The English language does not contain enough words to describe what a dreadful piece of garbage this film was. It was badly directed, produced, shot, acted... huh, one guy did it all (except act). What Richard Boddington did was take roughly 25 minutes of footage, chopped it up, put it back together in random sequences, and managed to steal 80 minutes of life I will never get back. And the four people who mainly made up this dreadful film need to go back to whatever acting school they graduated from and demand a full refund. My jaw just about dislocated itself from yawning, trying to just get through to the awful ending - which made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Pretty impressive though, that a film can make me wish for a nauseating, hand held found footage movie to watch instead. Bravo, Mr. Boddington.

After reading the last couple of reviews for this movie, I decided to give it a try. Much to my surprise, I should have listened to my first instinct and avoided watching it and wasting an hour and eighteen minutes of my life. The plot of this movie could have actually gone somewhere if it weren't for the two main actors. I'd be lying if I said their acting was half-decent. Their performance was nothing less than amateur and unrealistic. It did not sit well with the plot of the movie, I could not even connect their emotions to the way they spoke in every line. I've seen better actors perform on the street. Great movie title, poor performance.

I saw this film at a local film-fest sponsored screening last night. I was prepared to be disappointed, as I was by the last low-budget locally-filmed 'scary' movie I saw in the same situation, but was instead pleasantly surprised. This film has fairly good acting & production values for something in this budget range. Most significantly, the director was willing to cut it down to 80 minutes to maintain pacing which shows a commitment to art over ego. The flashlight-lit scenes were particularly well done, compared to many scenes which I find too dark even in some Hollywood big-budget films, and the more active scenes didn't suffer from the ubiquitous modern trend of too-rapid cutting, although there was a bit too much use of 'recycled' shots and the forward-and-back jumps (non-linear plot) were sometimes unnecessarily confusing. The overall plot and theme, however, were fairly good and not predictable as one would usually see in this style of production. In fact, the final twist (and you know one will be coming) is essentially unpredictable yet not contrived.The creepiness and scares build from setting (mostly shot on location in a real abandoned century-old jail) and plot, and there is little gore to speak of, unlike many films in this genre. This is a positive aspect, as the director is relying on story-telling instead of visceral or cringe-inducing effects. The extensive use of this location is one of the highlights of the film.Overall I give it a only 6 out of 10 mainly because of the budget limitations. The score isn't bad, but I found the sound affects a bit lacking. The new, unknown actors give a good first feature film effort, and the plot and writing are very evocative of better Twilight Zone episodes.

This is a clever movie made on a tight budget, built around an interesting premise revealed at the end. I won't reveal the surprise at the end, but I will say that it reminded me of one of the ideas floating around in Philip K. Dick's "Ubik". In some ways, once the basic situation is explained at the end, the idea was intriguing enough to make me wish the movie had developed it further... because it has a lot of open-ended potential for creating interesting scenarios.The acting was decent, the casting of everyday-looking actors in the two lead parts ultimately works well for the story.M. David Mullen, ASC