There is the skeleton of a story draped around the film, enough to make you think it might be going someplace or mean something, but it will all be abandoned, or ignored in favor of obtuse, confusing, unconnected occurrences strung together for no reason whatsoever. There are some good creepy moments, one particularly effective scare, and even reasonably strong performances, but basically it's a 20-minute student film made by a potentially talented filmmaker, whose sole dictate was to create a mysterious and creepy ambiance - stretched to 86 minutes without the least idea (or perhaps intention) of providing anything more. There is enough of a plot to leave you frustrated when it veers away into disjointed nonsense whose dots will never connect, padded out with a man hearing strange noises, the source of which doesn't matter and is never explained, or hearing strange voices on recordings which may or may not be ghostly voices, and photographing images that may or may not be some time-displacement issue, seeing a bottle filling up with inky liquid for no discernible reason and certainly not connecting to anything else in the film, or showing shots of blood drops run backwards. And then there are the extreme close-ups of rocks, and suddenly spitting out tar. You know, anything permissible under the rubric of "it's surreal", or "it's art" but far more likely "it's kinda like something David Lynch would do." Which might be justification for crafting a 20-minute student film, but not enough to try and pass it off as a feature film. I personally love complex films that make you work intellectually; but that's a far cry from incoherent, lazy film-making where nothing logically fits together however technically accomplished it might be in places. Considering its minuscule budget it is extremely well-done and uses its limitations wisely. Too bad there wasn't a thought-out screenplay that all of this could have been in service of.
34 Reviews
Your Guess is as Good as Mine
chicagopoetry6 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Observance starts out promising, making you think it's going to be some type of Rear Window, Body Double, Blow-Up or Blow Out type of suspense mystery. Instead, about halfway through, it turns into a confusing, "plotless" experiment in body horror and dream imagery. This is when the minutes start going by ever so slowly as, if you're like me, you start moaning and groaning, wishing something would happen already, wishing some plot would develop, wishing something would be explained or at least make a lick of sense. About two thirds through, if you're like me, you'll start looking at your watch wondering if you should even bother continuing; but you'll hang in there because the camera work is awfully nifty, the music is haunting, the lighting is creepy and there are a handful of jump scares after all. Then the credits will roll and, if you're like me, you'll shrug your shoulders and ask yourself, "What the heck was that?"
Decent plot let down by pretentiousness
euroGary19 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
"When I first saw this film", said the London Film Festival luminary who introduced it, "I was haunted by it for weeks". I can't say I had the same reaction: I was mildly annoyed for a few minutes, perhaps.
The plot is actually pretty decent: Parker, a surveillance operative, is hired to spy on a young woman. He moves into a dilapidated building opposite her flat, from where he takes pictures and listens in on her telephone conversations. But strange things are happening in his building: the shower water suddenly runs scalding hot, blocked-up windows mysteriously unblock, and there's a jar full of an ever-increasing amount of black liquid in the corner. All this - plus strange visions of his deceased young son - seems to be having an effect on Parker's health...
But the film has the feel of a student project that somehow metamorphosed into a full-length production. It's very arty-farty - the washed-out shots of isolated clifftops had me expecting to see Death with a chess board at any moment. No effort is made to explain many happenings - such as the bear's head, or the faceless woman, or that jar of black liquid - giving the impression the producers thought they'd be really cool things to put on screen but couldn't be bothered to work out why they should be there. And that's before we consider the mistakes: the energetic sex scene where Parker is obviously still wearing his underpants, and the woman supposedly just stepped out of a shower who is, in fact, bone dry. But in the scenes where Parker is roaming around his claustrophobic house, the film-makers have unquestionably successfully created a dark and threatening atmosphere, and some the close-up camera-work of, for example, carpet threads or drops of blood is pretty good.
In the lead role, Lindsay Farris is a near-constant presence on screen; as such it's fortunate that he's easy on the eye, nicely filling his white T-shirt and black jeans. But there are too many shots of him leaping backwards in surprise, and his American accent wavers all over several States (and becomes Irish at one point). In fact, although the cast is largely Australian - and this is an Australian film - they all use American accents - an emerging trend in Australian cinema? (see also 'Infini').
I like to end reviews on a good note, so here's one: when Parker awakens from a nightmare, does he do the usual thing of sitting bolt upright in bed, panting heavily? No he does not! His eyes snap open in surprise, but he stays laying down. A definite plus point in the film's favour - some film clichés really should be laid to rest.
