They say squatting is dead - a term that takes on a sinister double meaning when four homeless art students decide to take up residence in an abandoned London House where a hidden terror lurks.
Keep track of everything you watch; tell your friends.
If your account is linked with Facebook and you have turned on sharing, this will show up in your activity feed. If not, you can turn on sharing
here
.
Molly, together with her three art student friends, embark upon a mission to find an empty house in London, with the view to the living as squatters, free from rent, and free to party. Having found the ideal squat, they break in and go about the merry business of dressing the stark interior to reflect their artistic selves. Darkness pervades their new dwelling place, a darkness through which they discover the full implications of their intrepid choice. A nightmare unfolds that traps the viewer and protagonists alike in a terrifying and unforgiving new reality. Who or what is orchestrating their bloody demise and why? The house appeared to be empty and yet a malevolent force is clearly at work. Written by
Daniel Simpson
The director and writer are one in the same - Daniel Simpson, shame on you! You borrowed clichés from other bad horror movies and put them the worst of them in this pile of #$%^ that would be alright as a student project in high school. You are presumably not a teenager. This particular scene ticked me off to no end : antagonist beat the heck out of the maniac only to find out that it is their friend they kill. I mean they beat the living bejesus out of him with a nail studded 2X4 and about 50 blows. When the antagonist does finally manage to immobilize the maniac, she gingerly pops him over the head and runs off like an silly cow, despite her friends lying in pieces all over the joint. She of course gets caught and killed. This kind of lame writing is physically painful and just insulting to the viewer, as it shows the writer/director is either uninspired and lazy or contemptuous of the viewer, or both. What sense does it make for the maniac to mutilate people simply because his father was killed in some horrible event in WW11? Who the hell wasn't involved in a horrible event then? The entire bloody war was horrible. This was just a lousy excuse for a movie and it all falls on Simpson's head; the actors weren't bad but what could they do with this script?
9 of 9 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
The director and writer are one in the same - Daniel Simpson, shame on you! You borrowed clichés from other bad horror movies and put them the worst of them in this pile of #$%^ that would be alright as a student project in high school. You are presumably not a teenager. This particular scene ticked me off to no end : antagonist beat the heck out of the maniac only to find out that it is their friend they kill. I mean they beat the living bejesus out of him with a nail studded 2X4 and about 50 blows. When the antagonist does finally manage to immobilize the maniac, she gingerly pops him over the head and runs off like an silly cow, despite her friends lying in pieces all over the joint. She of course gets caught and killed. This kind of lame writing is physically painful and just insulting to the viewer, as it shows the writer/director is either uninspired and lazy or contemptuous of the viewer, or both. What sense does it make for the maniac to mutilate people simply because his father was killed in some horrible event in WW11? Who the hell wasn't involved in a horrible event then? The entire bloody war was horrible. This was just a lousy excuse for a movie and it all falls on Simpson's head; the actors weren't bad but what could they do with this script?