is totally random and the character development is ridiculous. There really are people randomly falling from the sky or appearing in the apartment dying of a heart-attack. When the credits roll you can't but feel cheated.

Godawful!

[doorsscorpywag · 1/10 · 1 January 2012]

I watched this drivel on the strength of some of the reviews which I now see are obviously written by the crew/cast/director. Don't believe a word of the 10 star reviews as this film is utterly awful. It makes me laugh when I see the videos of rubbish like this and how glowing the cherry picked reviews are. But in reality they are poorly scripted, badly acted toss. The only part I enjoyed was the part with the door which I found rather amusing. This film is not like the Shining or Polanski it's just another worthless waste of film and peoples time. Not the worst film ever as there are better candidates for that here but one which is not worth 90 minutes of your time. Time better spent grouting the bathroom or lying on your back looking at the ceiling. Believe me both these activities will feel more rewarding than watching this pile of crap.

Great premise for a movie, but very predictable...

[frogman31680 · 4/10 · 12 January 2012]

I saw this title on a website that I subscribe to and when I saw the reviews on IMDb I figured I would give it a try.

I will say this, it is not a BAD movie. It also is not a great movie.

It runs VERY slow and tries to build up the suspense.

I had a feeling I knew what was happening from the beginning, but the movie just tries to pull your mind in too many directions.

First, there is the creepy feeling the people around him give. Second, there is the building itself. Third, there is the feeling like something else is there.

Don't expect to be scared by this film, but don't expect to be impressed either...

Above average Polanski-like homage, but Hansis isn't really up to the task

[bob_meg · 7/10 · 24 October 2011]

"Occupant" has one of the nicest, most believable set-ups of any recent urban thriller: Danny (Van Hansis) moves into his granny's (whom he's never met) rent-controlled Manhatten apartment (if you can call a 3500 sq ft space merely that) hoping to continue her $675 a month renting price, with the aide of an overly-friendly/sinister doorman (Thorston Kaye). The only glitch? To secure the place at the low-low figure, he only needs to barricade himself inside the plush joint long enough to lawyer up and win legal custody of the property.

Of course, this isn't as easy as it seems, as a series of eerie coincidences gradually convince Danny that someone's not exactly playing above board in their attempts to foist him out.

Henry Miller's latest film is much glossier than his previous outings, nicely shot, with some inventive camera angles. The story, by writer/producer Johnathan Brett, is engaging, if not rendered a bit campy sometimes with it's use of 250-point Helvetica fonts screaming DAY ONE, DAY TWO, etc.

The real weakness, I think, is the casting of Van Hansis --- a soap opera actor who looks a bit too Abercrombie to be mistaken for the average working-joe-farm-boy-come-to-the-big-city. He's not bad, really, his acting is just very one-note (as with many soap opera alumni, his range is either in the "super sincere" or "utterly hysterical" registers...they're either whispering or shouting).

Unfortunately, he doesn't do well with the latter. It appears Miller found that out, because the film tends to lapse into gimmicks like speed-frame, freeze-frame, and wipes particularly in the final scenes. It takes a lot of gravitas to pull off the kind of gut wrenching panic that's needed here, and Hansis just doesn't have it. This is a shame, because the film, overall, has a lot of unique touches going for it. It just needs an actor with a resume that's longer than his Facebook page to support it.

Good beginning to one of the most disappointing movies ever

[rogersdean7 · 1/10 · 1 January 2013]

I created an account just to write this, just FYI. If you can avoid this movie, do it. You will be fooled/lured in by the first 30 minutes, only to be smashed violently in the head by the absolute terror of predictable, boring nothingness of movie. I cannot accurately express how frustrated and angry this troll of a movie made me by the end.

Spoiler: 12 days by yourself in a luxury apartment cannot drive you crazy. People spend months in solitary confinement, which this is not. He kills the chick on day two, due to his insanity from being isolated, what? If you want to anger yourself, then watch this movie. This is a zero of a movie. Do not watch this movie. You should only do so to know how not to make a movie. Not the worst, but almost.

Worth leasing, but not buying.

[blongca04 · 6/10 · 6 July 2012]

"Occupant" isn't the smartest effort of recent memory, nor is it the scariest, but it's certainly unique enough to be worth mentioning. The plot here isn't especially innovative, borrowing heavily from movies like "1408" and Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining," but much like said inspiration, the execution is what differentiates this film from the slew of other cheap imitations. The movie is actually pretty sleek- looking for a lower-budget offering, and it makes effective use of its small, fairly-unknown cast, especially leading man Van Hansis, whose portrayal of a man grappling with his sanity is so convincing its unsettling. The atmosphere is dark, disturbing, and suspenseful, akin to an under-your-skin David Lynch head trip; it's that special blend of intentionally-ambiguous psychological thriller and supernatural horror that makes this a very carrot-on-a-stick experience, never allowing the viewer to turn away once the action begins its slow-burning buildup.