The plot is actually pretty decent: Parker, a surveillance operative, is hired to spy on a young woman. He moves into a dilapidated building opposite her flat, from where he takes pictures and listens in on her telephone conversations. But strange things are happening in his building: the shower water suddenly runs scalding hot, blocked-up windows mysteriously unblock, and there's a jar full of an ever-increasing amount of black liquid in the corner. All this - plus strange visions of his deceased young son - seems to be having an effect on Parker's health...
But the film has the feel of a student project that somehow metamorphosed into a full-length production. It's very arty-farty - the washed-out shots of isolated clifftops had me expecting to see Death with a chess board at any moment. No effort is made to explain many happenings - such as the bear's head, or the faceless woman, or that jar of black liquid - giving the impression the producers thought they'd be really cool things to put on screen but couldn't be bothered to work out why they should be there. And that's before we consider the mistakes: the energetic sex scene where Parker is obviously still wearing his underpants, and the woman supposedly just stepped out of a shower who is, in fact, bone dry. But in the scenes where Parker is roaming around his claustrophobic house, the film-makers have unquestionably successfully created a dark and threatening atmosphere, and some the close-up camera-work of, for example, carpet threads or drops of blood is pretty good.
In the lead role, Lindsay Farris is a near-constant presence on screen; as such it's fortunate that he's easy on the eye, nicely filling his white T-shirt and black jeans. But there are too many shots of him leaping backwards in surprise, and his American accent wavers all over several States (and becomes Irish at one point). In fact, although the cast is largely Australian - and this is an Australian film - they all use American accents - an emerging trend in Australian cinema? (see also 'Infini').
I like to end reviews on a good note, so here's one: when Parker awakens from a nightmare, does he do the usual thing of sitting bolt upright in bed, panting heavily? No he does not! His eyes snap open in surprise, but he stays laying down. A definite plus point in the film's favour - some film clichés really should be laid to rest.
Major disappointment
hsschwartz12 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Although there was so much promise to this movie, the director left out so much information as to what was going on. Comparing it to Rear Window is a criticism of Rear Window. Too many pieces of incident that didn't connect. Why was he getting sick. Why was he throwing up 'tar', as it were. Why is he even monitoring this woman? Who was the child? Why go back and forth to the ocean view and chat with his friend? What's with the jar on the shelf? Who was the male visitor? Just not good enough for me to watch again to pick up what I missed...and I always miss something in movies that I watch more than once. Why end the movie the way he did? Sorry....thumbs down!
Well-acted and very creepy
Red_Identity7 August 2016
I definitely didn't have many expectations for this and I had no idea what type of film it would be. I love its ambiguity. Many people will hate it for that same reason but I found that it was able to sufficiently explore its story and characterization (it does a great job of developing its main character) while still not revealing itself completely and by sustaining great atmosphere and mood (and well-done jump scares too) throughout its entirety. I think it's a simple, but scary film, one that will only appeal to a specific kind of horror fan but the type of horror we need more of. I would definitely recommend it, although be cautious because it's not for everyone.
Like a ride in an office chair
S_Soma7 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Much is made about the fact that the movie "Observance" was made on a budget of about $11,000. Frankly, in my opinion, the budget shows. The production values actually look surprisingly good for such a low- budget entry, and that explains a lot. All the money and effort was expended to produce a film that LOOKED reasonably good in spite of a shoestring budget, and so no money was spent elsewhere, like, say, writing a story that was interesting enough to make into a film.
From what I understand, "Observance" has done fairly well on the film festival circuit, so maybe I'm a Philistine. But I don't think so.
I've lived long enough to see more than a few horror movies where I can recognize cheap and cheesy results because there simply wasn't enough money left in the budget to spend on the story.
Remember when you were a kid and had something like mumps or chickenpox, something that gave you a very high fever sufficient to distort your perception? Your small-child experiences during the course of the fever were INNATELY horrifying because everything was nightmarishly distorted. As a kid, you had no understanding of what a fever was and what it could do to your perceptions. You didn't understand whether what you were seeing was real, a hallucination, basic reality distorted through a fever lens, and so on. You might not even have understood that there were even such things as hallucinations. As far as you could tell your whole world had gone crazy and terrifying, especially in the dark. I can remember some of the things I saw to this day and they still have the power to scare the snot out of me as an adult.
