User Reviews (284)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    As someone who works in the mental health field, the first act of this movie excited me. The set up seemed to suggest a film that would attempt to capture the experience of a psychotic individual who finds herself involuntarily committed; to convey the confusion and desperation of such an experience for the patient, and perhaps the callousness of the staff who have become so jaded to such a presentation that they fail to meet the emotional needs of that patient. I felt genuinely uncomfortable through the first 20-30 minutes of the film as this scenario was explored, so much so that it forced me to reflect on my own experiences with psychotic patients and how important it is not to lose that level of empathy regardless of how routine the work may become. Furthermore, I was tantalized by the possibilities of the film in blurring the line between delusion and reality, expecting it to keep me questioning what was real and what wasn't.

    And then the film throws all of that into a wood chipper. And burns the wood chips. Unfortunately, from here I'm really going to have to get into specifics, ie spoilers, so,

    ***SPOILERS***

    First, I just have to mention the numerous inaccuracies here in the depiction of an inpatient psychiatric ward. The physical setup of the facility is quite odd with its communal bedroom shared by all of the patients which is locked every night without any staff member being physically present inside. Even more unlikely is that during the day the patients are allowed to wander around the rest of the facility without seemingly any security. I'll concede that I obviously haven't seen every possible inpatient setting design, but this is quite removed from anything I'm familiar with.

    More problematic though are the way restraints and seclusions are portrayed in the film. Restraints and forced medication can happen if an agitated patient is unable to be calmed by any other measure and is at imminent risk of harm to themselves or others, but patients are never restrained in a communal room and then left alone for extended periods of time, unmonitored by staff, and no less surrounded by other inpatients who are often psychotic and potentially dangerous. Medication injections are also always given in a muscle rather than in a vein as depicted here, and certainly never in a neck vein. Patients placed in a seclusion room are highly monitored and there are extremely strict regulations on how long a seclusion can last. It can not be used punitively and for indefinite periods of time as portrayed here. Opiate addiction on its own is never an indication for an involuntary psychiatric hospitalization and would never be covered by insurance. Staff members would never be able to secretly move patients to remote areas in a facility and hold them hostage there - everything is video monitored and it is standard for every patient to be physically checked on by nursing staff every 15 minutes.

    I could keep going, but I won't. Afterall, this is a movie. Films often can take liberties with reality, though for a film like this that is examining the mental health system and offering commentary on it, the gross inaccuracies are more problematic. Still, I did my best to see these as artistic liberties taken in the service of telling a story, entertaining an audience, and conveying a message. The problem is that the film fails on all of these levels as well.

    I mentioned earlier that I was tantalized at the possibilities that the film set up in blurring the line between delusion and reality, and I was completely let down. There is absolutely no ambiguity here, no intrigue, no possible interpretation where the stalker isn't real. And while that's far less interesting to me, it at least could've worked as an entertaining B-movie. But the plot is so offensively absurd that it crumbles even with the most cursory critical analysis. How did this stalker manage to get a job as a nurse at this facility within 24 hours of our protagonist showing up there? Did he kill the real nurse and pose as him? No - because then the nursing staff obviously would recognize him as an imposter in that case. Furthermore, a co-worker specifically comments that he is one of the most dependable nurses they have which obviously indicates he has some history at the job. So then is it a coincidence that our protagonist chose this facility from her random google search and her stalker just happened to have taken a job there prior? Did I miss some explanation for this? Even if I did, it's just incredibly improbable to the point of pure contrivance.

    And then our stalker is able to kidnap patients, hold them hostage, torture and kill them, all within a secured and staffed facility where patients would be monitored continuously as I previously mentioned. I had to stifle laughter when he explains to the protagonist, whom he is now indefinitely holding hostage in a seclusion room on a seemingly deserted, unstaffed floor of the hospital (which in itself is ludicrous), that the other staff members just "assumed" that she had been discharged and her insurance coverage had expired. A patient cannot be discharged from a hospital like this without clearance and direct orders from a psychiatrist, who then prepares all of the necessary paperwork, prescriptions, referrals to outpatient providers etc. It is a multidisciplinary process that involves the psychiatrist, nurses, and social workers. It's utterly laughable that the film asks you to believe that a patient would just be "assumed" discharged from a facility like these when none of this process had taken place.

