IMDb > Sublime (2007) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Sublime (V) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 11:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 103 reviews in total 

70 out of 94 people found the following review useful:

The Filmmakers' POV

Author: PrinceDakkar
17 March 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Due to the the intensity of the discussion - the extreme nature of the comments on this board, I thought I'd throw this in, for what it's worth:

SUBLIME was an experiment on nearly every level. Raw Feed is a Warner Bros. experiment to make "horror" films within the broadest definition of the genre. Films designed to be released directly to DVD.

John Shiban, Tony Krantz and Daniel Myrick would each make a film in 15 days for a budget of roughly 1.5 million dollars. Any one of them essentially could do whatever they waned to do - to play into the genre, to satirize it, to bend it. Mr. Krantz's notion was to take the present atmosphere of fear and doubt that has pervaded our world; the very real statistics about "health care"; and the horror of the Terry Schiavo case, and make a movie. My involvement in the film came out of my close friendship with Tony. Inspired by an Ambrose Bierce short story "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"...the mystery of coma consciousness...the idea that when you close your eyes, your visual experience is limited to what you can remember...we crafted the script.


Trying to capture our version of a fear-and-incident-inspired "coma consciousness" led to the film's intentionally languorous and lurid pace. It was a specific choice. Right or wrong, we were determined to stay true to George's vision: George is stuck in a 10-plus year-long persistent vegetative state within which he is encountering all the things he worries about manifest. His only respite is when he closes his eyes and remembers his "last supper" - and many of his coma-realities are inspired by incidental details experienced that night:

Is Jenny actually unhappy in spite of what he wants to believe by "looking into her eyes"? Is she going to leave him? Will his colonoscopy go wrong? Is his daughter experimenting with her sexual identity? Why is his son so fascinated by fear and evil? Is his partner going to stab him in the back? And what about the Unknown? The utterly unaddressed racism, abuse of minorities, and fundamentalist Islamic-terror that we've all been taught to fear? George is a version of a successful Everyman who worries about a lot without choosing to examine much.

He thinks it's enough to look in someone's eyes to know their truth. Well, clearly, it isn't.

And what happens when you lose complete control of your destiny and are stuck in a world of fear-made manifest? Well, if your guardian angel happens to be a demon manifestation of the "dark unknown" who will guide you through a confrontation with your fears...that journey might just free you to make a tough decision and take control of your destiny again. And that's what George does, tragically, at the end.

As for the symbology of the film, it was governed by the myth-base of a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant - it's entirely Judeo-Christian. And we piled it on with a shovel. It's on the nose because it's familiar, learned pretty much during adolescence, and it's all that George knows.

It was extremely satisfying to indulge in the lurid Grand Guignol tradition of this film. Commercially, it was risky, because we were straying from the current tradition of the horror genre.

Shooting the film in 2:35, framing and pacing the story the way we did was utterly intentional.

Could it stand to lose 10-15 minutes for the sake of modern day attention spans? Sure.

Is its subject matter, approach and execution inappropriate for the "horror genre"? Maybe.

Sublime is more in the tradition of psychological thriller/horror. The Twilight Zone, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Angel Heart, Jacob's Ladder, Memento, Eyes Wide Shut.

Sublime is not a pleasant movie. If it's an experiment that failed for some and succeeded for others, I'm glad. I'd much rather that the film inspired strong opinions - even dismissive ones - than just lie there like another derivative grade B grindhouse gore-fest.

Everyone involved in Sublime took a chance...and we're all very proud that we did.

Was the above review useful to you?

106 out of 175 people found the following review useful:

Re: Life Lesson... too much nitpicking

Author: bringer348 from United States
6 March 2007

Let me start off by saying I'm an avid Horror fan. I enjoy horror movies ranging from the classics such as Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Henry Portrait of a Killer, and Susperia to lesser known B horror such as Deranged, to esoteric masterful ghost films such as Ugetsu. With having been such a fan of these types of films, I have to say the previous reviewer was totally off base with his harsh criticisms of Sublime. Sublime is an allegorical graphic horror film that takes it's inspiration from many sources. The previous reviewer mentions a parallel between this film and Jacob's Ladder, while this may be true, I feel that there's nothing wrong with this since many modern films do this to pay homage to classic films. There have been numerous times where I've watched a Quentin Tarantino film and have been amazed that they've copied a scene from Sonny Chiba movies, or from great films such as the Lady Snowblood series, almost verbatim. Yet he is praised for being an innovator (and I think he in in many regards, if not slightly overrated). Sublime is a discordant yet captivating whirlpool of many different inspirations and a truly great graphic horror film. If you're a fan of horror, political allegory, and cult cinema then you should find no faults in Sublime.