Well, that's what the viewer gets with this movie. You can't tell if what you're seeing is real, hallucination, something supernatural, symptomology of a disease or some kind of poisoning, and so on. So, intrinsically, whatever you experience as a result of this devil's brew of cognitive pollutants being flung at you from the screen leads to a sense of queasy confusion. It is anything BUT good, scary storytelling.
I also get the sense that there's an element of The Emperor's New Clothes going on here. What you experience with this (and similarly structured movies) is such a mishmash of incomprehensible goulash that you're worried that some sort of sophisticated symbolism or metaphorical abstraction is going on and that you, personally, just don't get it. So you pretend that you DO get it so you don't look stupid, cooing at its insight and sophistication, all the while having absolutely no idea what "it" is.
You can achieve essentially the same effect much easier by just tying a victim to an office chair, covering their head with a bag, and then twirling them around until they get sick and throw up.
I give the movie maker props for making a professional LOOKING movie so cheaply, but that's it. He's not a filmmaking impresario. He's more of a sneaky hack.
From what I understand, "Observance" has done fairly well on the film festival circuit, so maybe I'm a Philistine. But I don't think so.
I've lived long enough to see more than a few horror movies where I can recognize cheap and cheesy results because there simply wasn't enough money left in the budget to spend on the story.
Remember when you were a kid and had something like mumps or chickenpox, something that gave you a very high fever sufficient to distort your perception? Your small-child experiences during the course of the fever were INNATELY horrifying because everything was nightmarishly distorted. As a kid, you had no understanding of what a fever was and what it could do to your perceptions. You didn't understand whether what you were seeing was real, a hallucination, basic reality distorted through a fever lens, and so on. You might not even have understood that there were even such things as hallucinations. As far as you could tell your whole world had gone crazy and terrifying, especially in the dark. I can remember some of the things I saw to this day and they still have the power to scare the snot out of me as an adult.
Well, that's what the viewer gets with this movie. You can't tell if what you're seeing is real, hallucination, something supernatural, symptomology of a disease or some kind of poisoning, and so on. So, intrinsically, whatever you experience as a result of this devil's brew of cognitive pollutants being flung at you from the screen leads to a sense of queasy confusion. It is anything BUT good, scary storytelling.
I also get the sense that there's an element of The Emperor's New Clothes going on here. What you experience with this (and similarly structured movies) is such a mishmash of incomprehensible goulash that you're worried that some sort of sophisticated symbolism or metaphorical abstraction is going on and that you, personally, just don't get it. So you pretend that you DO get it so you don't look stupid, cooing at its insight and sophistication, all the while having absolutely no idea what "it" is.
You can achieve essentially the same effect much easier by just tying a victim to an office chair, covering their head with a bag, and then twirling them around until they get sick and throw up.
I give the movie maker props for making a professional LOOKING movie so cheaply, but that's it. He's not a filmmaking impresario. He's more of a sneaky hack.
Stop Watching.
nogodnomasters28 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Following the death of his son and wife's refusal to talk to him, Parker (Lindsay Farris) takes on a task as a private investigator. He lives in a dump of an apartment as he watches the blonde (Stephanie King) across the street. He descends into madness (or whatever was happening) as he spies on the woman who has an abusive relationship with her fiancé (Tom O'Sullivan). In addition to weird occurrences happening in his apartment, Parker becomes physically ill as he discovers there is something else at play...an offering? Does it relate to the past? the doctor? Who the heck knows, the film didn't give me closure. Almost as confusing as that Jake Gyllenhaal thing (Enemy).
Guide: F-word, brief sex. Nudity? Ummm...she lived in apartment 126. He is across the street in 128. Shouldn't one side be an odd number? Just observing.
Guide: F-word, brief sex. Nudity? Ummm...she lived in apartment 126. He is across the street in 128. Shouldn't one side be an odd number? Just observing.
An effective slow-burn that will crawl under your skin
eddie_baggins17 March 2016
Filmed on the director's credit card over an 11 day period during the hottest heatwave on record in Sydney Australia, Observance is certainly a film that defies its beginnings and conception to showcase an impressively dread laden tale that displays a palpable sense of terror of malevolence from the first frame through to its last confronting and shocking finale.