    ***END OF SPOILERS***

    Again, I could keep going but I'd be beating a dead horse. Highly disappointed with this film, and sadly it will likely perpetuate so many of the negative stigmas surrounding psychiatric hospitals. It does have some striking visuals here and there, the lead performance is quite good, and I did enjoy the raw quality of the filmmaking, but this is nowhere near enough to make up for its issues. I couldn't even recommend it to someone who has no knowledge of the mental health world as it totally fails as campy B horror/thriller too with its absurd plot and utter failure to capitalize on the potential for intrigue/ambiguity in the setup. Skip it.

    1.5/5
  • With most of Steven Soderberg's movies, he tells stories in a way that makes viewers unsure of what exactly is going on. Unsane is like that. The title indicates that the main character might be insane but also might not be insane.

    Well, it turns out the this movie has an excellent title because that's pretty accurate summation of the movie. A bit longer summation goes like this: the main character might be insane but also might not be insane but some people think she is insane but she makes some erratic choices so she cannot convince everyone that she's not insane but maybe she does that because she actually is insane.

    Sawyer Valentini (a strikingly unhinged Claire Foy) seems normal enough at first glance. She works a steady financial analyst job at a bank. She has a loving relationship with her mother. She goes on Tinder dates. But she's troubled by someone from her past, a man who has been stalking her for the past two years. She has difficulty dealing with the stress, so she turns to medication and therapy to cope.

    In her conversation with a therapist, she casually mentions that she's had suicidal thoughts in the past. The therapist exploits this casual mention and tricks Sawyer into signing a waiver voluntarily committing herself to 24 hours of observation at the clinic.

    Once inside, things become increasingly frustrating for Sawyer and even more so for viewers. She lashes out violently multiple times and ignores the advice of one helpful patient recovering from an opioid addiction, Nate, (Jay Pharoah showing off impressive dramatic acting chops), which subsequently gives the staff reason to extend her stay an additional week. Her inability to control her temper makes viewers wonder if she really does belong there.

    That's as much as I can reveal without introducing spoilers. I can say that movie is a bit of a slow burn early on. Then the action picks up in a big way.

    The story veers in a different direction, which causes some problems because we miss backstory that would have tied the story together in a neater, more affecting way. As it stands, the movie has a lot going on, but no part feels fully developed. Foy's lead performance and Soderberg's filmmaking keeps the film watchable throughout, but ultimately, it all feels a little unsatisfying.
  • There's a part of me that absolutely adores it when a filmmaker goes the experimental route and tries something that's never really been done before.

    And while this isn't the first time this sort of filming technique has been used for a film, I had to say, I was rather intrigued when I was sitting down for "Unsane", the new film by Steve Soderbergh ('Ocean's Eleven', 'Contagion', 'Magic Mike').

    To explain: 'Unsane' was entirely filmed on an iPhone 7 camera in only ten days, which is incredible in that it was made entirely in secrecy by a big name director such as Soderbergh. The budget also barely pokes over $1 million total. By all accounts, this is as INDIE as a big name director can get.

    So you probably will start asking yourself: "How does it look?"

    To me...I think the film would have been LESS interesting if it was filmed in the typical method of high quality digital cameras. I know I always use the term "nightmarish" to describe claustrophobic cinematography in films, but this film looks like a NIGHTMARE. Fluorescent lighting and angles look warped and distorted, as if our characters are living in a German expressionist film, close ups look terrifying as we see every emotional detail of these characters in sketchy quality that only a phone camera could really capture in full. The whole film looks like a fever dream, and unlike 'Tangerine' (The first feature film to be filmed on an iPhone), this film truly has a "reason" to be filmed in this style.

    To me, the experiment Steve Soderbergh tested here WORKED. The cinematography is its own style, and when a film can define itself with that sort of technique, it has certainly succeeded.

    Going hand-in-hand with this great cinematography is the surprising performance by Claire Foy, who is admittingly quite good in her role of a person you have to decide if you think is crazy or not crazy. She does have a few slip-ups where you can hear her British accent come out...but other than that, she is a convincing central character and I bought every emotion coming out of her.

    So it probably sounds like I really enjoyed this film thus far, correct?

    The problem is, I enjoyed the first TWO-THIRDS of this film. After that, I think this film absolutely falls apart and loses everything I thought it had going for it.

