User Reviews (973)

Add a Review

  • It takes a lot for me to dislike a film. It has to be a complete and utter waste of my time, and even then it could still have some redeeming values. Its hard to label It Comes at Night. On one hand, its a slow paced descent into the deepest throes of the human psyche, and on the other hand it is an utterly depressing and hopeless look at humanity.

    I tend to lean on the latter part of my assessment, mainly because there is just so much reality to this parable about a world ravaged by a deadly virus (yeesh, imagine if this came out in 2020). More than anything, this film pretty much predicted what could happen if a disease truly did start randomly killing people with no quarter. Society would turn on itself, and it would become a battle of the fittest and prepared, and in some cases, best armed. I don't fault anyone for not liking this film. It's a hard slog and a depressing one at that. I appreciate the fact the film didn't try to sugarcoat anything. I truly believe humanity would turn on each other in a similar way.

    Is the movie well made? Sure, I had no problems with the pacing or the reality of the story. Beyond that, there is not much else to say about this film. It's a simple survival story and every person's opinion of it hinges on whether they believe humanity is ultimately selfish (much like myself) or you were looking for a standard horror/thriller that would try holding a mirror up and asking what you would do in that situation.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The movie did a great job of building suspense and atmosphere, however led to a disappointing conclusion when nothing actually came at night.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Paul (Joel Edgerton), his wife Sarah, and their son Travis are living in their boarded up isolated cabin in the woods. They bury an elderly man after he contracted a disease. The home is sealed up as protection from an unspoken outbreak. Will breaks in and is taken captive. He tells them that he thought the home was abandoned and he left his family behind to look for supplies. Filled with apprehension, Paul drives Will to retrieve his family. They are attacked along the way.

    This is an apocalyptic film stripped down to its bare bones. It has its appeal but the outbreak transmission leave me a little perplexed. It feels more like a possession than an actual disease. The info has been stripped out so much that the lack of an exposition has left some confusion in the basic premise. I'm not usually a fan of expositions but a little clarity is helpful. Sometimes, it's important to lay down a scaffolding to help build a solid structure.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    First of all you should know that this film is not about some demon or some monster that comes at night. "It Comes at Night" is about an apocalyptic world where the the greatest enemy of human beings is their own fears and suspicions. Most of the people who didn't like this movie watched it because they just wanted to know "What is it that comes at night?". The monster that they were waiting for was in front of their eyes from the beginning until the end. This ugly monster is inside the characters it's inside their mind. It is not about the demon that kills people it's about the fear of this demon which kills them.

    The cinematography is just perfect. It creates a freaky atmosphere and makes the movie really scary. Lighting is used perfectly. Every corner feels like it may contain a beast of a zombie.

    Don't watch this movie if you just want to be entertained.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I'm all for minimalist movies. I enjoy a good story. I can forgive budget constraints.

    What i cannot forgive is a title that specifically promises something that the movie does NOT deliver.

    'It Comes At Night' Naturally you would expect the immanent arrival of something,... ANYTHING.

    Well guess what?... (Spoiler Alert!)

    It doesn't. NOTHING comes. Nothing happens. At all.

    This movie should have been called 'Paranoia' People were worried about something. That's ALL. That is the active ingredient in this film. Worrying about something that never happens.

    I'm getting awfully annoyed with this latest trend of movies where nothing occurs, yet it is conveyed in such a pompous manner that the film-makers substitute a plot for the 'feeling' of where the plot should be.

    Its literally the equivalent of writing a best-selling novel, labeling it as an advanced 'post-modern' masterpiece and leaving all of the pages blank.

    Watching paint dry is a superior viewing experience because you are at least subjected to a linear resolution, and at the very least there is a result at the end.

    0 out of 10
  • There's a lot of discussion on here as to whether this film constitutes a horror film or something more akin to a psychological drama.

    As a horror film, I didn't find the film scary, and as a psychological drama, not particularly fresh in what it was presenting. I consider 'The Road' as a much, much stronger example of a film that blends horror and psychological drama - in exploring the limits of humanity & family in an apocalyptic setting.