For the rest of my review, please check out my movie review blog: http://filmsallthetime.blogspot.com

Pretty dull

[sinny_koshka · 3/10 · 25 April 2013]

At the start of this movie my hopes were high - an original plot with the scope for scary ghosty stuff. Unfortunately, when you're stuck in an apartment which you 'can't' leave it doesn't take long for the boredom to set in. There was an opportunity for chills and thrills but for some reason the execution is dull and listless. For some reason I started getting a hankering for The Shining - the definitive descent into madness. If you watch The Apartment then you'll get similar pangs after about 20 minutes.

If you delve into Korean horror then you can discover interesting themes fully realised and not just imagined by the director.

Nili has put together a classy list - http://www.imdb.com/list/8txFAcBLcUo/

A disturbing Psychological Horror film... MUCH better than it has been rated here.

[lathe-of-heaven · 8/10 · 14 January 2012]

Originally I was kind of p!$$ed because all I saw were these painfully OBVIOUS and stupid 'planted' 'reviews' REALLY going over the top on how orgasmically awesome this film was. An INSTANT turn off. However, in reading later reviews I was able to gather that there was a decent chance that I might like this movie. I really like Psychological Horror films. Well, I just now finished watching it and I was quite impressed by the quality of the movie. Also, This type of film is not terribly easy to do because the direction and writing REALLY have to be spot on in order to pull it off properly. Well, I'm here to tell you that in my lowly and wretched opinion, they did a very good job indeed.

As others have noted here, it is very similar to Polanski's 'REPULSION'; a Psychological Horror film. Since there was ultimately very little dialog, I really appreciated the quality of the sound design. It was very intriguing and quite effective in creating the right mood for this story. Right off, I really liked the soundtrack; and, as things progressed and the mood got more off-kilter, the band really did an excellent job in enhancing the increasingly disturbing atmosphere. Toward the end it REALLY reminded me of Goblin in some of Argento's films like 'SUSPIRIA'.

The script and direction worked well together in that the director was able to build a very believable mood and atmosphere, which is critical to this type of film. He also brought out an excellent performance from the main actor depicting his progressively unravelling state of mind. I didn't really care too much for the way the doorman was portrayed. I think I understand what the director was trying to do with his character, but to me personally I felt that he came across as a bit clichéd in his dialog and the way it was delivered. A bit too cardboard for my taste. However, that doesn't really take away too much from the main thrust and weight of the film or the disturbing / unbalanced mood that is very effectively created.

So, bottom line... IF you like this kind of slower, more heavily psychological type of Horror / Thriller that is mostly mood, atmosphere and state of mind, then you will like it because it is done very well. BUT, if you like your Horror more gory and in your face, then you most likely will find this more boring and slow.

I really liked the use of time lapse photography across the city and the use of the Gothic images in the designs of the building, etc. I REALLY felt the way that the director used the lighting & editing was extremely effective. I particularly loved the scene, even though very subtle, where the lighting flickers across behind the boy watching the laptop. VERY nice! Without giving too much away, I REALLY felt for the guy and I could feel myself saying 'Come on man; if you can just hold on a little longer...!'

Oh, and it was also interesting to see how the fellow apparently liked his pv$$y... (heh heh...)

A well done thriller

[tennisprochriswebber · 7/10 · 13 February 2012]

After reading some of the reviews on IMDb I almost didn't give this one a chance. I'm glad however that I took the time to watch this film. I'm not saying I stumbled upon an instant classic, or one of my new favorite movies. I wasn't blown away by it or anything, but I felt as though it was an entertaining horror/thriller. It did become slightly predictable, but not enough to turn me off from it. For having such a small cast of characters and lack of different settings. It kept me waiting for the next "day".

If your a fan of "The Amityville Horror" or "The Shining" I recommend this as one worth watching.

Great effort but ultimately meaningless

[philippsiam · 5/10 · 9 May 2014]

The cinematography is excellent and the production overall is good, but the story just doesn't go anywhere. So many leading clues that just don't connect with anything. Random plot points that never solidify into anything. Great going through until you reach the end and realize there is no payoff. Disappointing. I was captivated all the way through because I've never seen a film with such great lighting and angles and overall greatness just fart itself into oblivion so meaninglessly. Why on earth didn't the creators do something with all the material they had? The potential is there, and if you were to miss the last few minutes you may just think it is a great film. It is only in the realization that the film goes nowhere do you realize the fatal flaw of this film.

