it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

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

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Just to give you a frame of mind here: The Occupy Wall Street movement was much more exciting than this movie.Sadly, this was a waste of time and I know this because it's another movie that literally starts to leave my mind as the end credits roll. These reviews are the hardest to write due to the quickly vanishing thoughts and the fact I barely know what I just watched. But, I'll try.Not-Stephen Dorff is all-but locked into a rent-controlled NYC apartment after his grandmother passed on. Several people encourage him to stay put for just under two weeks to get a court order and assume the sweet lease. Only, Not-Stephen Dorff has zero patience and less mental capabilities. In other words, he starts to go mad. Maybe there are ghosts in the place, maybe it's rats or maybe it's his conscious…but he loses it anyways. Not sure if I believe it, but hell, I didn't spend the few bucks they did to make this. At least the movie started well with interesting ideas and the lead actor did put his all into it. So I'll give it those kudos. Just can't recommend and would advise just to watch the ten times more entertaining and similar '1408.'

The cinematography is excellent and the production overall is good, but the story just doesn't go anywhere. So many leading clues that just don't connect with anything. Random plot points that never solidify into anything. Great going through until you reach the end and realize there is no payoff. Disappointing. I was captivated all the way through because I've never seen a film with such great lighting and angles and overall greatness just fart itself into oblivion so meaninglessly. Why on earth didn't the creators do something with all the material they had? The potential is there, and if you were to miss the last few minutes you may just think it is a great film. It is only in the realization that the film goes nowhere do you realize the fatal flaw of this film.

What we have here is a fairly routine "old dark house" movie, with all of tired clichés that just fill time but don't advance the plot, e.g., the shower scene with -- what, exactly -- rust? That's never quite clear.That said, I very much like the basic idea of this film. Van Hansis as Danny Hill is immediately likable. Steve Routman as lawyer Bertram Feinberg is also well-cast. But the cartoonish characters that fill out the rest of the cast suggest we're watching a dream sequence. Of course, that isn't the case.Where this film goes awry is with the whole paranormal angle. When writers get into the supernatural, all rules of logic are off and the audience always feels like the writer is cheating. To be fair, writer Jonathan Brett does try to insert some kind of subtle explanation about demons in text our hero is forced to read from the Bible, when there are no other entertainments available. We also do see the killer early on -- in silhouette in the doorway, when our blogger chick is panning around with her camera.I think this would have been much more satisfying to explore what a normal, 25-year-old guy would do when confined to an apartment for more than a week. What was the doorman's agenda? In the first scene, it appears he might have a sexual attraction for Danny, but that thread is never developed further. The blogger chick, clearly has some kind of hidden agenda, but that ball is dropped too. The landlord could have tried any number of interesting tricks to get him out of the apartment. There are lots of better possibilities than the paranormal here.The biggest plot hole is that Danny sees the killer on the blogger chick's camera at the mid-point of the film and does nothing about it. Here the writer cheats the audience out of the fun of figuring out the mystery (albeit a thin on in this particular plot).The suicide of the main character is a real letdown at the end. Audiences root for the violent death of someone who has been clearly established as evil earlier in the story; but here, we're still rooting for Danny to get this cheap NYC apartment right up to the end. We're left saying, "Really?" Too bad this script wasn't passed along to another writer or two for a fresh perspective and polish. It's a great concept for a low-budget film, but the audience is cheated out of a good time.

After reading some of the reviews on IMDb I almost didn't give this one a chance. I'm glad however that I took the time to watch this film. I'm not saying I stumbled upon an instant classic, or one of my new favorite movies. I wasn't blown away by it or anything, but I felt as though it was an entertaining horror/thriller. It did become slightly predictable, but not enough to turn me off from it. For having such a small cast of characters and lack of different settings. It kept me waiting for the next "day".If your a fan of "The Amityville Horror" or "The Shining" I recommend this as one worth watching.