    A certain sequence in the film that looks absolutely SPECTACULAR is really the last time I connected with the film before a certain plot detail and twist begins to make itself apparent. As it began to unfold, I thought "There's no way they'd go with something THIS stock and basic..."

    Unfortunately, they do, and by the time the film is running-down its last 15-20 minutes, my intrigue had been sapped and I was left simply to watch a film that was going through the motions. A crime that films can commit is being "Bad", for sure, but a worse crime a film can commit is being "Boring". The third act of this film is guilty of exactly that. It's stock and went exactly as I predicted it would, which truly hurts.

    And let us discuss THE ENDING, which I think may be one of the worst of the last few years, right alongside 'The Devil Inside', 'Skyline' or 'The Florida Project'. The ending is such a sloppy and slapdash piece of cinema that I really wonder WHY they even bothered to shoot it. It's boring, cliche, has yet to really make much sense to me since I saw it (I saw this film on Tuesday, by the way...), it looks TERRIBLE in comparison with the rest of the film, and leaves us on a freeze-frame shot that looked completely unplanned and clearly done as a way to say "Yep! That's the end!". While I could've seen something more developed working in a similar vein, this just felt awful and like a last-ditch effort to end the film in an 'unresolved' manner, which this film never had the course for after its third act. Simply awful.

    In the end, I left this film feeling extremely disappointed, really. I was enjoying the film quite a bit up until a certain point, where everything just seemed to fall into the pits of the cliched and been-there-done-that. Perhaps it was partly my fault for expecting more out of a film that promised a unique look and story about sanity, but in the end, I can blame the film as well for squandering such an incredible opportunity to make an interesting psychological thriller/horror film with such a weak third act. It PAINS ME that this film couldn't be good all the way through.

    ...THAT SAID...I really cannot say enough about the cinematography in this film. Steve Soderbergh's work in this (Yes, he directed AND filmed this!) looks absolutely stellar, even for an iPhone camera, and makes it worth seeing just for curiosity's sake alone. I feel it works far better than it did for 'Tangerine', and clicks with me on a level that it puts you in the perspective of our protagonist, who is struggling with her sanity in a place that is a proverbial nightmare. The film looks like a bad dream, and in the end, that appealed to me on that level of loving to see experimenting in film.

    It's just a shame that the intriguing experimentation meant a sacrifice for an intriguing story and third act. This could have been a far better film than it was. In the end, it lands somewhere in the middle for me...though I REALLY wish it didn't...
  • This review won't state anything someone else hasn't said more eloquently, but by god I have to add my own to the reviews because of my disgust with the decently high rating despite an awful , incomprehensible, and unbelievable plot. The movie starts out well with the viewer uncertain about what is real and what may be a delusion we are seeing from the protagonist's point of view. Then after a very drawn out and tedious key scene, it falls apart, combusts, and you are left with the ashes flying into your face wondering how anyone did or said any of the things they did.
  • While its grammatically-challenged title is just as likely to test your sanity as anything in the film itself (perhaps by design, I'll add), Steven Soderbergh's second return from retirement seeks to 'change the game' and prove that you don't need a proper camera or fancy lighting to make a film, just an iPhone, a decent script, a competent cast and crew and, most importantly, the will, time, money and passion to do it all. Luckily, 'Unsane (2018)' has all that in spades. It could easily pass for something shot on one of those fancy cameras and actually has a tangible and, appropriately, an almost 'followed-around-with-a-camera' stalker vibe to it. It's a wonderfully frustrating, rewardingly claustrophobic and tensely insular experience that sticks you right in the slightly off-kilter head of its protagonist and does a great job of making you feel exactly the way she does at every moment. The pace is almost perfect, as we're dealt a number of blows every time we begin to get comfortable in each new situation, and the slow descent from slightly strange to straight-up sinister is a palpable and uncomfortable one. The fact that the sanity of the hero is called into question is a great move, though it isn't pushed quite as far as it perhaps could have been, and it keeps you unsure about everything you see. The nods back to classic seventies horror, including a soundtrack reminiscent of 'Halloween (1978)', were appreciated as well. I was constantly on the edge of my seat throughout this gripping, agitating, intriguing and generally very entertaining thriller. 8/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Shot on iPhone, I had no idea. Acting, I felt was good. Believable truth about insurance. Being involved in those situations. I can confirm. Once your insurance runs out, BAM, you're cured, and let out. As for the stalker, stupid addition. Yet without it, the movie wouldn't be as good. He had no involvement in her commitment. And he happens to be the pharmacist at the psych ward? Not fired after dispensing a bad cocktail. ( And her for even taking anything her would give her. Didn't even count how many pills?) Video cameras being shut off for long periods of time. A patient gone missing all day and no one noticed? Even shoving a cell phone with a picture of a bloodied missing patient didn't raise any questions. I could go on and on. Couldn't they just spend a little more time fixing the story to be more believable? Again, not a bad movie. Just tired of watching movies that start of being realistic and believable to let's just rush this out the door and get paid. C'mon guys, take the extra step.
  • A woman is involuntarily sent to a hostile psychiatric ward after admitting suicidal thoughts over a lengthy stalking ordeal, only to (maybe?) see him in the hospital.