Director Joseph Sims-Dennett crafts his second feature length film in a manner that is not dissimilar to films such as Rear Window (the spying and voyeurism), Ti West's The House of the Devil (pacing and incoming sense of evil) and even Ben Wheatley's Kill List (in the way it culminates into an uncompromising crescendo) and despite being largely confined to a rundown apartment building for a majority of its runtime, Observance never lets its tight confines strangle its atmospheric nature and intriguing plot that covers loss, mental health and a seriously bad fever.
On face value Sims-Dennett and co-writer Josh Zammit's story may seem slight, grieving man accepts job that involves watching pretty women for a mysterious client, but like a large portion of other successful psychological and slow burning horrors, Observance draws the audience in only to confront them with some terrifying scenarios that are delivered in low key ways to make them that much more effective.
The major drawback of Sims-Dennett's fine work however is the fact he hides the films heritage as an Australian film by having his cast led by the committed Lindsay Farris as tortured soul Parker speak in American accents, which so often is the case when local films try for this, distracts from some of the films tense moments, never more so highlighted by local industry vet and Mick Taylor himself John Jarrett's brief cameo around the midpoint of the film. It would've been great to see Sims-Dennett embrace the films origins (even at the cost of appealing to overseas audiences) but it still doesn't deter from the fact this is one of the most impressive low budget Australian offerings of the decade.
Observance acts as a finely tuned calling card for Sims-Dennett who could quickly become one of Australia's newest directing white knights and there's little doubt that Hollywood will come calling to a filmmaker that has both the determination and skill to pull off tricky subject matters and while Observance may waver slightly in certain elements and executions, its often downright masterful in the way it delivers its chills and Horror aficionados alongside Australian cinema fans would do well to seek it out.
3 ½ ominous jars out of 5
Director Joseph Sims-Dennett crafts his second feature length film in a manner that is not dissimilar to films such as Rear Window (the spying and voyeurism), Ti West's The House of the Devil (pacing and incoming sense of evil) and even Ben Wheatley's Kill List (in the way it culminates into an uncompromising crescendo) and despite being largely confined to a rundown apartment building for a majority of its runtime, Observance never lets its tight confines strangle its atmospheric nature and intriguing plot that covers loss, mental health and a seriously bad fever.
On face value Sims-Dennett and co-writer Josh Zammit's story may seem slight, grieving man accepts job that involves watching pretty women for a mysterious client, but like a large portion of other successful psychological and slow burning horrors, Observance draws the audience in only to confront them with some terrifying scenarios that are delivered in low key ways to make them that much more effective.
The major drawback of Sims-Dennett's fine work however is the fact he hides the films heritage as an Australian film by having his cast led by the committed Lindsay Farris as tortured soul Parker speak in American accents, which so often is the case when local films try for this, distracts from some of the films tense moments, never more so highlighted by local industry vet and Mick Taylor himself John Jarrett's brief cameo around the midpoint of the film. It would've been great to see Sims-Dennett embrace the films origins (even at the cost of appealing to overseas audiences) but it still doesn't deter from the fact this is one of the most impressive low budget Australian offerings of the decade.
Observance acts as a finely tuned calling card for Sims-Dennett who could quickly become one of Australia's newest directing white knights and there's little doubt that Hollywood will come calling to a filmmaker that has both the determination and skill to pull off tricky subject matters and while Observance may waver slightly in certain elements and executions, its often downright masterful in the way it delivers its chills and Horror aficionados alongside Australian cinema fans would do well to seek it out.
3 ½ ominous jars out of 5
If there were minus stars I would give the lot
grahamth30 August 2016
I hope you, dear reader, get to read this before subjecting yourself to this "movie". I use the term loosely because this is not even worthy of a student's uni project. I'm supposed to tick a box to let you know if this review contains spoilers. It won't because there's nothing to spoil! There are no explanations for what is happening. Who anyone is. And in the end nothing happens. There's no suspense at all because we don't know anything about these characters or what relevance they have to each other or the story. To call it garbage would be an insult to garbage. It is quite easily the worst movie I have ever endured. I think I'm right in saying the guy in the main role was the writer and director. I'm going to go out on a limb and say he probably owned the camera and microphones and maybe his parents put up the money.
A bit too vague:
meena_mahy29 June 2018
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER:
so this Investigator was or is married and had a son. Seems to be turning his life around by engaging himself in his career. He gets an assignment by an agent to spy on the woman, he observes alot of fighting and misunderstandings between her and her fiancee.
