Entrance (2012) Poster


User Reviews

Add a Review
25 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
If you're expecting anything at all, you'll probably hate this movie
rooprect27 November 2014
The first and only IMDb review I read for this movie said to go into it blindly, so I did without even reading the rest of the review. Going into it blindly is the best advice anyone could give. And if you read the rest of this review, don't worry I won't expose a thing. I won't even tell you what genre this film is (because as far as I can tell it isn't any genre).

I'll be honest and say I hated the first 12 minutes because it seemed indulgent & pointless. Also I'm not really a fan of hand-held camera work. But luckily I have a tolerance/attention span of exactly 13 minutes because that's when a story began to develop. And ultimately I realized even those "pointless" 12 minutes had a point. It sets up a very subtle yet pervasive metaphor, the soul of the whole movie.

Slowly, so slowly that you might not even notice (which I'm sure was the filmmakers' intent) the film starts to get under your skin. And although the only quantifiable storyline for the first 40 minutes is a girl and her dog, it's done so convincingly and, yes, suspensefully that I was hooked. And that, my friends, is all I will say about the plot because you shouldn't expect anything more.

Now a few notes about technique... The directors did something very interesting by never taking the camera off the lead actress throughout the whole movie, not once. Also the camera would sometimes run long, continuous shots without cuts. While this method may sacrifice momentum and some viewer interest, it adds tremendous realism, almost like a documentary feel. And we begin to connect with the heroine even though she doesn't say much. And of course the difficulty in staging the rest of the action while always keeping her in the shot must've been no easy task. The final 22 minutes is a very impressive achievement, all done in one continuous take with a lot going on, and I mean a whole lot.

People have called this film "experimental", but there's no experiment about it. This is a fully finished product with a great style, a novel approach, and certainly the most memorable ending I've seen in ages, ending on an image which I can't decide if it's chilling, hilarious or beautiful.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Very Pleasantly Surprised
theshape317 May 2012
Go into 'Entrance' blindly.

Don't look up anything about this movie, not even a plot summary or trailer. I had no idea what kind of movie it was, so when it all came together in the end it was an unforgettable experience.

'Entrance' is a very creatively and craftily made no-budget movie. It is the best film of its kind that I've seen in years.

This is an incredible effort that I would recommend to anyone looking for something that is atypically effective and defies the norm.

The shot composition in 'Entrance' is outstanding, the directors certainly know how to frame a shot. The acting is superb, there was a great suspension of disbelief throughout that normally doesn't happen with such low budget efforts. These filmmakers have a bright future ahead of them, and I can't wait to see what they do next.

Great stuff all around, enjoy!
42 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
evenglow715 May 2012
I was also disturbed by people reviewing this movie and saying how "bored" they were! Have we become so out of touch with the reality of things that so easily can and do occur in our now very sick society, that we rate films such as this only as "poor" or "great" "entertainment"? I feel that this film addressed that very phenomenon: the false sense of security that we all gain just in going about our daily lives, not really heeding little signs that perhaps we should be investigating a bit more, dismissing them as mere 'paranoia'. I found the non-intrusive ease, the quickness, and the possibility of such events happening to any one of us, despite living in the most densely populated cities today, quite upsetting. Not for women living on their own.
30 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Do not wast your time
healthybuddhabar8 July 2012
It's a chilling ending that's unfortunately undermined by several things 1 – it is so slow and takes 50 minute to get to some action 2 – It is so slow I had to go to bed half way through and watch the rest the next night 3 – Back yard acting 4 - Do not waste your time watching this movie 5 - This is an "ART MOVIE "only 6 - It is slow, really slow 7 - I was told by my partner that the ending was worth it. WRONG SO WRONG 8 - No point to wait until the end. Please save your valuable time – I hope you choose wise I signed up to IMDb to save you 90 minutes of pain (The only horror about this movie)There are so many good movies out there so DON'T watch this one – I could make a better one
31 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
It just wasn't worth the long wait for something to happen
J. Davis7 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This film follows this woman aimlessly going about her life, doing this and that, certainly nothing profound or exciting happening.

For the first sixty minutes this is like a bad romcom without the romance & comedy. It belongs in the drama section, although there wasn't really any drama either.