    The unique selling point of Unsane, widely known by those who've at least heard of it, is that it was entirely shot on an iPhone. Directed by Steven Soderbergh (of Erin Brockovich, Ocean's 11/ 12 & 13, Magic Mike and Logan Lucky fame), Unsane was brought to theatres for a paltry $1.2m budget and makes an impact with every buck.

    It follows the trials of an innocent women (played brilliantly by Claire Foy, the best thing in a great film) held against her will in a psychological ward after admitting suicidal thoughts following a prolonged stalking incident, only to find that her creepy admirer may (or may not) have got himself a job in the hospital to be with her. Her ordeal escalates as she tries to convince the nurses and senior hospital staff that she's not safe only to be constantly ignored or disproven with bureaucracy and paperwork. It's infuriating and the most stressed I've been in a cinema in years, but it's brilliant.

    The slow, haunting and unnerving music is reminiscent of The Shining, and the setting - a series of small clinical rooms along a series of long, narrow and repetitive corridors - stifles and disorientates the audience. Meanwhile, the camera's tight aspect ratio and muted colour scheme enhances the claustrophobia. All of this, alongside the frustrating bonds of signatures and consent forms (as well as her often-applied physical manacles) lays the building blocks of a tense thriller which kind of loses its way in the final 15 minutes before bringing it back for a satisfying ending.

    It speaks greatly and powerfully to the abuse of authority and trust among strangers, the unaccountability of big business and the real-life dangers of gaslighting - an underhanded form of mental abuse in which someone is psychologically manipulated into doubting their own beliefs, memory or sanity. If, like me, you get triggered by stories of false imprisonment, then by watching Unsane you're in real danger of giving yourself an aneurism ... but you'll still get a thrill out of it all the same.

    Best Quote: "Your life slips away from you, you know? Changing your phone number and your email becomes normal. Taking out a restraining order, normal. Relocating to another city, normal."
  • whatever-4406128 October 2018
    Stupid plot with very unbelievable situation, seems like a child made /wrote this movie , horrible
  • As a slightly jaded horror movie buff, I only watched this because of the Steven Soderbergh tag, hoping for something new and different from a high profile director. Safe to say, will never watch a movie again just for the Steven Soderberg tag. It tries too hard and frankly gets nowhere. Basically someone who looks like the chick from Twilight is being stalked by a skinny version of John Goodman and for the whole movie we are made to cringe at how dumb they made all the other characters in order for the plot to proceed. One of those movies where everyone has single digit IQs so the killer can conveniently do his thing, no matter how unlikely it would be in the real world. No big surprises, scares, twists, intrigue etc...just a paint by numbers affair where we're supposed to marvel at the iPhone camera gimmickry.
  • Once you get over terrible, amateur camera work (why they filmed it on a phone is beyond me), you're left hoping for a psychological thriller (you might expect that as it's based in a mental institution) with a few twists and turns.

    But nope, it's just an angry woman stuck in some sort of ward where patients seemingly do whatever they want with hardly any staff around.

    Lot's of stupid incidents where even as a non-medical person seemed ludicrous.

    Supposedly a horror / thriller, yet wasn't scary and too stupid in places to make a tense atmosphere.

    Mainly though, this film should set future examples of why NOT TO USE A PHONE TO FILM A MOVIE - cause it looks crap.
  • I really didn't know what to expect from Unsane. It was being talked about by everyone at the Berlinale film festival as 'the iPhone film', but as this was Steven Soderbergh - needless to say I was incredibly intrigued and knew there must be more to it than the fact it was shot on an iPhone.