    It's nonetheless a well-made film with fine performances, but I came into the film expecting...something great, which it wasn't. That's hype for you.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Paul (Joel Edgerton), his wife Sarah (Carmen Ejogo), their seventeen year-old son Travis (Kelvin Harrison Jr.) and his grandfather Bud (David Pendleton) live a reclusive life in an isolated cabin in the woods. When Bud contracts a mysterious disease, the family is forced to put him down and burn his body. During the night, an invader breaks in their house and they dominate the man and leave him tied to a tree in quarantine to know whether he is sick or not. A couple of days later, they find the stranger is healthy and he tells that his name is Will (Christopher Abbott). He explains that he left his wife Kim (Riley Keough) and their little son Andrew (Griffin Robert Faulkner) in an abandoned house to seek for water and food. Paul and Sarah invite him to bring his wife and son to live with them so that they could protect each other. On the arrival, Paul explains the rules of his house to the couple and they share the labor and supplies. But paranoia about disease and the outside menace arrive in the house affecting the lives of the two families.

    "It Comes at Night" is a thriller with promising beginning and deceptive conclusion. The plot is developed at a slow pace creating tension, including sexual, in the viewer that waits to see those that come at night. Unfortunately nothing but a dramatic paranoia happens disappointing everyone that was expecting a plot point or a big surprise in the end. My vote is six.

    Title (Brazil): "Ao Cair da Noite" ("At the Twilight")
  • Despite the title sounding very sinister, the film is anything but what it implies. Too little information is given about the 'disease' and the rest of the world. The absence of CGI is refreshing, though, and makes it that much more realistic. Great character bonding, too.

    But what comes at night? The sick? The sickness? What? Nothing came at night...
  • Inside the mind it is dark. You imagine it is safe. You take refuge there. Outside of the mind is the world. The world is sick, dangerous.

    You have a door between the two. You keep it locked. You have a protocol for the door to keep what is out, out. The people you trust, that you let inside, you expect them to keep to the protocol as well.

    But at night something comes the door can't defend against. At night the dreams come, because the dreams live inside, with you. Dreams of doubt and fear. It's at night when the door is most necessary... and most likely to be compromised.

    "It Comes at Night" shrugs off traditional horror beats and embraces the extended discourse of a nightmare, the inky blacks lit only by a hand-held lantern, the invisible contagions that we can't keep out no matter how hard we try, the way a fire we must light attracts things that might do us harm.

    It's "Night of the Living Dead" without zombies. It's "The Thing" without a monster. It's the distrust we have of everything outside, even the outsiders that are inside. It's the long narrow dark hallway to a door that's supposed to be locked, must be locked, but isn't.

    And it's one of the very best horror films of the year so far. A year that has already been a landmark one for progressive, humanist, and existential horror.

    And yes, it is a horror film, no matter what others may tell you.
  • It Comes at Night is a film that discards typical horror movie tropes in place of actual craftsmanship. There are no big revelations being made here, no grand "aha" moment that would have you giving a standing ovation. All it offers you is a general sense of paranoia that's fostered under the right set of circumstances.

    Using different aspect ratios (letterboxing) to insinuate the differences between reality and a delusional dream state was not only a clever bit of extradiegetic storytelling but also a great conversation piece once you get to the finale. By playing with the subconscious understanding of these aspects and the simple mechanics of the world created, you basically get a film that demands a rewatch upon completion or at the very least, a proper discussion of the events delivered in the 3rd act.

    All the performances were fantastic. Even the younger characters were believable. In a short period of time, they all became flesh and blood people, with none feeling gimmicky or poorly placed.

    Perhaps this film was too subdued for its own good. As was the case with 2015's The Witch, this film's dedication for a higher pedigree of horror movie storytelling may have effectively deafened its acceptance from general movie goers. With that being said, this is basically another shoe-in for cult status territory.
  • I must confess I was expecting way more of this "horror" film.

    It started off quite well (hence the 4 rating) but after the first 30 minutes went downhill. No questions were answered, you are left with a large list of plot holes and an ending that couldn't be more predictable and boring.

    Don't get me wrong, it isn't the worst "horror" film I ever saw but is avoidable especially if you like HORROR.

    I'm still waiting for what comes at night.
  • I see you "indie horror that takes place entirely at a house in the forest", and I get it, you have a friend with a cottage which helps cut costs on expensive sets or blocking off public spaces. And I'm okay with this, the woods has both a natural beauty and creepiness that can be effective regardless of how many times we've seen the backdrop. Carry on.