Nothing going on

[Leofwine_draca · 1/10 · 12 September 2017]

OCCUPANT is another indie horror flick shot in a single apartment in New York. The story sees a normal guy moving into his deceased grandmother's apartment only to find something nasty already living there. Sadly, the story is so cheap that nearly everything takes places off screen despite one good scene at the climax. The rest is an array of genre tropes and clichés on a non-existent budget.

A great idea that ends up cheating the audience

[johnyoungda · 3/10 · 17 August 2013]

What we have here is a fairly routine "old dark house" movie, with all of tired clichés that just fill time but don't advance the plot, e.g., the shower scene with -- what, exactly -- rust? That's never quite clear.

That said, I very much like the basic idea of this film. Van Hansis as Danny Hill is immediately likable. Steve Routman as lawyer Bertram Feinberg is also well-cast. But the cartoonish characters that fill out the rest of the cast suggest we're watching a dream sequence. Of course, that isn't the case.

Where this film goes awry is with the whole paranormal angle. When writers get into the supernatural, all rules of logic are off and the audience always feels like the writer is cheating. To be fair, writer Jonathan Brett does try to insert some kind of subtle explanation about demons in text our hero is forced to read from the Bible, when there are no other entertainments available. We also do see the killer early on -- in silhouette in the doorway, when our blogger chick is panning around with her camera.

I think this would have been much more satisfying to explore what a normal, 25-year-old guy would do when confined to an apartment for more than a week. What was the doorman's agenda? In the first scene, it appears he might have a sexual attraction for Danny, but that thread is never developed further. The blogger chick, clearly has some kind of hidden agenda, but that ball is dropped too. The landlord could have tried any number of interesting tricks to get him out of the apartment. There are lots of better possibilities than the paranormal here.

The biggest plot hole is that Danny sees the killer on the blogger chick's camera at the mid-point of the film and does nothing about it. Here the writer cheats the audience out of the fun of figuring out the mystery (albeit a thin on in this particular plot).

The suicide of the main character is a real letdown at the end. Audiences root for the violent death of someone who has been clearly established as evil earlier in the story; but here, we're still rooting for Danny to get this cheap NYC apartment right up to the end. We're left saying, "Really?" Too bad this script wasn't passed along to another writer or two for a fresh perspective and polish. It's a great concept for a low-budget film, but the audience is cheated out of a good time.

Just saw on VOD

[enesselt · 23 October 2011]

Well, I was really anticipating this film. Van Hanis did a good job but the point is this may be on the line of a Polanski-but it left me not horrified, or feeling the ending was a total twist of the mind. With the exception of a few things such as the building looking like the Dakota-the elevator operator and Van Hansis change in appearance it was a far cry from anything that Polanski ever did. However I did enjoy the Doorman, Joe-two thumbs up Thorsten Kaye-I'm biased.

Will I view it again in the 24 hours that VOD gives you? Maybe so it can grow on me. Maybe not.

This was definitely not what I had myself hyped up for.

had to skip to the end

[paula-vmello-792-197107 · 1/10 · 15 September 2013]

I see many bad horror movies, and i'm always able to see everything, but, this one, is so horrible that i could not see everything, i had to skip to the end.

I mean, not a good story, i'm not sure what's going on, it is just weird!

Really, i had my share of bad movies, but this one, i really don't recommend.

and this movie have many questions that don't have aswers, like, what happened to the cat? Or to the exterminator?

i don't know, really, not good.

Not bad for a low budget

[wildwitchca · 7/10 · 14 July 2017]

This was a pretty good mystery/thriller. It was obviously low budget but it had a very strong story and an extremely strong cast. I didn't know what was truly happening until the absolute final scene. It was NOT predictable in the least. Go in with an open mind and you will enjoy this movie.

Nice try

[spiiidey-1 · 5/10 · 12 January 2012]

OK, I'm gonna write this short: This movie has some really nice shots, in the beginning it creates an interesting, little weird story, the acting is pretty nice ... BUT there are so many plot holes, so many stuff that happens without any reason, just for the effect and there's no horror at all. This movie is just a concept ... looks like they ran out of money and had to end it somehow. This is sad, because it really had a decent start and could have been a remarkable film. This way there is no comparison to any Polanski movie.