    The press conference was fascinating. In short the benefits of shooting on an iPhone greatly outweighed the few cons according to Soderbergh. He used the iPhone app FiLMiC Pro to shoot Unsane, as this allowed him complete manual control over the shot on par with high end cinema cameras (manual focus, exposure, white balance, LOG etc). For hard to reach shots where he couldn't see the screen - he used an app called FiLMiC Remote to wirelessly control his iPhone from another device on set. He described the process as liberating and wished he had access to this technology when he was starting out at age 15. He described the space between creative impulse and technical execution as being almost non-existent thanks to the iPhone.

    The actors commented on how much they loved moving so quickly and not having the 'filmmaking machine' slow things down on set, allowing them to remain in character and creative.

    Well now for the actual film... in short it was INCREDIBLE. After the first 2 minutes you completely forget it was shot on an iPhone. If you went into the theatre unaware of the fact it was shot on a smartphone you wouldn't even know. People need to stop calling this 'the iPhone film'. It is a great film that looks beautiful (in a dark and grungy way perfect for the story) that happens to be shot on an iPhone. Exciting times for new filmmakers just starting out for sure.

    Claire Foy is just incredible and gives a raw performance that doesn't let up. I was never a huge fan of hers before - but am now (going to give The Crown another go).

    There is a real sense of panic and claustrophobia thanks to the use of wide lenses and close proximity to the actors that probably is in large part due to the fact it was shot on a smartphone. You really feel like you are thrust into the very middle of this nightmare - so kudos to Soderbergh for that.

    I've seen some reviews that called Unsane 'silly' - but I think some critics want it to be something it isn't. This is genre filmmaking at its very best - and blast to watch and a reminder that Soderbergh is a master of his trade and can effortlessly move between genres.

    Go watch it with a group of friends. Don't let the fact that it was shot on iPhone put you off - you won't notice once you're sucked in, and you'll be inspired to know you can create a filmic masterpiece with what is in your pocket. This is one of my favourite Soderbergh films - and my fav of the Berlinale.
  • This movie's plot could've had some serious potential, but somehow the writers went the worst possible direction with it. It goes from strong psychotic doubt(which is a very interesting) for about 5 minutes, then quickly deteriorated to a cringey, predictable, slow-paced sh*tshow.
  • If something seems off about what's happening in the film, it's because the film's premise is completely flawed.
    • While it is true that you can voluntarily commit yourself to a mental institute, you are free to leave at any time. The only time that you would be prevented from leaving is if you were given a Mental Health Act assessment. In this case, three professionals (at least two doctors) would all need to agree that you are "suffering from a mental disorder of a nature or degree which warrants your detention in a hospital for assessment or treatment and that you ought to be detained in the interests of your own health, your own safety or with a view to the protection of others". A person would only be detained in a hospital as a last resort. They don't just do these assessments spontaneously and they only do them if they've known the patient long enough to warrant an assessment like this (so they wouldn't do it after 24 hours unless you tried to kill someone or yourself).
    • Therapy sessions of any kind would typically, if at all, never take place where patients are being treated. The doctors there are for the patients only.
    • Usually, an assessment must be supported by a "specialist social worker or nearest relative", otherwise it doesn't hold as much weight. One doctor alone could detain you for 72 hours in an emergency situation though.
    • If the police receive a call, even if they believe it to be fake or from a "crazy person", they need to investigate. Also, I doubt that an actual facility would even have phones out in the open like that.
    • The woman doesn't seem stupid so it doesn't make sense that she would sign a document without at least looking at the title of it.
    • They wouldn't take your clothes away and make you wear a gown if you voluntarily committed yourself.
    • Even if the doctors in the facility were crooked or evil and were keeping the woman there when they knew she was fine, it would only take a few calls from an employee working there (even a receptionist or janitor) to get outside help. A tribunal can be called to overrule the detainment.
    • The reason you don't hear about sane people getting locked up too often is because it is of no benefit to anyone; if a sane person is sectioned, they must be provided a room, food, and medicine, all of which costs money. Plus, if it was found out that the doctors at the facility were sectioning people who were of no harm to anyone or themselves, they would be in a lot of trouble. At the very least, they would lose respect and reputation in the medical community and would probably struggle to find a medical job.
    All of these problems can be seen in the trailer. That's pretty bad.
  • This movie will trick you, I will say that for it. For much of its run time, you'll be convinced that it must be heading somewhere profound and "shocking".

