Tim Granite
The review by VideEmbolism for this was totally accurate. If you can watch an hour of film and all you missed was the disappearance of the main character's dog, what else is there to say? Let's see the description: ENTRANCE is about the limits of our perception, how the things lurking on the periphery of our lives can lead to horrific conclusions; about how she fell out of love with the city, but it wouldn't let her go.Beyond a shadow of a doubt this description was the best piece of writing from anyone connected to this movie. I have no idea how anyone invested in it. I saw the main actress was an executive producer and thought she could have paid some film students or ONE writer for something more. Maybe it's an artistic film that has an eerie or creepy setting? Nope. I read Stephen King gave this positive reviews. Perhaps he was multi-tasking and writing at the same time. Talk about a guy that can't get his own to film adaptations to work despite being the best-selling author. Perhaps cinematography? Camera angles light? A good soundtrack? No. No. No.I gave it one star for ending. Even the dog actor apparently quit about halfway through the making. It's awful with virtually no redeeming qualities.
VideoEmbolism
There are fans of film out there who think anything slow and boring must be deep, meaningful and intelligent. To be fair, there are a lot of films that are slow, meaningful and intelligent but have so much going on underneath the surface that it is like you are secretly seeing the most exciting action movie taking place in a way you can't describe and being able to read and feel what is happening even though everything appears to be still or uneventful makes it even more exhilarating.ENTRANCE is not one of those movies.This film is just slow and boring. It wants to convince you it is one of those deliberately slow films that has a lot going on underneath what appears not to be happening but it doesn't. It is made for fans who are just too stupid to know the difference between subtle and subliminal versus plodding and meaningless and thus settle for anything that is slow and boring because it makes them feel smart, sensitive and privy to details most other people would miss. Yes this movie is that bad. To think there are people out there lame and stupid enough to call this movie a terrific "slow burn" piece of cinema is a phenomena in itself. I don't even want to imagine the kind of boring f***ing lives those who find this type of cinema entertaining must lead. It just shows how depressingly and pathetically low standards have become to have generated the kind of lead-minded audience that would champion this drudgery just because it is as ordinary and unremarkable as they are. Well, that's the Microsoft age for you. There is nothing innovative, striking, remarkable or subtle about it. It is just pretentious stupidity drawn out to an intolerable length by the unoriginality and lack of creativity of it's makers. The movie follows the life of one of the most hollow-eyed, blank-faced, vacuous idiot women you'll ever meet as she goes about her daily routine, getting her hair cut, taking care of her dog, walking around and generally doing nothing of any importance or interest. Unfortunately, she is probably typical of most women nowadays - pretty, uninteresting, unassuming and completely self-absorbed in a mentally vacuum-sealed delusion of self-importance - but the filmmakers don't bother with offering any insight or commentary into this weak-mined shell of a narrative and seem completely unaware of this all the while performing an amateurish sleight-of-hand by trying to pass their lack of style and substance off as clinical objectivity in the hopes that the audience will do all the work for them by creating subtext out of something that just isn't there. During this mind-numbing character study the woman starts to notice supposedly strange things, which I suppose are supposed to be disturbing and unsettling by the way she overreacts (and overacts) to them, like strange noises in her apartment, men looking at her on the street, a car momentarily following her, but these instances are steeped so heavily in such random banality that they could happen, and probably have happened, to anyone without any sort of threatening context and if they are meant to be foreshadowing for something more terrible to come are as lame, limp and unpromising as the advances of a chemically castrated sex-addict in a whorehouse. All this stringent boredom interrupted by dramatic farts of pseudo-ominous occurrences eventually lead to what is supposed to be, I'm assuming, the grand finale which is nothing short of being absolutely predictable and stunningly uninspired and which you have seen a hundred times before done way better. It is actually a relief when the absence of plot and story finally climaxes, not for the sake of alleviating any suspense or intensity that has built up, there is none, but for the reassuring knowledge that this truly failed attempt at subliminal cinema is finally over, like somebody with nerve damage, who in desperately trying to achieve an orgasm masturbates until they have chafed themselves down to raw tissue and blood, without noticing, only to finally recoil defensively in a realization of simultaneous disgust and agony long after you've grown bored and desensitized watching it happen. Yes, this movie is that bad. What's worse is that Stephen King apparently blogged a review about it for free in order to comment about how great it is. No wonder that guy's writing has sucked for the last twenty-five years. He's written himself into a state of mumbling infantile literary dormancy and there is no greater proof of that, besides his current work, than his advocacy of this waste of time. Not to mention the other dozen or so positive reviews by fans and so-called professional critics alike on IMDb - they are all untrue and inaccurate. If you really want to see subtle horror, anxiety-producing subtext, and fairly uniquely detailed character studies you can watch THE PACT (2012), OCCUPANT (2011), STILL OF THE NIGHT (1982), THE AWAKENING (2011), MAGIC MAGIC (2013), THE TENANT (1976), THE BEGUILED (1971), or THE COLLECTOR (1965). All these movies are awesome and the complete antithesis of whatever ENTRANCE is. And to think the same witless hacks who managed to get this garbage made are making the sequel to one of the best new psychological horror movies recently released - THE PACT(2012). It's an insult, a shame but not surprising. They may not be able to make a good movie but they must be giving great head to the ($)right($) people. I guess that's what you get when you live in a world dominated by conformity and career whores. And now you know what ENTRANCE is really about and really like. For people whose lives are dull enough to induce comas and mental retardation in others - enjoy! For all others I've made the movie sound way more interesting than it actually is by just telling you how much it sucked. The f***ing idiots who made it should be paying me.
Trebronus H
What a time waster......and I actually sat through the whole thing. Shame on me. I can't believe that this film actually made it to production. The plot was terrible, the acting horrific and there was really no proper storyline. I am the first person to embrace independent works of art but this never captivated me at any time during the entire work, The ending was neither here nor there leaving the viewers with an unsettling feeling as to "what is the purpose of all this?". This movie exudes that empty feeling that one gets when they watch the season finale of a series on TV with the exception that they don't really care one way or the other.
horrorshowmovie
I can't talk about this movie without talking about Ti West. He's a current, indie horror director who does "slow-burn" movies. He creates real, normal characters. He shows us their lives, but with a little menace in the background, almost imperceptible. Then there's a huge pay-off, which brings the movie to an end. Out of all his movies, "Trigger Man" best exemplifies this. "Entrance" takes this formula, and does it at least as well as Ti West. Build-up, character development, minutiae. Then it hits you at the end.Like "Trigger Man," half the comments on IMDb/netflix are from people who hated the movie. These people have no taste. They're dumb. Ignore them."Entrance" is insanely good.
