Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Crappy film

Absolutely Brilliant!

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Even the hint of style was 'crap' style: you soon get sick of shampoo-advert beautiful young people characters with skin deep characterisation (at least I do, maybe I'm just 'old' at 44). The supposed creepiness/horror does not deliver: minimal gore, no real sense of menace despite building the house up into something that is obviously 'supposed' to be creepy. Compare this to 'Hell House', the old hammer movie with Roddy MacDowell - utterly no contest! Soon you realise that NOTHING about this movie is going to deliver. I doubt whether even the two leads (who are obviously set up to fancy each other) even get round to a good f. to alleviate the pussyfooting boredom.The end of for me came and half an hour, when the 'heroine' comes across a bloodied corpse hanging upside down. There's a brief flurry of panic where she dashes outside to alert some police who happened to be passing by. despite being believed by no-one, she soon recovers when offered a drink by square-jawed unshaven hero. WTF?? No sane person would want to stay on in that house, and would be shaken up for ages. All credibility lost. Goodbye.No idea what happened after that, and I totally don't care.PS: Ha! Having read all the other reviews now, I see I was right: would have been a total waste of time to stay with it to the end: this movie does not deliver on ANY level. I was even right about predicting that the obvious sex with the 'hero' would not develop into at least a good adult scene to relieve the boredom: you get cheated even on this.All pathetic. Give it a miss.

A variation on "Groundhog Day", with the difference that everyone except the main character knows they're existing in a loop. The movie is set up in a fairly interesting way, but establishing an interesting set-up is always the much easier part. The harder part is RESOLVING it - at least in a logical way. Apparently, the lazy writers couldn't find a neat enough way out of their writer's block so they left the ending open.About as wide open as a prostitute's t**t. Basically, the viewer is free to interpret the movie in a wide variety of ways. In other words, there is no explanation given, not enough clues are offered for any viewer to present a strong case for their favourite theory, hence the movie has no real meaning. It's a tried-and-true confidence trick that's been used in films for decades. Stuck with no ending to a complex, bizarre plot? Just end the movie without explanation, and hope that enough people will be too embarrassed to admit that they don't understand it so they come up with various semi-baloney theories to save face, and that way pretend as if they both understood and enjoyed the film. The inferiority complex related to the viewer's own intellectual (in)abilities has been a great friend and ally to the more pretentious (i.e. lazy and incompetent charlatan film-makers). What would they do without it.As far as the enjoyment factor goes, it's by no means a terrible movie. It isn't dull, for one thing. Secondly, movies with an interesting set-up but no conclusion are at least fun to watch before they implode at the end. That's better than nothing. And it's certainly better than the opposite: a boring movie that explodes at the end, like "The Village" with its excellent ending for which the viewer unfortunately had to sit through 100 minutes of tedium and awful acting by a nepotistic cast of anti-talents. I'd rather have fun for 90 minutes and then be disappointed at the end – given a choice between the two extremes.To anyone who is desperately trying to take this movie more seriously than it truly deserves, consider this: the early lesbian scene. There was absolutely no point to it, except to titillate the more desperate viewers. It had exactly zero to do with the story. Consider also the amazingly overlong intro which includes Jessica singing along to the ENTIRE damn song. So was this movie just a means to promote a hit-single wannabe? That song is awful, it's annoying, and we didn't have to be exposed to each and every of its 45 crappy choruses.Jessica had expressed a desire to repeat the drowning event with her younger brother, i.e. have another go in which she'd save him. So why didn't she get THAT (her brother and a batch of water) instead of this whole nonsense with the "Dante" building? OK, fine, the name itself is a dead giveaway, of course she is in some kind of Hell. But WHY? Why is she in Hell? Because she didn't save her brother? That would be ludicrous, even by the many moronic religious criteria.A reviewer (rather desperately but imaginatively) suggested that Jessica's loop may have to do with a Buddhist belief related to reincarnation and going through the same loop (i.e. life) until you stop making the same mistakes. Even if the writers did have that in mind (which is doubtful, hint-hint: lesbian scene), it wouldn't explain that much. Besides, does anyone truly find LOGIC in that particular religious belief? You're punished for your "sins" by repeating them over and over, without KNOWING that you'd committed them a zillion times? That makes no sense. What kind of a chance at "redemption" does that leave you? And once you've finally stopped making that mistake, you stop existing! That makes even less sense. Perhaps you have to be a Buddhist monk (or Richard Gere) in order to understand this line of reasoning, probably by giving it some bizarre spin that doesn't sound utterly ridiculous only to the fanatially faithful.There is also the suggestion that Jessica one day burnt down the building and "dragged" the other tenants into this hellish loop, and the day is repeating over and over so that by sacrificing herself for hunk-boy she may give them all a chance to finally rest in peace(?) or live on(?). But WHY would the others be punished for her sloppiness with matches and fire? Illogical. If the other tenants are all in Hell as well, why is SHE the one whose actions decide whether they get to break the cycle or not? What maker her so damn special? Illogical.The rather flimsy credibility of CO8 hangs by a very thin thread. How thin? It's like a one-armed man hanging on to a cliff's edge with three fingers while elephants are being tied to his feet to drag him down tumbling. That's how barely the logic in the story holds out without collapsing in on itself – even with outside help (such as the Buddhist-related explanation).I'm all for intriguing movies with ambiguous endings, but they do have to give you a fighting chance to wonder about the conclusion. However, there is a distinct difference between an equation with one or two unknowns and an equation with a dozen unknowns. The latter type of equation does not have a solution. X+U-Jx3-R/G-H+B=X-1 is an unsolvable mess, not an intriguing mystery. Learn to distinguish between the two, ye who art cast out of excessively optimistic, naive material.

SPOILERS INCLUDED - Not that there is any plot to spoil. I want the ninety minutes ish of my life that were completely wasted back now please. I also want whoever is responsible for this tripe to be strung up by their privates in public, so the poor unsuspecting audience can throw rotten fruit at them. I've seen some stinky movies in my time but this is in a whole different league, there should be some kind of award for a movie this terrible! Please someone tell me it was intended to be a joke as there was no way to understand the pathetic plot, dead bodies or reasons for random lesbian scenes etc etc etc. No conclusion or end to the film, no point from beginning, lots of pointless padding throughout and the only reason I gave this film a "1" is because there is sadly no option to select zero or minus figures on here. The only positive I can think of is that Austin Highsmith is "Fairly" nice to look at - That is literally it. Do not watch this rubbish under any circumstances, spend the time cutting your toe nails instead - Or maybe even watching paint dry.

Well, it's not completely awful, but it's pretty bad. (You can get some idea of the level of rip-off involved by examining the DVD cover: you've got a digit inserted in the name of a number. How many times have we seen that before?) There's no deep thought required, since all the metaphors are transparent and every scene has been foreshadowed. Plus, it makes no sense. Neither of the alternate "endings" is plausible. I never believed the main character would take EITHER of the courses of action depicted. When a secondary character is trapped by a piece of furniture, you never believe that he can't get free, especially with the help of the lead character. And why do the other tenants survive in one case and not the other? The lead character's actions shouldn't have had any effect one way or the other. So you're left with a 78-minute web movie that probably played OK as a sort of high-tech serial. What's going to happen next week? But it never comes together in a feature-length version. Not worth your time.