    It Comes at Night follows in the footsteps of a lot of modern, A24, "elevated" horror, exploring familiar themes through a less than conventional lens. Restraint seems to be the name of the game here, primarily building off the fear of the unknown. Objects of terror largely remain off-screen, questions are raised but never answered. If you feel frustrated by ambiguity, this may not be the film for you.

    Mostly it explores the tension between two families with surface civility, being pushed to a breaking point by extreme circumstances, calling in to question the morality of how far you would go to protect your own, and how much you can trust a stranger. It treads on similar themes as Night of the Living Dead or The Thing, with claustrophobic dread only exacerbated by the lack of trust for your fellow man. The performances are strong across the board, with a bottled up anxiety that feels like it's ready to burst at any moment, building towards a devastating finish.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The "plague" horror sub-genre has received a bleak and hyper realistic jolt into 2017 with Trey Edwards Shults' film "It Comes at Night". Marketed as a true horror film and convincing its viewers that there is some sort of monster to be discovered, this film takes the viewers' expectations and flips them on their head.

    ***SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT***

    This film revolves around a family of three holed up in a rural home turned makeshift base: father Paul (Joel Edgerton), mother Sarah (Carmen Ejogo), and son Travis (Kelvin Harris Jr.). It begins with Paul taking his very sick father in law out into the woods and shooting him, then burning his body while his son Travis looks on. The unceremonious burial and Paul's apparent indifference to the burning body set up a continuous lack of sympathy and regret throughout the rest of the film.

    Not too long after the burial, a man attempts to break into the house and is interrogated by Paul.He tells Paul that he was searching for supplies for his wife and son in an abandoned home about fifteen miles away. After confirming that this man is not sick with the plague that has wiped out unknown masses of people, Paul agrees when Sarah suggests he go and find the stranger's wife and child and bring them back to live at the house with them.

    Paul returns home with attempted robber turned friend Will (Christopher Abbott), his wife Kim (Riley Keough) and son Andrew (Griffin Robert Faulkner). Things start out normal, but even though both families seem content with the situation, the viewers can't help but feel unsettled by Travis's recurring nightmares involving his dead father-in-law, walking down the dark hallway that leads to the front door and jolting awake, and when the other family moves in, Kim approaching him in bed only to end up vomiting an inky black substance onto his mouth.

    On top of these nightmares, Travis's dog Stanley manages to snap his leash and runs off into the woods one day. Paul assures Travis that Stanley will come back eventually. Paul and Will share whiskey in Paul's study and begin talking about their lives before the sickness started to spread. Will tells Paul that he was an only child, which raises a bright red flag because, when Paul was interrogating Will when they first met, Will had told Paul that before he and his wife had found the abandoned house, they had been living with Will's brother. Paul mentions this, obviously tense, and Will back peddles and explains that they stayed with his brother-in-law, Kim's brother. The viewers are left with an uneasy feeling as Paul grabs his bottle of whiskey and tells Will he's going to bed.

    The families fall back into their routine with each other until one night when Travis is again woken up from a nightmare.

    Travis then finds Andrew asleep in his late grandfather's room, apparently having sleep- walked from his own family's room. Travis wakes Andrew up and takes him back to his room. For a moment, everything seems fine; until Travis hears scraping noises coming from the entrance hall. Going down to the door and finding it unlocked and slightly ajar, Travis races back upstairs to inform his father that someone is in the house.

    After the whole house has been woken up, Paul and Will walk into the entryway to find Stanley laying there, on the verge of death, wheezing, and covered in blood. Paul shoots Stanley since he is evidently sick with the same "plague" that infected Travis's grandfather.

    The families convene at the dinner table and Travis tells everyone that he found Andrew first, then found the door open, insinuating that it may have been possible that Andrew sleep-walked and opened the door. Tensions rise quickly, as does the paranoia that either Andrew, Travis, or both have been infected. Each family closes themselves off in their respective rooms and goes to bed.

    Travis wakes up to hear Andrew crying, and he overhears Will telling Kim that they need to leave. Travis wakes his parents up to inform them of this. There is no room for humanity or empathy in the world that Shults has created; Sarah and Paul immediately come to the conclusion that the entire family must be killed if they truly are sick. Travis is told to wait in the bedroom while Paul and Sarah put on their gas masks and go to confront Will and Kim.