He is plagued by the symbolic death of his wife (marriage) and son. From the dreams he has, his son most probably died from a disease. His son doesn't seem uneasy with his father in the dreams and from his corpse-like image he doesn't have injuries depicting a murder..
There is a jar in his room full of black liquid and a small mini-statue beside it. At times the jar is opened and the little statue also goes missing at some point.
The point is this man has memory issues.
He does things and doesn't remember what he did. No one entered his apartment, he lives on self-hate and doesn't care about his body, hygiene and necessary daily things.
He is a necrophiliac and this can be seen as he is aroused by the crime scene photos of a murder. There is an indication that he murdered his friend after he said a lousy comment about abortion of his wife's baby.
He has a distorted mind plagued by death, even the simplest of things have significance to him or arouse deep twisted and sick up emotions in him.
The murder of the woman is a great example of how mentally damaged he is. The way he murdered her was disgustingly obvious that it's not his first time.. although he does show some surprise in his reaction to what he had done.
The guy who hired him is most probably the father of the woman's fiancee.
This isn't facts but what I understood from the film..
He is plagued by the symbolic death of his wife (marriage) and son. From the dreams he has, his son most probably died from a disease. His son doesn't seem uneasy with his father in the dreams and from his corpse-like image he doesn't have injuries depicting a murder..
There is a jar in his room full of black liquid and a small mini-statue beside it. At times the jar is opened and the little statue also goes missing at some point.
The point is this man has memory issues.
He does things and doesn't remember what he did. No one entered his apartment, he lives on self-hate and doesn't care about his body, hygiene and necessary daily things.
He is a necrophiliac and this can be seen as he is aroused by the crime scene photos of a murder. There is an indication that he murdered his friend after he said a lousy comment about abortion of his wife's baby.
He has a distorted mind plagued by death, even the simplest of things have significance to him or arouse deep twisted and sick up emotions in him.
The murder of the woman is a great example of how mentally damaged he is. The way he murdered her was disgustingly obvious that it's not his first time.. although he does show some surprise in his reaction to what he had done.
The guy who hired him is most probably the father of the woman's fiancee.
This isn't facts but what I understood from the film..
Missing explanation...
teodoramonika13 August 2021
3/10.
It's not boring because the plot is interesting, but the grade is low due to poor realization. From the beginning we are not nicely introduced to the plot and the story, as well as the characters, are not elaborate enough. At the end of the film, I expected at least some explanation, but nothing. The same mystery remained as at the beginning because I didn't understand anything.
It's not boring because the plot is interesting, but the grade is low due to poor realization. From the beginning we are not nicely introduced to the plot and the story, as well as the characters, are not elaborate enough. At the end of the film, I expected at least some explanation, but nothing. The same mystery remained as at the beginning because I didn't understand anything.
Genuinely Creepy!
venusboys326 August 2016
I'll go ahead and say this was one of those horror films, like Alien, Absentia, AM 1200, Banshee Chapter, The Corridor, etc... that is very Lovecratian without overtly rehashing any of that author's stories.
Also, a LOT of folks are not going to have the patience for this movie... it's slow... most of the plot is suggested rather than overtly displayed... there's no real gore or nudity (though one scene nearly made me puke)... and the end is open to interpretation. For the people, like me, who do get into stuff like this... subtle horror that will stay with me for days afterward... Observance is a damn fine little film. I wasn't aware of its tiny budget until after I'd watched it... and for me it didn't show. I think horror often works best on this intimate scale anyway.
Also, a LOT of folks are not going to have the patience for this movie... it's slow... most of the plot is suggested rather than overtly displayed... there's no real gore or nudity (though one scene nearly made me puke)... and the end is open to interpretation. For the people, like me, who do get into stuff like this... subtle horror that will stay with me for days afterward... Observance is a damn fine little film. I wasn't aware of its tiny budget until after I'd watched it... and for me it didn't show. I think horror often works best on this intimate scale anyway.
(Ob)serving the story
kosmasp27 June 2016
Movies that are stake outs and that may feel weird to say the least, do have issues with character credibility at some point. And it's not different with this one, where you think, shouldn't our main character do something else instead? Shouldn't he see the signs and react to them rationally? But we wouldn't have a movie if he did. Also the actions are somewhat explained by his financial situation.
