FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Rodrigo Amaro A writer (Brittany Murphy) in crisis, trying to develop her new work, goes into an vacant house to stay way from everything, but she enters into a new and dangerous crisis when frightening events start to happen in this place. That place was where her friend (Thora Birch) was murdered by a suspicious and paranoid boyfriend (Marc Blucas), and their moments together, from the good days until the shocking crime were filmed by the killer, and while alone in this place those tapes are the only thing she watches when she's not being terrified by strange visions.Ridiculous, messy and boring, "Deadline" is not scary, is not interesting, it's nothing but a dull thing that follows the main character alone in this house suffering with what she sees. Most of the time there's only silence and dark images on the screen and there's no way one can enjoy or learn anything from here. You sit there and you're mind is elsewhere thinking of anything but the movie in front of you. But hey, the surprises at the ending were a little bit good but they didn't help the movie in any way.Lousy script, poor direction and a good cast that goes impressively bad. That's what "Deadline" is all about. What a waste of time! So, if you have a real deadline to deliver something but you got hooked with this film because of the stars in it, please avoid this garbage and stick to your original projects. You'll feel better later. 2/10

lathe-of-heaven First off, if really slow, atmospheric films that don't have a lot of action bore you, then this movie is NOT for you! Period. All you have to do is see the review here titled 'Snoozer, with a Stupid Ending' Point proved (well, at least if not actually 'proven', strongly suggested : ) Here is the deal; IF you are indeed going to make one of these really slow, moody films that on the surface come across as super simple, then you HAVE to do them well or forget it. The movie was beautifully photographed, VERY well paced for the material, and the acting was excellent. Do you realize how MANY frigg'n ways there are to screw something like this up? A lot! So, I honestly felt that it was put together quite nicely.Now, without spoiling anything, I just wanna say that something that I really appreciated about this film is that this 'kind' of movie (which you will understand, sort of, at the end) USUALLY is very heavy handed with the 'reveal' in the sense that they usually make it blindingly obvious. However, what I like about this one is that at the end, yes, something is strongly suggested, BUT still, things are left to be interpreted in a number of different ways (as clearly seen in some of the discussion comments below which you should absolutely NOT read before seeing the movie!) So, basically like I said, IF you like this kind of very slow, moody film where there is a very good atmosphere that builds gradually and creates a good mystery, and you don't necessarily NEED a lot of action or explanation, THEN yes, you should enjoy this movie...This film simply isn't for everyone. For example, I'm quite sure that there are MANY people who absolutely LOVE the 'SAW' or 'HOSTEL' films; quite the polar opposite of this film to be sure. So, in that case I wouldn't feel right reviewing those films because that is just NOT my type of film at all. (However, the makers of 'SAW' went on to make a couple of excellent Horror films, where people are NOT tortured or forced to do awful things, that I totally loved! ['DEAD SILENCE' & 'INSIDIOUS']) I think it is the same with this one... Likely, MOST of the people who have seen this movie and then come here and say 'Gee, that was REALLY stupid and boring' would fall into the same category: that it just isn't THEIR type of film, that's all.The movie isn't WILDLY fantastic or anything, just solidly well made; as a matter of fact, it really reminds me of another VERY similar film that I saw not long ago (I can't remember the title right off) But it was WAAAAAAAY more subtle than this one! It was similar where a woman (seemed like it was a REALLY well known actress too, perhaps Marisa Tomei, someone like that...) was staying in a remote house. And you just keep seeing this guy standing there in the room with her but she doesn't see him; there are LONG periods without ANY dialog at all. It just about ALL is based on mood and atmosphere. It was great too, but perhaps much more 'artistic' in it's approach and a bit more complex and layered in it's story than this one. This one here I would say was more directly psychological...But, there is one thing I can promise you...This movie is indeed much, MUCH better than it's current 4.x rating...

idragosani I enjoyed this movie quite a bit, I am surprised to say. I read some of the reviews here before watching it and wonder if we even watched the same movie. The movie had an extremely low budget (less then $2M), which is fine, you don't need a huge cast and expensive visual effects and the entire London Symphony Orchestra playing the score to make an enjoyable film. I'd like to see more of these kinds of films.I thought the Lousiana location lent a nice southern Gothic edge to the film. The house was beautiful and terrifying at the same time (I used to live in an old house like that, seriously, they are scary at night, when you are alone in the house, and the moonlight is shining through a circular window over the staircase...)The film kept me on the edge to the end. And the end... well, I won't talk about it, I had several theories as to what might be going on (as we all do when watching a suspense film) but the end still surprised me a little bit. Still, it made me think. It wasn't cheesy or tacked on.I thought Brittany Murphy was gorgeous in this film, as the sense of dread and terror slowly built up. Thora Birch was under-utilized and I wish her character had been developed a little more.No, this movie wasn't as creepy or terrifying as, say The Ring/Ringu, it had no blood or nudity or very little cussing. So maybe that's why so many people rated it so low. I liked it.

napierslogs "Deadline" is a very creepy film in many ways. The late Brittany Murphy looks like death, at least partly on purpose as her character, Alice, is very sickly but this is no way to remember her. It was literally like watching a diseased ghost, and that realism was too much for me.A writer in a remote house with psychological problems hears and sees strange disturbances but is it all in her head or is somebody, or something, trying to kill her? The story has been done many times before, and this wasn't a particularly good rendition of it. That's the main reason why the IMDb rating is so low. The filmmakers even seemed to get confused with the ending. They gave us a resolution but they hadn't quite worked out all the details.The film itself though, was very well shot. They set-up a creepy atmosphere from the very beginning and never let up. Subtle camera work kept up the same suspense level throughout. This film was made on a low-budget and they made it well.Recommending this is tricky. I was faithfully terrified - not so much because of the storyline but because of what I was watching. Brittany Murphy was so pallid and anemic, it was scary. And the atmosphere and slow moving camera shots were done so efficiently well, significantly better than most horror-thrillers that I have seen. If you want to be scared from a well-told story, you won't find that here. If you want to be scared from the realism, then you just might want to take a look. If I knew what I was getting myself into, I wouldn't have watched it. And yet, at the same time, I'm glad that I did - I like seeing low-budget independent films made well.