I am really disappointed. The movie isn't a true horror film even though it had a potential. It also had a potential to be a good movie, without being horror, but it failed with a bad ending. Just before the ending, I liked the twist and it got me interested in the movie, but ending was just dry. I wouldn't give this more than 3/10, not only because it wasn't good, but also because it ruined its potential.It really didn't have a horror stuff, but it had the element of mystic and surprise, which would have been nice if they didn't screw it in th end. The film is a total waste of time. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone.

First of all, it wasn't meant to be a traditional horror film…maybe that was my first mistake. The film itself pays homage to the horrific journey undertaken by those with a terminal illness (ie. cancer). The entire film is a metaphor; what seems like immoral and torturous experiments are simply medical necessities to ensure survival. The message behind this film is a message of hope. No matter how bad things get, keep going, even if death is knocking at your door, because you never know when it will end. I thought it would be interesting and meaningful to incorporate this kind of message within the confines of a horror film (second mistake?).You can bring as much negativity to the table as you want, and it's not going to hurt our feelings. If you like to be overcritical about movies, feel free to watch this and be overcritical about it. It's real simple – a terminally ill patient is captured and tortured by a masked man who believes that he is healing him: that's the whole story, no more is needed, and to expect the film to deliver anything but is pretentious. Taking it personal because the film doesn't speak emotion or meaning to you, meet your own personal film standards, had technical issues, acting flaws, or was filmed on a budget so low that you could find more money under a vending machine, really doesn't help us out any and is somewhat comical at best.What we like to hear from the critics is what you personally would've done different…within the confines of the film (meaning how to make the same film on the same budget, but better). Hell, we'd love to know, because our goal is to make great films on low budgets. You are 100% correct…low budget doesn't have to mean awful crap. A film is either a hit or miss; perhaps we just missed the mark here. So how do you make it better? I like to produce films that make you read between the lines (third mistake?). You have to dive into the film to pull out meaning and sense. You can't just turn your brain off and watch a visual masterpiece while the camera and actors hold your hand and walk you through it (i know that's what we're all used to now). This may not be everyone's cup of tea, especially when the mass audience will miss the point. In either case, we all had a genuinely good time making it, and hope that it does send a message to someone out there if they can manage to sit through this awful crap;).

Inspired by the original "Saw", "The Red Cell" starts with a former patient waking up in a filthy room. He is being watched, drugged and operated on by a masked man who seems to be his doctor. The young man is already dying of cancer, and the experiments are extreme. Or is it all just a dream ? Low budget doesn't necessary means that it is bad. Even "Saw" was made with little money. But never compare this painful mess with movies like that. My God, where do I begin ? The main character (you see him the entire movie) is a talentless non-actor without any charisma. The story makes no progress at all, shot entirely in a dark room with awful bad lightning. After an half hour or so I started to fast-forward because to tell you the truth: it was really unwatchable. The experimental operations show some blood and was without a doubt inspired by movies like "Hostel" (which I do like) but expect no effects or thrills here. No real actors (there are only 6 people in it, most of them for a minute or so) no locations (without a doubt the basement of the director, because the main "actor" is his brother or his son) and no effects: I say the budget of this so-called 'horror-movie" must have been below 500 $.You have been warned...

If you gave a monkey 5 bucks, a typewriter, and an etch-a-sketch it could make a better film than this...and probably do a better acting job too.Granted I only made it through the first 20 minutes of this movie before totally giving up, but I doubt I missed much. Low budget doesn't have to mean low quality, but it does in this case. The plot is flaky at best and all attempts to build suspense are just plain boring. Everything starts off interesting enough with the audience wondering, "Hey, why's he in a cardboard basement?," but from the opening line of "Nurse," it's obvious that every expense was spared on the cast. I'm willing to forgive a lot of things in a movie, including a set made of old refrigerator boxes, if there is something, anything else to make it interesting. But there's nothing here. I have no doubt that people worked very hard on this film, and meant well, but it's all in vain. I don't recommend you waste your time watching it, even if all you watch is the first 20 minutes.