So while you can argue these flaws and bumps in the story, you can also just a "enjoy" the suspense this builds up. And it has some very shocking moments indeed. It's a one location sort of deal, but it makes the most of it. And the suspense might be killing some people. And that's why I was surprised to see the lower rating here on IMDb. Didn't expect that to be truthful
So while you can argue these flaws and bumps in the story, you can also just a "enjoy" the suspense this builds up. And it has some very shocking moments indeed. It's a one location sort of deal, but it makes the most of it. And the suspense might be killing some people. And that's why I was surprised to see the lower rating here on IMDb. Didn't expect that to be truthful
wants to be edgier than it is
sjalkarjadottir14 June 2018
It feels like it wants to be a bit like "the ring" with fancy black and white flashbacks or flashes anyway .. a somewhat non linear storytelling and very little exposition.
There are efforts to make it "disturbing" .. that result only in mild confusion .. while the story itself remains unsatisfactory.
Acting is OK .. although not much seems to be asked of the actors ... brooding, indifferent and surprised are the emotions that are required.
While i did not hate the movie, i also did not like it. It was "mehh" .. solid enough not to be "bad" ... but unremarkable. The kind of movie that you look up on google during the runtime to re-check what the title was .. and a movie that you forget entierly 10 minutes after having watched it.
There are efforts to make it "disturbing" .. that result only in mild confusion .. while the story itself remains unsatisfactory.
Acting is OK .. although not much seems to be asked of the actors ... brooding, indifferent and surprised are the emotions that are required.
While i did not hate the movie, i also did not like it. It was "mehh" .. solid enough not to be "bad" ... but unremarkable. The kind of movie that you look up on google during the runtime to re-check what the title was .. and a movie that you forget entierly 10 minutes after having watched it.
Excellent stylish start with strong Lynchian undertones, ruined by an abrupt change in tone...
lathe-of-heaven13 July 2018
I was REALLY into this film. I could totally feel the David Lynch vibe with the great atmospheric B&W shots, the excellent, moody soundscape, and the compelling and, to me anyway, very involving mystery of what the hell was going on.
BUT... although the movie makers had carefully paced the movie to create an increasing sense of tension and unease, very artfully immersing the audience in an effective ambient mood, and then... abruptly about 40 minutes into the story, for some inexplicable reason the director seems to throw all that hard-earned subtlety to the wind and we have like a 5-10 minute disgustingly gross scene of this guy in the bathroom heaving all this horrible stuff up, etc., etc...
Now, if I had wanted a GROSS fest, I would have chosen a film that highlighted that. I cannot understand WHY this abrupt and to me extremely disappointing change in tone was suddenly thrust upon us. I tried to weather the scene figuring it might be over in a minute or so. But, astonishingly the director just keeps us focused on this completely jarring grossness that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the lovely textured mood that had been created up to that point. To me, the whole bloody thrust (and appeal) of the film was the great sense of mystery and the SUBTLETY of the mood, clearly leading to some powerful reveal later on. What I was NOT frigg'n expecting was for that to be yanked out from under us and then to be forced to view this meaningless, VERY extended, mood-breaking grossness. I tried to put up with it as long as I could, but after about 5 friggin, constant minutes of our this mindless audience abuse, I had to shut it off.
A real shame too... The movie up to that point I felt was very well done and very cleverly crafted. Whatever the hell got into the director to completely ruin it by doing this is almost a greater mystery than he had taken all that time and effort to create in the first place...
BUT... although the movie makers had carefully paced the movie to create an increasing sense of tension and unease, very artfully immersing the audience in an effective ambient mood, and then... abruptly about 40 minutes into the story, for some inexplicable reason the director seems to throw all that hard-earned subtlety to the wind and we have like a 5-10 minute disgustingly gross scene of this guy in the bathroom heaving all this horrible stuff up, etc., etc...
Now, if I had wanted a GROSS fest, I would have chosen a film that highlighted that. I cannot understand WHY this abrupt and to me extremely disappointing change in tone was suddenly thrust upon us. I tried to weather the scene figuring it might be over in a minute or so. But, astonishingly the director just keeps us focused on this completely jarring grossness that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the lovely textured mood that had been created up to that point. To me, the whole bloody thrust (and appeal) of the film was the great sense of mystery and the SUBTLETY of the mood, clearly leading to some powerful reveal later on. What I was NOT frigg'n expecting was for that to be yanked out from under us and then to be forced to view this meaningless, VERY extended, mood-breaking grossness. I tried to put up with it as long as I could, but after about 5 friggin, constant minutes of our this mindless audience abuse, I had to shut it off.