Then at her moving away party suddenly some stalker shows up & starts doing bad things off camera to her friends. It was less than 70 minutes of actual movie time and there was very little suspense,tension or horror. The long wait for something to happen just didn't pay off.

Honestly watching grass grow is a fine alternative to watching this. If you do choose to watch it you risk having the same senseless feeling that I had. This gets a 2/10
23 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Tense, disconcerting and brilliant.
JannaCherry1 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I am so glad that I was not put off by the overall rating on IMDb for this film and instead chose to go by a positive user review.

It is unfair that this film doesn't have more recognition, especially in the horror genre. The composition is masterful. Not one shot goes to waste. It creates an intimacy and an unbearable tension. I was also surprised by its refreshing understanding of the subtlety of fear. This is in no way 'boring'. It is quietly upsetting with terror seeping into the everyday; leading to a cold and matter-of- fact climax.

Also worth a second viewing, just to appreciate the forethought in every scene.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Horrendous waste of time.
broadchef13 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I would give this movie 0 stars if the option existed. I spent the first hour of this movie watching a sad lonely girl in the city go about her daily routine of doing absolutely nothing except going to work and occasionally playing with her dog. The last 15 minutes of the movie consisted of the sad girl walking around her house after being tied up and finding her friends either dead or left for dead. It was absolutely boring and I can honestly say that I don't believe I've ever felt this screwed out of two hours that I'll never get back. Aside from an occasional drop of foreshadowing and a truly tragic development of a relationship between a girl and her dog that eventually disappears (viewers are lead to believe the stalker that eventually kills the main character's friends took it) this movie is absolute crap. Typically, most "0-budget" films such as this at least maintain a thought provoking dialog or occasional spurts of humor to break up the monotony of simply following a girl for a couple weeks until some stalker kills all of her friends for the last 15 minutes. To top it all off: there's no resolution leading to an even more horrible sensation of emptiness and contempt for the writer/director/producer responsible for this 2 hour mess.

With all that being said, I'm tempted to believe the objective of this movie was specifically to frustrate the viewer to no end with its dead end plot and abrupt frayed ending.
16 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Perfect suspense
horrorshowmovie19 September 2012
I can't talk about this movie without talking about Ti West. He's a current, indie horror director who does "slow-burn" movies. He creates real, normal characters. He shows us their lives, but with a little menace in the background, almost imperceptible. Then there's a huge pay-off, which brings the movie to an end. Out of all his movies, "Trigger Man" best exemplifies this.

"Entrance" takes this formula, and does it at least as well as Ti West. Build-up, character development, minutiae. Then it hits you at the end.

Like "Trigger Man," half the comments on IMDb/netflix are from people who hated the movie. These people have no taste. They're dumb. Ignore them.

"Entrance" is insanely good.
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I don't even know what to say.
jinx_malone2 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
There are a lot of shills on this board giving this high marks. That's one thing I can say. Are you all friends and family of the filmmakers?

To those of you discussing the masterful composition of shots: where? Shots go on for far too long to get them up to feature length, everything could and should have been trimmed drastically on both the head and tail ends.

This is essentially a student film. I say this, having been a film student myself and able to recognize the repetition, non-existent pacing and lack of plot that passes for a senior year project. The fact that it took four people to write this is shameful; I wouldn't have advertised the fact that even with four 'writers' working on this there's essentially nothing happening at all.

The lead is not a very good actress, she's not compelling to watch and her line delivery is pretty bad. There's a bit cribbed from Fatal Attraction where the lead switches a bedside lamp on and off post empty sexual encounter to symbolize her alienation, my response to this was a resounding 'who cares?'

Shot in and around Silverlake and Los Feliz, the only fun to be had is spotting your local landmarks. I'm sure there were lots of excited story discussions in just the right tone of voice so that the other diners knew they were making a film over glasses of red wine at--hmm. I'll take a guess and say it was at Alcove on Hillhurst, though Intelligentsia probably got hit hard too.

The 'shocking' ending doesn't make it any good, so don't count on it saving the day. It was probably conceived of as a short and should have stayed that way.