    Conflict inevitably ensues; attempting to get Will to open the door, Paul is confronted with a gun that he didn't know Will had and forced into their bedroom. Will insists that Andrew is not sick, none of them are, but at no point can the viewers see Andrew's eyes or hands (two places where indicators of the sickness can be seen easily), and Will tells his son to keep his eyes closed. Will tells Paul they want to leave and want half the food and water. While trying to lead his family to the door and keeping the gun pointed at Paul, Sarah appears and tells Will to give Paul the gun. While Will is distracted, Paul manages to get his gun and knocks him on the head while Sarah goes after Kim and Andrew.

    Will, Andrew, and Kim are all shot without the viewers knowing for sure if they were truly infected. Shortly after, Travis wakes up one morning to find that he has been infected, and the movie's final scene showing a bloodied Paul and vacant Sarah sitting at the table with Travis's seat empty leaves viewers feeling hollow.

    "It Comes at Night" is an art film in every sense of the word that explores the ideas of humanity and paranoia and leaves its viewers tense from beginning to end.
  • Good grief, is this the feel-bad movie of the year or what?

    A family of survivalists have holed themselves up in an isolated house in the wake of some biological incident, the details of which are left vague, but which has resulted in a virus that kills anyone who contracts it. When another survivor with a family stumbles upon them, they must then decide whether or not to turn their backs or extend a helping hand. It's a parable that examines where the instinct to protect oneself and those he loves ends and the impulse for basic human decency begins.

    I guess I'd have to say that "It Comes at Night" was effectively done, because it left me feeling absolutely awful, and I had trouble shaking it. But I would also have trouble shaking the image of someone getting run over by a car -- no one would have to present it artistically for it to get to me. The final moments of "It Comes at Night" go places few movies dare to go, but it might make a viewer have to decide whether it's dramatically satisfying or cheaply manipulative.

    Grade: C
  • Warning: Spoilers
    It's an extremely well-crafted movie. I can say i never took my eyes off the screen once and was always extremely interested in the plot throught the movie. I expected a more "cliché" movie or an actual monster, but i think what i got was much better. As someone with anxiety, this movie speaks to me on another level. The thing that actually comes at night is the insecurity, fear, strangers, the unknown of the world outside and inside your mind. That is much scary than any monster or creature in my opinion. The characters actually felt real and like the events of the movie were actually happening, by the way they reacted to things (sometimes without thinking). The ending and all of the questions left unaswered left kind of a bitter and nervous feeling over me. I guess that was the point all along, so it 100% did it's job.
  • It's a lot scarier after you've been through a months long quarantine
  • Upon finishing It Comes at Night, I knew it would be the type of film that completely divides audiences. It's a film that was always going to be misinterpreted to be something else by many audiences and it's not a film that neatly checks off many genre conventions or clichés. Even its horror label will be disputed by some. What I got most out of the film was its relentless and unnerving sense of anxiety, paranoia, and fear that runs throughout the whole thing. It's not an easy atmosphere to build constantly throughout a 90 minute-runtime, but Trey Edward Shults actually accomplishes it. This is a fantastic piece of psychological horror and mystery, one to be celebrated.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    IT COMES AT NIGHT (2017) ** Joel Edgerton, Carmen Ejogo, Kelvin Harrison, Jr., Christopher Abbott, Riley Keough, Griffin Robert Faulkner, David Pendleton. Very misleadingly titled horror film (for those with no imagination that is) about 2 families facing an unknown plague that threatens their physical, emotional and mental well-beings (to say the least) with plenty of dread and paranoia caked on. Filmmaker Trey Edward Shults employs all the ins and outs of a body horror genre film with atmosphere but skimps on the whats, whys, hows which is beyond frustrating and cops out in its final act (um, one too many 'dream sequences' to begin with). A major disappointment and grim bummer of a suspense thriller to say the least.
  • kkeane-682341 October 2018
    This was beautifully created and a suspenseful setting but was deeply lacking in storyline. So little actually occurred that I was already confused 40 mins in. If it weren't for Joel Edgerton I would have shut this down 1/3 of the way in. It was confusing, incongruent and frankly a little boring. I patiently waited though and saw it through. Alas the climax was so disappointing I was in shock... and it didn't even happen at night!!! What the hell was coming at night??? Nothing came... even during the day. Not cool... not a horror film, barely a thriller, just a shame.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I'm only really writing this because of the astounding amount of negative reviews here. And they are all really encompassed by a thing said by the guy who has the highest rated review.