Usually it's nice to watch a movie and in the end be left with a few questions to talk about and to discuss ... but here it's just too much. Why all this?

Okay, I guess

[mattie-jade · 6/10 · 1 July 2012]

I liked this, except for the fact that he painted like half his wall, then stopped. Like, who does that?? If you are looking for a scary movie in a hurry, this probably wouldn't be it. This movie wasn't really all the scary, and actually quite confusing. Many parts were left open with no explanation. This movie is quite random too. Different scenes just happen, without being led up to. I didn't like it too much. I wish it had more depth to it, like they didn't put much effort into making it detailed. There were also no on screen killings, people would just be found dead. The acting was okay, actually, for such a B movie. The main character sometimes over acted, but that's fine. Overall, I give this a 6/10 for creepiness

Waste of time, boring and predictable.

[bsw03 · 1/10 · 24 June 2012]

With the exception of the mirror scene this film is absolutely awful. The tension was manufactured and lead to nothing. Conflict in the movie? It never advanced anything and I grew bored of it. This film was disappointing, boring and went nowhere.

While I was slightly sad at the end for Danny, I had not interest in him as a main character. I was most concerned about the pet. How is it that movies like this are made? This movie passes off odd and weird as psychological and it is hardly a thriller. If I could give this movie a zero I would.

I wish I had not wasted my time on this film. Please save yourself the trouble and time and pass this movie over.

Definitely intriguing.

[radicocaine · 8/10 · 19 February 2012]

If you enjoy slow films you will find that part of the film intriguing, but if you dislike slow films then you might as well as not waste your time. You look at it and assume that it is predictable but it's really not. It's about a guy whose Grandmother passes away and he sublets her apartment but without the proper permission from the owners of the building therefore his lawyer enforces a strong encouragement for him to stay in his apartment until they have the proper lease. It shows the slow journey of him losing his mind without the viewers knowing that he is losing his mind until the end, of course. The ending is really what will make up your opinion of loving or hating it. Personally I adored it and found it to have the perfect amount of intrinsic as well as suspenseful scenes. I highly suggest it.

Do not watch .

[ashleyjanebell · 1/10 · 20 January 2017]

If I achieve anything in my life it is to make sure no one else has to endure this absolute load. I can't even begin to describe how terrible it was and I'm disappointed I didn't switch it off after 10 minutes. It had hope I'll admit. It got my attention at first but then it all went so sourly downhill.

How did the Granma really die? Who killed the cat? How did the exterminator die? Was he possessed? Was he just insane?

Also,

WHATS WITH ALL THE CHICKEN WIRE?!

Please. I urge you. Move along and find another film. This is not worth your precious time in life.

Great Polanski - like thriller!

[hdhillard · 24 October 2011]

I had no idea that this film would be in a style similar to one of my all-time favorite thriller film makers. At the same time, it is extremely current and cast with a fantastic lead whom I had never heard of, Van Hansis. He seems like an actor who could have a real future - his transformation from unassuming hipster to something QUITE different was a real accomplishment. The twists and turns of the story line kept we wondering and guessing throughout the movie which flew by after the first scary moment. The look of the film morphed in a very satisfying way, which combined with subtle and effective special effects made the movie very special. I loved that the apartment/ apartment building became a central character (and a very scary one) in the movie. I was truly gripping my seat tighter and tighter as the film progressed and felt crazy scared and surprised by the end. I have not seen a thriller like this in a long time - but I wish there were more out there in this genre.

14082

[thesar-2 · 4/10 · 2 December 2017]

Just to give you a frame of mind here: The Occupy Wall Street movement was much more exciting than this movie.

Sadly, this was a waste of time and I know this because it's another movie that literally starts to leave my mind as the end credits roll. These reviews are the hardest to write due to the quickly vanishing thoughts and the fact I barely know what I just watched. But, I'll try.

Not-Stephen Dorff is all-but locked into a rent-controlled NYC apartment after his grandmother passed on. Several people encourage him to stay put for just under two weeks to get a court order and assume the sweet lease. Only, Not-Stephen Dorff has zero patience and less mental capabilities.

In other words, he starts to go mad. Maybe there are ghosts in the place, maybe it's rats or maybe it's his conscious…but he loses it anyways.

Not sure if I believe it, but hell, I didn't spend the few bucks they did to make this. At least the movie started well with interesting ideas and the lead actor did put his all into it. So I'll give it those kudos.

Just can't recommend and would advise just to watch the ten times more entertaining and similar '1408.'