How do you rebar two people together? Another rip, this time from a Friday the 13th film, by the way, though I can't remember which one. And I don't know too many hipsters who keep an axe in or around their houses, either. Maybe the killer brought it with him to the party in the back of his Prius. Laughably bad.

P.S. It's a blue heeler, not a blue 'healer'. Did you want me to think your protagonist was stupid as well as utterly boring?
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Yes, its boring as heck
philipcy7 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Just to end the "debates" about this movie being good or not, I'm just going to say it how it is. This movie is 90% showing how the character is just a "normal girl" living a "normal life" while the final 10% is a slasher flick. The build up of the movie, the 90% as mentioned above, cannot even be classified as "thriller" as nothing whatsoever is going on. The movie does make you think a little bit, more than most mindless horror movies, but in general it severely lacks depth, which makes it hard to get into. On the plus side, it seems like a group of friends made this movie, as you can see the overlapping producers, actors and writers etc., so good luck to them. A negative point, why is the camera in this movie always being held by a jittery cameraman? Don't they have a tripod?
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
If this is the new horror than for those of you with talent, intelligence and creativity do yourself a favour - don't evolve
VideoEmbolism18 December 2013
There are fans of film out there who think anything slow and boring must be deep, meaningful and intelligent. To be fair, there are a lot of films that are slow, meaningful and intelligent but have so much going on underneath the surface that it is like you are secretly seeing the most exciting action movie taking place in a way you can't describe and being able to read and feel what is happening even though everything appears to be still or uneventful makes it even more exhilarating.

ENTRANCE is not one of those movies.

This film is just slow and boring. It wants to convince you it is one of those deliberately slow films that has a lot going on underneath what appears not to be happening but it doesn't. It is made for fans who are just too stupid to know the difference between subtle and subliminal versus plodding and meaningless and thus settle for anything that is slow and boring because it makes them feel smart, sensitive and privy to details most other people would miss.

Yes this movie is that bad. To think there are people out there lame and stupid enough to call this movie a terrific "slow burn" piece of cinema is a phenomena in itself. I don't even want to imagine the kind of boring f***ing lives those who find this type of cinema entertaining must lead. It just shows how depressingly and pathetically low standards have become to have generated the kind of lead-minded audience that would champion this drudgery just because it is as ordinary and unremarkable as they are. Well, that's the Microsoft age for you. There is nothing innovative, striking, remarkable or subtle about it. It is just pretentious stupidity drawn out to an intolerable length by the unoriginality and lack of creativity of it's makers. The movie follows the life of one of the most hollow-eyed, blank-faced, vacuous idiot women you'll ever meet as she goes about her daily routine, getting her hair cut, taking care of her dog, walking around and generally doing nothing of any importance or interest. Unfortunately, she is probably typical of most women nowadays - pretty, uninteresting, unassuming and completely self-absorbed in a mentally vacuum-sealed delusion of self-importance - but the filmmakers don't bother with offering any insight or commentary into this weak-mined shell of a narrative and seem completely unaware of this all the while performing an amateurish sleight-of-hand by trying to pass their lack of style and substance off as clinical objectivity in the hopes that the audience will do all the work for them by creating subtext out of something that just isn't there. During this mind-numbing character study the woman starts to notice supposedly strange things, which I suppose are supposed to be disturbing and unsettling by the way she overreacts (and overacts) to them, like strange noises in her apartment, men looking at her on the street, a car momentarily following her, but these instances are steeped so heavily in such random banality that they could happen, and probably have happened, to anyone without any sort of threatening context and if they are meant to be foreshadowing for something more terrible to come are as lame, limp and unpromising as the advances of a chemically castrated sex-addict in a whorehouse. All this stringent boredom interrupted by dramatic farts of pseudo-ominous occurrences eventually lead to what is supposed to be, I'm assuming, the grand finale which is nothing short of being absolutely predictable and stunningly uninspired and which you have seen a hundred times before done way better. It is actually a relief when the absence of plot and story finally climaxes, not for the sake of alleviating any suspense or intensity that has built up, there is none, but for the reassuring knowledge that this truly failed attempt at subliminal cinema is finally over, like somebody with nerve damage, who in desperately trying to achieve an orgasm masturbates until they have chafed themselves down to raw tissue and blood, without noticing, only to finally recoil defensively in a realization of simultaneous disgust and agony long after you've grown bored and desensitized watching it happen. Yes, this movie is that bad. What's worse is that Stephen King apparently blogged a review about it for free in order to comment about how great it is. No wonder that guy's writing has sucked for the last twenty-five years. He's written himself into a state of mumbling infantile literary dormancy and there is no greater proof of that, besides his current work, than his advocacy of this waste of time. Not to mention the other dozen or so positive reviews by fans and so-called professional critics alike on IMDb - they are all untrue and inaccurate. If you really want to see subtle horror, anxiety-producing subtext, and fairly uniquely detailed character studies you can watch THE PACT (2012), OCCUPANT (2011), STILL OF THE NIGHT (1982), THE AWAKENING (2011), MAGIC MAGIC (2013), THE TENANT (1976), THE BEGUILED (1971), or THE COLLECTOR (1965). All these movies are awesome and the complete antithesis of whatever ENTRANCE is. And to think the same witless hacks who managed to get this garbage made are making the sequel to one of the best new psychological horror movies recently released - THE PACT(2012). It's an insult, a shame but not surprising. They may not be able to make a good movie but they must be giving great head to the ($)right($) people. I guess that's what you get when you live in a world dominated by conformity and career whores. And now you know what ENTRANCE is really about and really like. For people whose lives are dull enough to induce comas and mental retardation in others - enjoy! For all others I've made the movie sound way more interesting than it actually is by just telling you how much it sucked. The f***ing idiots who made it should be paying me.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Ultra Slow Burn Arty Indie Horror
Brian Ross7 October 2012
To lesser degrees, Entrance is much like critically acclaimed Michael Haneke's "Cache." It focuses on the verisimilitude of the medium without using shaky cam or other tricks. Rather than inundating with atmosphere and creepiness, he drains the audience with banality and normalcy. Defying the audience's expectations of a horror film helps to create a vacuum of uncertainty with a hard to place uneasiness.