    ***SPOILERS***

    "Nothing comes at night. If you read the positive reviews for this movie they like to pretend you should imagine what would come at night. I did not pay $13 a ticket to imagine anything."

    Props to this guy for managing to so succinctly sum up everything that is wrong about the big movie business brainwashing people enough that they can't be bothered to imagine anything, enough that they need everything to be served up on a platter and it preferably being baby food and it preferably being McDonalds baby food.

    This film performs quite the amazing job of tightly illustrating the corruption of one's humanity in a film. Not only that, but said corruption happening inside a family dynamic.

    The mysteriousness and lack of clarification of the film serves as the fundament for building an allegory. This is not a film about an apocalypse per se, you don't get any nitty gritty details about what the virus is, where it comes from, how many it has killed, what the news had to say about it. This is a film about a family having to withstand a powerful destructive force coming from the outside, and how they are trying to protect themselves from it. This is the reason why everything is left vague, for the purpose of generalization, for the purpose of allegory, for the purpose of allowing the spectator to fill in the details themselves with their experiences. The vagueness allows for a much larger array of empathy. Should the film fall short in terms of execution, then it would indeed fall flat, and the allegory would dissipate. This film, however, is very carefully calibrated, and it is the audience that disappoints, not the movie. It disappoints through unwillingness to process information and sensations by themselves, but rather being locked into a mode in which they just expect everything to always be explained to them so as they can be entertained and not use their brains.

    The film begins with the execution of the sick grandpa. The following discussion is about how the 17 year old son should not have to be exposed to such atrocities. The very first issue in the film is about protecting the son. However in the night, the son keeps having the worst nightmares, mostly about corruption in one form or another, about getting diseased. His first nightmare begins from a painting of Breugel's, then in another scene we see another painting of Breugel's, Hunters in the Snow, a painting with a rich history in cinema. Tarkovsky used it in Solaris as the peak of the sensation of humanity desired by the astronaut's clone-wife. Lars von Trier burned it in Melancholia as the humanity in that film was being consumed by disease as well. The director here uses it knowingly, no doubt, to reinforce the question of one's humanity.

    The disease in the film is irrelevant. The disease can be whatever you want it to be, it's Trump. If you wanna know what comes at night, the IT, well it's Trump, OK? It's the corrosion and corruption of today's world in regards to our humanity. The family dynamic is organized in such a way that what is of utmost importance is to protect the son from the disease. From the Trump disease. From the terribleness-that- is-in-this-world disease. The vagueness of it all was not satisfactory for me either for the majority of the film. When it really clicked, however, was right at the very end, as the first time that the son shows that he has the disease is right after his father shoots the child and the mother. Then he gets a nosebleed. Then he is infected. This film is quite spectacular for having illustrated this paradox of organizing your life around protecting your son, only to have that very organizing be the thing that ultimately corrupts your son.

    It is a highly potent tragic allegory. One that requires a minimum amount of thought and effort to feel. Something that is far too excessive to ask of an audience nowadays apparently. The film offers no solutions, it just offers the proposal of contemplating this paradox, one that I am sure most of us are engaged in, in one form or another in our lives as well. This is why this film is so potent, because if only you would think for a moment you would realize that this paradox of protection is universal, and it doesn't need an apocalypse to occur. It just needs one to be such virtuously illustrated.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Let's get one thing straight, the ending is a 10/10. I mean absolutely wall-to-wall crazy. But the ending is only good if you watch the whole slow, subtle burn that is the entire movie. It Comes at Night isn't the greatest horror movie. In fact, it's really just okay. Nothing super special in terms of the plot or special effects. But oh man, stick around for when everyone goes crazy. That was worth the hour and a half.
  • I am a fan of post-apocalyptic movies and for the first 20 minutes this film shows promise, good visuals and mood. But then it crawls repeating the same shots and mild shocks until after the hour mark. At this stage you are left wondering when the real story is going to start. Plot elements are started but then abandoned. A little mystery is a good idea in this genre, it heightens the fear but at some point you need an actual narrative to draw it all together.