A real shame too... The movie up to that point I felt was very well done and very cleverly crafted. Whatever the hell got into the director to completely ruin it by doing this is almost a greater mystery than he had taken all that time and effort to create in the first place...
Nothing, its just nothing
jessicartim5 March 2020
Maybe I'm too old to appreciate this kid of art but for me this movie was just a big nothing, a waste of time. It builds up, builds up and then abruptly ends.
It wouldn't even be a big of an issue but the buildup itself is just really really boring, with out any memorable shots/characters.
Its just nothing.
Pretty but Shallow
megamelfina-995-9476751 August 2018
This movie is beautiful, and there are a lot of cool 'gross-out' moments. The way it is shot actually made me feel uncomfortable while I was watching it. Unfortunately, the lack of any kind of story or plot kills the film. It's fun to look at it, but so disappointing that there isn't more.
Terrible
jev-0800821 August 2016
PLEASE PLEASE do not watch this film. This is by far the worst film I have seen in my life and I've seen some bad ones. I Was waiting for something to happen the whole time the film was playing. But sadly nothing did happen. And everything that was going on in the film just made no sense to me what so ever. . Do yourself a favor and look for something else. Or u will waste over an hour of your life. Terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible terrible. Where these guys get the ideas and story lines from us actually beyond me. Plus the fact that these people are actually getting paid for doing this utter trash is crazy. I think even I could make up a story and film it and still do a better job that's been done on this movie. So all I need to find is someone gullible enough to pay me thousands of dollars for doing it. Sharknado is like a multi Oscar winning movie compared to this.
Very middle ground.
lost-in-limbo23 June 2020
By when it came to the end credits, I didn't know what to make of it all. Interesting, if moodily tranquil paranormal psychological Aussie art-house horror. It seems to leave you with more questions than answers, but there are some hints given along the way, but nothing concrete. It's dreary slow burn style really builds upon the growing menace, claustrophobic surroundings and unstable mindsets.
I really found the mystery gripping and suspenseful despite some contrived plot devices, and the few jolts fairly effective. What starts like something in Rear Window tradition takes a turn into paranoid entrapment of Polanski with a touch of the occult. Nothing cheap or gimmicky about the build-up. The performances are perfectly pitched by Lindsay Farris and Stephanie King.
I really found the mystery gripping and suspenseful despite some contrived plot devices, and the few jolts fairly effective. What starts like something in Rear Window tradition takes a turn into paranoid entrapment of Polanski with a touch of the occult. Nothing cheap or gimmicky about the build-up. The performances are perfectly pitched by Lindsay Farris and Stephanie King.
Decent effort that ends in a complete fail.
reallyevilboy16 July 2017
I had no idea what to expect from this. It was Genuinely creepy which was a good start.
It had some unexplained character past, which usually gives you the inclining of a well rounded, satisfying plot.
Unexplained happenings, research into other character's suspicious past.
Then - Bang! it ends, nothing explained in, not even the smallest detail.
Bang, it ends and you're just wildly guessing.
It's like they forgot to dot the i's and cross the t's and at the end just went "meh, that'll do."
Could have been great, could have been fantastic. Was nothing.
It had some unexplained character past, which usually gives you the inclining of a well rounded, satisfying plot.
Unexplained happenings, research into other character's suspicious past.
Then - Bang! it ends, nothing explained in, not even the smallest detail.
Bang, it ends and you're just wildly guessing.
It's like they forgot to dot the i's and cross the t's and at the end just went "meh, that'll do."
Could have been great, could have been fantastic. Was nothing.
Enjoyed it, but is this based on a book that left out all the key story plot?
daniellehoward-1711027 September 2020
My reviews are simple. I don't use fancy jargon, big words etc. I enjoyed the film. It was thrilling, mysterious, and had some gore. I was on the edge of my seat 3/4 of the way through, wondering why and what is happening? When would he find out who hired him and why. If I hadn't read the description, I wouldn't have much of a clue what was going on. As I said in the review title...was this a book made into a movie that left out the key plot to leave you hanging? Or maybe a student film made into a movie that gave up on finishing the story. Totally agree with almost all the reviews. Let down at the end, but I guess they want you to guess why it ended the way it did as many movie makers do. Bit of a cop out. Changed my rating from a 7 to a 6. Still glad I watched it though. If you don't mind "what the bleep just did I just watch, and what really is going on?" go for it.