Where your typical stalk and slash film might rely on popcorn scares to pass the time between kills, Entrance leaves you with nothing. On the right viewer it creates a sense of unsettling voyeurism and begins to wear on the actual conscience. On the wrong audience, it instills boredom and anger for lack of gore/shock/scares/etc - sadly there has been a lot of the wrong audience watching this film after Stephen King praised it in Entertainment Weekly. Not to knock King's typical fans or the readers of Entertainment Weekly, but this is not a pop-horror piece. Its more art-house indie horror than anything.

In recent years there has been a lot of interest in evolving the horror genre past its current state and in that regards Entrance may be ahead of its time. Fans of the ultra-slow-burn horror such as "Red White and Blue" or Ti West's "House of the Devil," should certainly have a profound appreciation for this film. Typical horror fans may only like the final twenty minutes when the pace finally picks up.

I for one immensely enjoyed Entrance, but thoroughly understand how a vast majority of its viewers simply won't like it. I rated it lower than the very similar film Cache due to a few issues with the sound and simply because on a repeat viewing I didn't find all the cerebral stimulation that Cache offers.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
susan-kelley8 February 2013
This movie follows an aimless young woman in LA. That would be fine for 20-30 minutes, and it's bearable for a while mainly because she's beautiful. It's not until the very last 10 or 15 minutes that something happens, terribly unexpected and frankly, quite disjointed. We kept waiting for something to happen, and by the time it did, my husband was fast asleep. Not that I blame him-- I was jealous. This movie is perfect to help you get to bed at night. Some people called this movie a "slow burn." I'd say it's NO burn, and then sudden burn. Others say we need too much stimulation that we call this boring. But the main character also felt that her life was boring. So why should we have to suffer through it, too? Wow, I honestly can't believe IMDb is forcing me to write more. There is more action in my review than there was in the entire movie. I registered on this site just so I could write this review and warn others away.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
high hopes,sadly let down,
batesy13815 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
at first this title sounds fresh and promising,i only joined IMDb to warn people,there are films out there that are (arty) and can be interesting,this is not one of them,me and my future wife got crisps and dips and settled down to watch what sounded like a good film ,sadly this was 45 Min's of a woman making coffee and leaving to go to work,then the film picks up when her pet goes missing,that drags on for ever,then add some cheap fake blood and devastatingly poor acting,and then some end credits ...naming and shaming the people that owe you over an hour of your life back,honestly i really was gutted that i planned a evening around this movie,
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A unique twist of genres with a beginning, a middle, a little more middle...and an end
jazzan831 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Not a movie for those with short attention spans. For some reason, quarter of the way through, I started fantasizing about Naomi Watts. I guess something about this reminded me of Mulholland Drive? Don't ask.