    But nope. It goes absolutely nowhere. It begins a confused, impossible to grasp mess, and ends a confused, impossible to grasp mess.

    I tend to enjoy bizarre films that involve plots, themes, and circumstances that require the viewer to decipher. But this is NOT that type of film, though it tries desperately to be. But remove the "experimental" low budget gimmick, and this film is just hollow and dumb.

    It tries to pass itself off as "deep" or something by just being weird for the sake of weird. Just because a work makes no sense doesn't mean that there's some secret, deeper meaning to it. There's none to be found here.

    It's just a completely moronic exercise in self-indulgence by a director who perhaps has gone too far up his own butt. Sorry.
  • Once again, a movie where the best bits seem to have been used up in the trailer. Unsane is quite a difficult movie to review (and watch) - a case of 'is she or isn't she', with an almost constant feeling of 'where's all this going to..... and perhaps more importantly - why'? It's one of those 'what have we just watched' type of movies, and one which may leave you more confused than you thought was humanly possible by the end of it.

    It could have been a pretty good show if it wasn't for the story-line, plot holes and mistakes; and while I commend the approach taken to film on an iPhone, for me it didn't work. Direction seemed out of place in several scenes, and nothing ever really seemed to flow along.

    All-in-all, I'm afraid I would give Unsane a miss - I just didn't get any of it.

    3/10
  • This is without a doubt the worst movie I have ever sat through. The whole audience was cringing at how bizarre the movie was and how many plot holes were throughout the entirety. At the conclusion, comments were made by the entire audience wanting their time and money back. Everyone was laughing and could not believe how awful this was. I have never written a review before but wanted to for this because I don't want someone to waste their time. I'm still shaking my head at how bad the movie was.
  • I expected this movie to be edgy and interesting; it was neither. The acting was amateurish and the plot was heavy-handed. It was supposed to be psychological thriller in which we are to figure out whether or not the protagonist is insane, but instead we are driven crazy by randomness of the plot. Too many characters are introduced that muddle the focus of the film, and zero get any sort of character development. Not even the main character shows any sort of arc or growth. Was expecting a Shelter Island-esque film--instead I got a movie filmed on an iPhone that seems to have been written by my fourteen year old son.
  • I'd like to start this comment by saying I have literally never left a comment on an article before but after seeing this joke of a movie, I'm going to be leaving a lot. To say in any way that this film addresses "mental health" is laughable. I have never seen such an inaccurate portrayal of the mental health system. It was painfully clear that no one involved in its creation did any research other than a basic google search for the buzzwords around mental illness: involuntary hospitalization, lithium, risperdal, etc. My entire job revolves around crisis counseling (aka suicide prevention) and giving people information on mental health services. The majority of people I speak to daily express that type of passive suicidal ideation, and I literally do referrals and explain the process of being involuntarily committed. There is absolutely no way a mental health professional would have thought she needed to be hospitalized. There is no way a mental health professional would trick a client/patient into agreeing to a hospitalization by lying to them. There is no way that any mental facility would just put all of their patients into a room by themselves to sleep at night. Everything about this movie was completely inaccurate, including the ways her stalker reacted when he found her. It makes me nauseous to think about how many people may see this movie and be even more hesitant to get mental health treatment for fear of being hospitalized. I'm amazed and disgusted that people saw the plot of this movie and thought it sounded like a good idea, and more disgusted that they didn't think to ask mental health professionals for their input. Even ignoring all of those issues, the movie itself just wasn't good and you'd be better off seeing literally anything else, including paint dry.
  • I usually don't feel compelled enough to write a review. I had high hopes for this movie, as it had pretty solid review scores and an interesting trailer. I was anticipating something that had never been done and an original storyline. What this was, however, was a pretty cliche stalker movie with plot holes galore. In order to avoid making this a book and giving spoilers away, I won't go into much detail. A lot of the plot lines should've been followed up more. More background should've proceeded with the ending the writers gave. If the writers had went with the whole "is she the crazy one" storyline, this story, along with a different ending, would've been more satisfying. The ending disappointed me most because it wasn't original and ruined the originality of the movie. I disagree with those people screaming about the legitimacy of it; it's fiction. It's not real. No one with half a brain watched that and thought, "Oh, this is an accurate depiction of the current mental health system." Those arguments are senseless, null and void. There's a ton wrong with the movie aside from this.
  • This movie features one of "those" protagonists that are annoying, incompetent and keep doing the wrong thing every time. She made me cringe all through the movie for doing everything wrong.