    The ending did force a climax but it seemed botched somewhat by the director so you are left wondering exactly what happened.

    The biggest failing is I didn't feel interested enough in the characters to care enough about them during the attempted resolution.

    I understand that the budget would have been small but that is no excuse. The camera work was fine. The frights were well done and the tension was well maintained but it gets boring when repeated. The actors did a good job though some were miscast. It was the writing and direction that let the story down.

    For a better example of a post apocalyptic movie with a similar setting look at One Hundred Mornings.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The first thing worth mentioning about this film is that it is not a horror film at all. The film was completely mismarketed as another run of the mill horror film on purpose. This did two things. It secured the film a nation wide theater release which it surely wouldn't have gotten otherwise, and it baited in a larger, more casual audience that was expecting the exact opposite of what it was.

    Basically, going to see this movie is like ordering a greasy double decker burger with fries and a soft drink... but instead you get an exquisite entree of fresh garden vegetables prepared by a three star Michelin chef. Very few of these people will have the palate or taste for it, in fact most of them will be upset.

    This film is probably the most realistic post apocalyptic story I have ever come across. Anyone who knows the frequency and probabilities of solar flairs and what they would do to our civilization has probably played out scenarios in their head that are almost identical to the plot of this movie.

    It is this highest degree of realism in the unfolding of the plot and what happens between the characters that makes this film so engaging and captivating. As a work of craft, the film is a remarkable. It is so beautifully shot and the acting never drops below A+ quality for a single moment. This is in the top class of all the movies I have seen, and is one of the best post apocalyptic ever made in my personal opinion.
  • It Comes At Night tells the story of a family who is desperately seeking refuge from an unknown entity only to stumble across a family who takes them in but soon discover that their fear and paranoia may get the best of them all. Ever since this premiered at the Overlook Film festival, this has been on every horror fan's list of films to see, including my own. After finally getting to see the final product, I was left riddled with confusion and anger over the film but I couldn't hate it.

    First off, anyone who is a fan of slow burn horror will probably like this film immensely. Even though the film is 97 minutes, it moves at a snail's pace sometimes. Director Trey Edwards Shultz proves that Krisha was not a fluke here but he also proves that storytelling is still a bit of a weak point. It Comes At Night suffers from the same things that Krisha did. It has a weak and thin script but a strong enough idea in it to float it. Despite this, Shultz does a great job with his cast. Much like Krisha, had any other cast been chosen, I doubt this film would be half as good as it is.

    The film's cast is extremely strong and small enough so that you actually care about these characters which is hard to find in horror. Starring Joel Edgerton, Riley Keough, Chris Abbott, Carmen Ejogo and Kelvin Harrison, Jr., the film is electrified through these actors and you can absolutely tell. The story is paper thin but mysterious enough to keep a mild interest. When you combine that with this cast, you have a decent enough horror film that is slightly above your average Netflix fare.

    Overall, It Comes At Night was a bit of a disappointment considering the hype it has. The final product is muddled and confusing but still well acted nonetheless. Joel Edgerton leads a fine cast that gives us some truly terrifying performances which elevates the very thin plot. If you are a fan of slow burn horror films like last year's The Witch, then you might enjoy this one.
  • What a letdown. I can't say it was a huge letdown because that would imply that I expected it to be great, but it is a let down which means I expected it to be decent.

    The movie starts with a family burying the grandfather who'd succumbed to an illness. Judging by how the family made sure to wear masks to do the job they were afraid of this illness and wanted to take every precaution. This contagion tale focuses solely on this family but then broadens its focus to include another family. It's a strange dynamic because two families are trying to coexist in a post-apocalyptic era in which distrust is far more common than trust.

    That's the setup. Where do they take it from there? I'll answer that. Nowhere. This movie goes no-where. It was a total farce, a total bait and switch. Scary movies in general are pretty lousy (although I keep coming back) but at least most of them have a definite aim, a definite goal. This seemed to be aimless and goal-less. I waited for something to materialize that I could sink my teeth into. Even if it tasted bitter or sour at least it would be something of substance. This movie had no substance just appetizer after appetizer to keep you seated. In the end this movie offered nothing but a grand dead end.
An error has occured. Please try again.