I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Sarah Michelle Gellar cuts herself on the leg as a kid and then on the arm as an adult... and because of two self-inflicted knife wounds some 10-15 years apart, we're supposed to believe that she's a troubled woman.That, unfortunately, is about as well scripted as this sore-fest is. We get told via someone's dialogue how troubled she is, that she's always moving around, and then later, she tells some bloke that she's kind of lost so keeps moving around. Yeah, it's that bad... only, not much seems to happen in between.Around the 45 minute mark there were hints of her character having some kind of repressed memories that are haunting her, and turning it off to take a phone call at the hour 6 minute mark, with the killer hot on her trail in some woods, I realised that I actually didn't care what happened in the end and never put the film back on.Normally, films that I turn off get a 1, but Sarah does her best to pull us into a tremendously non-event of a story and had I not been interrupted, I may have sat through it until the end... had I not dozed off.I honestly couldn't recommend this film to anybody.

The Return: Sarah Michelle Gellar's performance is fantastic. Has to be one of the best supernatural thrillers i have seen in a long long time. This one honestly had me on the edge of my seat, with its scares and very well thought out storyline and or though it is similar to a few others out there its just so well done i thoroughly enjoyed this one more then any other.Sarah Michelle Gellar plays Joanna Mills a young business woman who does a lot of travel. Joanna drives to Texas where she becomes haunted by daydreams and night terrors of a gruesome and brutal murder that occurred 15 years earlier.Plagued by the violent memories and visions Joanna decides she must get to the truth of all this. She befriended Terry Stahl played by Peter O'Brien who stopped an attack on Joanna and it becomes clear no one seems to like him very much.Joanna Become aware that Terry Stahl is involved somehow and tries to talk with him this doesn't work out and Joanna must now work out her violent visions on her own. By chance she works out what has happened and now her life is in danger......I highly recommend this film as i mentioned before this is one of the best supernatural thrillers i have seen.

Producers... This could have been a great movie with an excellent box office earning, but you made serious errors. The rating of seven was for the intent of the writer and the storyline... not the bad results from a poor director.The majority of the public has no desire to watch movies where a main character purposely cuts on themselves. This is very disturbing for most people and does not add to the movie. It is a huge "turn off" for the bulk of the audiences and eliminates most of families as well. That is a huge chunk out of your revenues. There are innumerable alternative peculiarities to depict a character with psychological issues and childhood traumas without using cutting. Is catering to a bad director's insistence on using such an offensive theme worth losing your investment? There was another movie which also used this theme called "The Alphabet Killer." It ruined the entire movie. Even for a true movie, inclusion of self-injury never adds to the movie, true or otherwise. If you notice, the audience ratings between "The Return" and Alphabet Killer were only 1% apart on ratings. Their movie was 14% while this one was 15%. That should provide examples of hard facts in regard to how "cutting" offends audiences. While there are probably a few viewers who would claim otherwise, you can rest assured they are in the extreme minority. So, make your choice... do you want to make money or not?Neither ending was good. They had no redeeming qualities. Just about any JQ public with zero film experience could have done a better job. This was a good story which was spoiled by a bad director. Even worse because your director appeared to have erroneous, preconceived stereotypical view of the US audiences as if throwing in a bit of cowboy flavor would appeal to us across the pond. The boots with the dress were positively ridiculous as was the radio station selection. The majority of our radio stations are top 40's oldies. Not C&W. You would only find that in the panhandle of the state to the north. Dallas and Houston are modern technology centers. Anyone dressing like a cowboy sticks out like a sore thumb. Talk about bad stereotypes! Perhaps the Los Colinas studios might have given you a better crew with better advice than Austin.Having also lived in Europe, I'm familiar with the concept that Americans are conceived as loud, ill-mannered, trigger-happy cowboys. While some of that may be true to some degree with a smaller percent of the population like Tom Arnold's characters, it does not translate to movie audiences and gross revenues by salting this stereotyped approach into movies. You don't win audiences by trying to appeal to the worst elements. If you want to "country-fi" a movie... then it needs to be a "country-theme" movie. You can't take a sci-fi (for instance) and try to country-fi that. This director was totally out of his element and should have realized it when he took the job. He didn't have much of a resume to begin with. It didn't make sense to keep bringing in this rapist coworker s who kept appearing out of thin air completely out of context nor did his actions match the storyline. His actions simply made no sense with the base motive. Rape is not a reaction to stealing clients. There was no groundwork leading to his scenes or actions. His appearance and behavior just fell out of the blue.The dead wife, Annie, should have had a different hair color so the audience could differentiate between the characters when the film was flashing back and forth between mirror images and memories. Their appearance was far too similar to be able to keep it separated.The next issue was the Patsy Cline songs. This movie was tailored for younger fans of psycho thrillers but used CW songs which the audience didn't recognize nor appealed to them. This was not a country western movie. By the end of the first scene with the Cline song, I was already painfully sick of the song long before the scene had thankfully come to an end. While I'm not a younger audience, I did not care for the Patsy Cline songs and they did not achieve the desired effect. I had to read Wikipedia to figure out what you were trying to achieve with the songs. An audio or visual prelude is appropriate only if the media chosen gives that sense of expectation to the viewer. Choose a "supernatural sound" instead. You don't have to pay royalties for "eerie" sounds.The next problems were the main characters psychological issues which did not match the connection with the past incident. Her desire to keep moving, keep on the road and to harm herself did not fit the premise of what her character supposedly suffered. Quite frankly, the director was an extremely poor choice and you apparently got what you paid for. Have you ever produced a movie before or were the financiers just looking for something to do with idle cash? I didn't see any evidence of experience on the management or direction of this film.If you want people to go see a movie, then you need to advertise it. You can't make money if you are not willing to follow through on providing minimal publicity. It looks like the financiers just barely broke even. Either this was the worst directed and worst produced movie either made by novices or incompetents, or the producers were simply looking for a loss to write off on their taxes. It is hard to imagine that anyone could have done such a worse job of directing.

I disagree with most critics and others that basically bashed this motion picture (that includes a large portion of the public, considering the film's IMDb rating is at 4.7 at the moment of my writing this review). On the contrary, I found this to be a decent, relatively well made psychological thriller with some decent acting, good direction, an interesting premise (original if nothing else) and above all, excellent cinematography. Mind you, nowhere near being a masterpiece, but a good, decent piece of work, better than the average fare we usually get spoon fed from Hollywood these days.Recommended if you like tense movies, movies where the ending is not immediately spelled out at the beginning of the film.