Some things that are there, some that aren't
googlinit22 November 2016
No spoiler here, because I can't really contribute any understanding of the work, except there was this lonely (and I'm told, grieving) detective, some dark gurgling stuff, eyeball close-ups and some creepy shots, a few great photos....and some things that were there and some that weren't but seemed to be. I think the art students got to far into the rabbit hole, and couldn't make it back out. They really blew the avant out of avant garde. If this sounds ambiguous, its because I just finished watching.
But as with all raw talent, we hope for growth and refinement, and knowing there may be some squares like me in the audience. So, for now, I'll give it one star, as I couldn't find anything less.
But as with all raw talent, we hope for growth and refinement, and knowing there may be some squares like me in the audience. So, for now, I'll give it one star, as I couldn't find anything less.
Masterfully perfect mystery horror
RedQueenIMDB29 April 2023
Creepy, mysterious, excellent script & a WOW ending. Twisty turniness may be too much for viewers who don't care for intellectual sequencing, which is coherent, but all a clever misdirection. I was riveted throughout & still clueless to that ending!
A private investigator takes a brief gig to watch & take pictures of a woman he assumes is suspected of cheating on her husband. As the project progresses though, he realizes she's actually in danger. But the mysterious client just keeps telling him to keep watching & taking pictures.
Tension builds to max as the PI suspects the woman & her husband may know he's watching...
A private investigator takes a brief gig to watch & take pictures of a woman he assumes is suspected of cheating on her husband. As the project progresses though, he realizes she's actually in danger. But the mysterious client just keeps telling him to keep watching & taking pictures.
Tension builds to max as the PI suspects the woman & her husband may know he's watching...
Not worth watching unless your a Lindsay Farris fan
huguespt25 December 2016
I live in Australia and like a lot of Australians, we try and support our film industry, however there seems to be more flunks than triumphs. I watched this movie on the back of a particularly good Aussie flick. This film is extremely slow to start, that slow I was tempted several times to switch off and go to bed, it was just lucky I had to wait for something. So as the movie progresses the tension is palpable, even had be jump a little now and then, so much so I thought I would stick it through, then as I found out later there was another very slow part. I still hung in there and woe is me forever trying to watch this movie. NO ending is what awaits for you unless you expected it all along.
Stephanie King gets the lead in the billing, what for? Who knows, yes she played, what there was of her role well, the star who shone with acting ability and totally believable was second billed was Lindsay Farris, totally believable, excellent performance and realistically the whole film rides on his back, it is a shame the director or writer could not see the extremely long slow spots and a bit more of an ending, can't say more because I don't write spoilers.
Stephanie King gets the lead in the billing, what for? Who knows, yes she played, what there was of her role well, the star who shone with acting ability and totally believable was second billed was Lindsay Farris, totally believable, excellent performance and realistically the whole film rides on his back, it is a shame the director or writer could not see the extremely long slow spots and a bit more of an ending, can't say more because I don't write spoilers.
1hr and 30mins of my life I won't get back, it really is that bad
forcedford19 December 2016
Another Australian movie flop, worse of all they did terrible USA accents. On what planet did they think this was good. Only redeeming feature was Stephanie King. All over the place, yes he lost the plot but the whole plot was all over the place, everyone seemed nuts.
It was so bad I am just typing 10 lines to warning anyone thinking of watching this. I advise don't, there is plenty of good Australian movies out there, I like Australian movies, when they try to stay Australian and not go with very stupid scripts. No real story about the main characters wife, not enough story about his son, how did he die, or did I just fall asleep in that part. No spoilers and there is nothing to spoil. Only thing about this movie is it's advice to see a doctor when you get a cut or burn etc, as it may go septic.
It was so bad I am just typing 10 lines to warning anyone thinking of watching this. I advise don't, there is plenty of good Australian movies out there, I like Australian movies, when they try to stay Australian and not go with very stupid scripts. No real story about the main characters wife, not enough story about his son, how did he die, or did I just fall asleep in that part. No spoilers and there is nothing to spoil. Only thing about this movie is it's advice to see a doctor when you get a cut or burn etc, as it may go septic.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