Was the above review useful to you?

41 out of 55 people found the following review useful:

Don't Be Fooled By The Cover

Author: hungryhippo1970 from United States
2 December 2007

It definitely kept my attention throughout. However, I was inspired to write this comment because of the cover art as opposed to the movie itself. Had I based my seeing the movie strictly off of the DVD artwork, I would've never watched it. Hell, I wouldn't have even picked it up to read the back of the box. (My initial reaction was that it was another in the "torture porn" realm.) The imagery is extremely misleading. It's nothing of the sort.

My advice is to watch the trailer to get a better idea of the feel for this film. It's much more a slowly-paced reality-turned-on-its-ear type of film, if there is such a genre.

Did I like it? Yep.

Was the above review useful to you?

57 out of 89 people found the following review useful:

Excellent Movie... has a "Sixth Sense" feel to it

Author: profoundtomato from United States
24 March 2007

I initially got this movie not really expecting that great of a film; like most of you who've seen it I found it at at a video store. This movie isn't like a traditional horror movie; it doesn't rely on much blood and guts to build suspense. The whole movie is about a single man, and everything that happens to him after he goes in to what appears to be a routine operation. The movie itself is VERY slow, so for some people who haven't got the patience to watch the movie until its ending, and are expecting the more traditional hack and slash out of this horror movie, may be disappointed.

The movie is full of metaphor, which is one of the things that I *really* liked about it. Nearly everything that happens is symbolic to the main character on at least one level. This will seem a bit much, but that's why I recommend you wait till the end of the movie to judge it.

The best way I'd sum this movie up is: A common man, facing very horrible situations; by the end of the movie nearly all of his fears will be revealed... and in the end he must make the ultimate choice. Watch this movie, and keep in mind it moves slowly for a reason.

Was the above review useful to you?

46 out of 73 people found the following review useful:

Lesson: Life is precious... unfortunately you waste 2 hours of yours to find that out..

Author: Ira Emsig ( from Oakland, California
4 March 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I hate this..

I saw this film at it's world premier at the Cinequest Film Festival in San Jose last night..

I come to IMDb, and I find a virgin user's comment section...

And I have to write a negative review, dammit.

I wanted to like this film... and for the first 45 minutes or so, I was moderately captivated.. All the symbolism.. The guessing at what was really happening with the constant flashback.. The weirdness of the hospital setting... The *hot* nurse..

But then they had to do what a film that can possibly be about the internal struggle of a dying man has the opportunity to do: they blatantly ripped off Jacob's Ladder. After somehow convincing his nurse (in the stripper stiletto heels no less) to wheel him into the condemned section of the hospital, he's taken on a Mr. Toad's Wild Ride down hallways past operating rooms with grotesque liposuction surgeries, weird crazy ladies nursing babies..... THE SAME FRICKIN' SCENE AS JACOB'S LADDER... Oh wait, he's on a gurney in JL and in this thing it's a wheelchair....

Anywho... from that point on, I just could not take this film seriously at all.. I found myself laughing at what I suppose (based on the silence in the rest of the theater, with the exception of that one guy snoring) were "inappropriate" times.. It just dragged on and on with this standard "is this happening or not?" motif... Even the gratuitous sex scene with the nurse and the gratuitous violence of Mandingo's scene did not rekindle my interest. Clearly there are about 4 or 5 political messages being bantered about here as well (the state of healthcare in the US, obsequious insurance practices, the Terri Schiavo debacle), but they're just too obvious to be terribly effective. And speaking as a medical professional, there were major liberties taken with some of the healthcare aspects here as well.. No one can talk when they're intubated, dammit! Okay, so at this point, I'm nitpicking I suppose.. Did I mention that the music's pretty terrible as well? Alright... so I hated this movie... And according to IMDb, there's a *152 minute* version of this thing as well??? As if suffering through 111 minutes wasn't bad enough. If only I'd stuck around after A Dog's Breakfast, waded through the line of enthralled female sci-fi fans and gotten to meet David Hewlett.. Then I could have just gone home and watched Jacob's Ladder.

Calgon, take me away! pt

Was the above review useful to you?