    Most of the supporting cast is also rather abysmal with very few being tolerable (mostly because they have little screentime)

    The plot is another part to get angry about. It makes no sense! "the room" or any episode of "Teletubbies" is philosophically deeper and more complex than this one.

    To sum it up .. i disliked the plot, i hated the acting and i found the camera and overall cinematography quite revolting.
  • First I'm a fan of director Soderberg. I'm a huge fan of Claire Foy (The Crown) but this movie is infantile in the worst way and every way. It's like one of these "I wrote this in high school and have been trying to make it a film ever since." Listed as a Thriller, Horror film this is a hint that it is one some of the time and the other at other times separated by childress views of the world. Maybe his arm was tired from holding the iPhone so he left pieces out. Too many plot holes to list. This movie is as close to completely unwatchable as possible. One star for attempting something different. Now back to the drawing board.
  • Just returned from watching this. Found it totally absorbing. I found the format drew me in, making the viewing very claustrophobic. Some viewers have complained of a lack of realism, both in the premise of the film and the use of an iPhone, but its escapism people. Switch off your inner critic and enjoy the ride.
  • Steven Soderbergh is back with a film that is shot with an iPhone camera. But it totally suited the atmosphere of the film and actually was able to show the characters closer and without any effects to make them better than they are.. it allows a much deeper look into their souls. Claire Foy is brilliant. She totally plays the opposite character to her "The Crown" role. And she could not have been any better. Raw. Honest. Just great. Now I am really looking forward to her turn as "Lisbeth Salander". She plays a woman that seemingly is wrongly put into a mental hospital. Steven Soderberghs nicely plays with the audience and permanently asks the question is she rightly there or indeed insane? Its a stalking drama that turns into a mystery thriller until it reaches its point as a horror film. Three genres Soderbergh perfectly mixes. Next to Foy shine Amy Irvine and Joshua Leonard. With good support by Juno Temple and Jay Pharoa. The film is simply shot but still feels like a typical cinematic film. It has a great score and very good editing. The only problem was the screenplay, while generally good and inspired, it had a few too many holes that prevented the film from being a real masterpiece. But its good and I am already looking forward to see it again. Oh and watch out for a great surprise cameo of one of Soderbergh's regulars!
  • Tense and gripping psychological thriller.

    The story of a woman (Claire Foy) who moves to a new state to rebuild her life after some traumatic stalking events. She still has some lingering feelings of insecurity so goes for counselling, this results in a short stay at a mental health clinic for observation. She wants to be released but is unable to, the clinic is running an insurance scam.

    While there she recognises one of the ward assistants is the stalker, we gradually believe he is her stalker who has taken up a job as a ward assistant. Basically he's up to his old tricks again, his aim is to live with his infatuation in the woods forever.

    All filmed in iPhone 7, to give a claustrophobic, personal diary feeling, which works to a point but also suffers some image quality for it.

    There is a satisfying ending.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Unsane came out on Friday to some mixed reviews from critics and audiences all over the world and finally after lots of digging for cash, I finally got to see this anticapated film! The film follows a young woman, played by Claire Foy who is institutionalized into a sanatariom after she fills out a few therapy papers and soon enough she then finds out to make it worse that her mad stalker is now a member of staff and out to take her away so she can become his own. I was so excited to see Unsane because I loved the idea and it's awesome trailer and what did I think; weeeeell, apart from a few small differences then to what I expected, it was a awesome horror film. The acting was superb and it was very clever and very intense. Clare Foy was amazing as Valentino and so was Joshua (i forget his second name, but he played the stalker) and so was Juno Temple and of course! Amy Irving?! I mean what the hell, Amy Irving, I thought she retired like years ago so it was fun to see her again cause I never knew she was going to be in it and she was also great. Unsane is a clever, intense and very atmospheric movie with great acting that keeps it fresh!
An error has occured. Please try again.