Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Syl With a cast like Michael Muhney, Michael Madsen, Jenna Zablocki, and Stacy Keach, I would have expected a better film. The director Serge Rodunsky was also writer and producer as well. The film tries to be scary but fails. The audience never knows what's really going on in the film. Jenna Zablocki and Michael Muhney play medical examiners in Los Angeles, California. They stumble upon a mystery including a blacked out portrait but we never know the truth or the cause. The audience has to figure the plot out. In reality, this film could be shown as what not to do in film making. The director seems more interested in making the audience be shocked by the amount of blood and gore on screen. After a couple times, the audience isn't shocked anymore. They should be laughing. We never know the truth. Maybe the director expects the audience to figure it out but I don't want too nor I should have too.

Jel Jones This movie is worth spending an hour and a half to watch. Don't let the title and the horror category hinder. It almost hindered me, but I watched to catch Michael Muhney in the film. However, I didn't see him in the movie, I'm still glad I viewed it. The storyline was quite unique. In a nutshell without giving away any of the plot, it spells mystery, anonymity, vagueness, ambiguity and secrecy, but it pulls you right in from the beginning surrounded by fog and that uncertainty aspect. The acting is good and believable, especially the three lead actors; and the sets are believable. However, I didn't like the unclear details about the leader mission. I enjoyed so much, I plan to rent it and watch it on my big screen TV.

Jasper Widget *sigh* I picked up this movie on the cheap because all the Blockbuster stores are closing in my area and they were clearing out their inventory. Of the many selections I picked out this DVD was one of the few that looked like it was in good enough condition to actually play in my DVD player. After seeing this film I'm now convinced that the reason for it's good condition is that I'm probably the only person who actually watched it all the way through.This movie is bad. What makes it bad? Let's start with the acting. It's not horrifically bad, but almost everyone's delivery is just sort of...off. People's reactions to many events aren't believable. I got the impression that most of the actors only read the script once...in the dark.The bad acting could be a symptom, though, of the bad writing. The movie jumps from one scene to the next without really explaining enough of what's going on. It's like being told jokes from someone who is drunk, sleep-deprived and forgets the punchlines. It is really a bad sign when you get more information about a movie from the DVD cover then you do by actually watching it.The movie's near-constant playing of suspenseful music gets distracting, but fortunately it plays so much that you might be able to sort of ignore it after a while. That's sort of the opposite effect you want your suspenseful music to have, isn't it? This movie does have some fairly big names in it (Michael Madsen, Roddy Piper, Stacy Keach), but in a movie this bad it just sort of makes you wonder if they did this movie on a dare.By the end of this movie I had gone from not knowing what was going on, to not caring what was going on and just wanting it to end. When it did, finally end I found myself sitting on my couch, drinking warm root beer and saying "...to what? Portal to what?" over and over again for about five minutes. Writing this review is basically therapy for yours truly.In short...bad movie.

ameliaj247 The premise is good but the rendering is awful, it truly is the only descriptive for this movie and be sure that I am reviewing the correct movie, I waited 2 years to see this film expecting great things only to be severely disappointed. I have also seen Portal (2008) and if I had to judge, I would say that Portal (2008) was the better movie!This movie starts badly, the middle is awful and the ending is totally dreadful, I do not recommend it at all, I did not pay a great deal for the DVD but I still feel conned simply because so much fuss was made over this movie and I waited so long to see it.I think the director must have been aiming for an 'arty' style but he has failed abysmally, there is no such thing as a good 'arty' horror movie, it just does not work (for me at least), the film does not flow, it felt like a bad Hammer Horror from the 80s and gave me a headache.I have never been happy with shows or movies where the characters all look alike and this movie has too many female characters who look alike and the male characters are almost as bad. The film opens with April in her ME persona but then we are shown a scene where a woman is chatting with a man to whom she appears to be engaged (Nicholas Brendan who barely features in the film at all) and he seems to be involved in some horrible accident, then we have a scene with Valerie, who is mourning a dead boyfriend/fiancé and she looks so like April that I became confused as to who was in the 2nd scene, this only got worse throughout the movie. It became apparent later in the film that it was actually April who was engaged to the Brendan character but by this time I really didn't care.The scenes are chaotic and do not flow as they should, the story is all over the place and makes no sense. Who was the weird guy who painted the 'Portal' painting? Who were the men peering through the bars at him? I got the impression that one of them was Dr Azirra (when he was younger) but this was never confirmed. What is all this rubbish about the 'Inner Child' ? I know for certain that my inner child is not so pi**ed at me that she would kill me, I find it hard to believe that we all have to fear our inner child. Also, why the exploding heads? WTF is that? I got the impression that the exploding heads and other bloody issues (haemorrhagic issues) were simply for the gore factor.Overall I found this movie a mega fail and am still spinning in confusion over what the director was trying to achieve.Is it possible that he was just trying to confuse and disturb us as much as the 'black painting' confused and disturbed the characters? Maybe, but whatever the answer, I would suggest that you rent this film not buy it. It is certainly not a 'keeper' :-/