52 out of 89 people found the following review useful:

brilliant movie.. for those who can understand

Author: Snowy from United States
9 May 2007

I found this movie surprisingly good and I am quite sure it is going to be seen as such for anyone with a taste for oniric quasi-Kafkian moods (understandably deemed "boring" by the usual cheap-thrill lovers) . Yes, it's not a horror movie, not an action movie. It is a well written dark psychological piece that apparently asks too much from the typical movie consumer (i.e. following the thematic dialogs and references in the flash-backs).

I also didn't see any problems with the acting or direction -- I generally liked the whole package. The only downside I can see is that perhaps there is, at times, a bit too much blood and pain -- that is, more than some sensitive people can endure to watch (e.g. my wife). Otherwise, this is definitely a decent movie for the intellectual viewer.

Was the above review useful to you?

33 out of 57 people found the following review useful:

Why all the bad reviews???!!!

Author: notsobob2006 from United Kingdom
15 April 2007

Maybe the people giving bad reviews didn't watch the film all the way through. Its true the acting/script seems a little strange in parts, but otherwise this film is seriously intense. The ending had me hanging on the edge of my seat, and there are twists that come completely unexpectedly. Will he live or will he die? The answer is definitely worth the build-up.

Its true its fairly slow moving to start with but the whole way through it begs for a conclusion which makes it all the more rewarding when one finally comes.

If you're interested in human psychology, you will like this film.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 32 people found the following review useful:

Excellent food for brain

Author: mauro cicio
21 June 2007

Very deep movie that is bold enough to ask those fundamental questions of life that seem to be completely out of fashion nowadays. The film is technically very well done, the actors are up to the not so easy challenge and sometimes they perform at the highest levels, but the most outstanding thing is the script. The movie can be seen as an excellent investigation on fear. Fear of Death, but, most important, fear of Life. If this was not enough, the script also delivers a wonderfully well packaged metaphor of the relationship between USA, Europe and the rest of the world. If you are in the mood to think, take your time ad watch this movie about your fears and be aware: you are gonna watch it again (I will!) ;-)

Was the above review useful to you?

34 out of 60 people found the following review useful:

Unbelievable Garbage

Author: dokukaeru-1 from United States
17 March 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I beg of you not to waste your time with this straight to video release. It plays out like a bad episode of House and Days of our Lives combined. Maybe the guy should have had a clue when they wanted to put him out for a colonoscopy. Who knows, maybe that was still part of the dream state that the protagonist finds himself in. Between the just waking up scenes and the home shopping network channel cameos, they could have cut out a good 30 minutes of this movie. Then I would have only wasted 1 hr 20 minutes. Seriously though, look at the results of this study: A retrospective review of medical records of all patients with colon perforations from endoscopy over a 10-yr period. A total of 10,486 colonoscopies were performed over a 10-yr period. There were 20 (0.19%) perforations and two (0.019%) deaths related to colonoscopy and two perforations with no deaths in 49,501 sigmoidoscopies (0.004%). The majority of perforations (65%) occurred in the sigmoid colon. The mean age of the patients was 72 yr (range, 48–87 yr). So tell me how does a 40 year old man get a perforated colon that results in a embolism?

Even less believable than the plot is the acting. If I woke up even once with a stitched up hole in my side. I would be in a wheel chair with a broomstick smacking people left and right on my way down to the lobby. PULL OUT THE FREAKING IV! Steven Seagull did it after waking up from a 4 year coma.

A couple of other noted things:

The soundtrack would put Vangelis to sleep.

This should have been billed as drama NOT HORROR.

Rated R for a few surgical shots, partial side nudity,

brief sexual acts and even briefer violence.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

Too much movie for too little of a premise.

Author: jpmolyneux
7 June 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie's trailer seemed decent. I hadn't heard anything and was willing to take a leap. Turns out that was a mistake.

The movie starts with George Grieves' birthday party. In all actuality this scene is used about 5 times throughout the movie, just further down the road.

This movie's trailer seemed cut for a psychological horror flick, and it did not deliver in that. The horror that George sees is simply shock, not horror. He continues to see disturbing imaging while his body seems to become brutalized by the care he has received by the hospital.

To see what would be a bad movie at first and then hear the interview with director Tony Krantz on how this terrible movie is basically America's foreign policy pushed it over the edge for me.

Endless amounts of symbolism does not make a good movie. If you're trying to convey a statement, especially a political one, it's best not to hide it behind what I would consider a terrible film and one that from what the interview states has no bearing on what the film is actually meant to convey.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 11:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
External reviews Parents Guide Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history