Maybe it was the "artistic" feel throughout the movie, or the experimental twist of genres, the almost found footage feel, who knows, but the fact that it's considered a thriller may be a bit confusing for some, unless of course you fast-forward to the ending. Now, while being slow and steady, doesn't make it a bad film, I just don't see it being for everyone. Especially not one I think most fans of typical thriller/slasher flicks are looking for.

It's mostly a look inside the main character and her daily life as a barista who seems relatively happy and normal until her beloved canine goes missing. Then paranoia kicks in, seemingly small, insignificant events happen and she has a going away party. Boom.

Problem I had with this was there were a lot of drawn out, continuous shots, which, although framed excellently considering all the movement with one camera, made it difficult to remain focused on the story. For example, when she's out putting up fliers for her missing dog, they took at least two or three separate scenes to shoot it when it could have been just as easy to do it in one and get back to the story. I also couldn't see how the title fit in, but that's a different matter.

Anyway, worth a view, just don't be expecting high anxiety, driven, tension; there are some good money shots for those blood-lusters out there though.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I'm not people
Michael Ledo3 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
The story line is given as such: "ENTRANCE is about the limits of our perception, how the things lurking on the periphery of our lives can lead to horrific conclusions; about how she fell out of love with the city, but it wouldn't let her go." WOW! Sounds deep and enchanting. For about an hour we watch Suzy (Suziey Block) go through the boring routine of her life, fixing coffee, going to work, feeding the dog...up until he goes missing. It was sheer boredom. We get clues she is being stalked and can't wait for him to attack her so we can watch something besides paint dry. Things start moving at about an hour in a manner that questions if the wait was worth it. I didn't think so.

Guide: No nudity. Brief sex scene.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A masterpiece! (as far as being a good learning tool)
Horse_Caulk28 September 2012
The first text you see on screen reads: "a TOWARD NEW CINEMA film".

Some will see the irony, humor, and tragedy of this.

The reviews were so mixed that I felt compelled to see it, especially due to its small budget. Who isn't thrilled when they find those clever, engaging, or brilliantly executed low-budget (or even no-budget) films? It's not just great from the perspective of those who enjoy films, but it's also an uplifting success story too, since so so SOOOO few of them are even a pubic hairs width higher up the ladder then a student film. So finding a good one is triply fantastic.

This isn't one of those films.

This is a sub-student-grade film, poorly-executed in every way by which a film is judged. This level of "insulting" is beyond ridiculous. Did those behind this film actually assume people's current level of awareness was so challenged that they really couldn't tell the difference between a legitimate film and simply pointing a consumer video camera at the action? Because that is nearly the level at which this is done. Write the script, cast it, find a few locations, then point the camera. Isn't that what children do with their projects? Don't misunderstand, going for stylization which mimics personally captured footage, a documentary style, or the tired "found footage" genre are all perfectly (well, sort of) legitimate means towards telling a story. BUT, there are those who choose this as a stylistic choice, AND THEN, there are those who film this way because....(wait for it)...that's all they can achieve.

How unfortunate is it to lack (nearly) all the skills/talents associated with producing a legitimate motion picture, but then comically attempting to spin those shortcomings into a premeditated choice? But wait....and then expecting people to buy it, and like it? Wow.

If it weren't so common, it would be so far beyond "unacceptable" as to be parodied, mocked, and giggled about relentlessly. But it's not even remotely uncommon, sadly. When there are no real consequences, why on earth would anyone feel shame or embarrassment? What some inexplicably delusional directors/writers/producers seem to continually overlook, is the inherent ability of most people to spot a student-grade project. People, whether they know it or not, are inadvertent experts at judging films. At least in terms of visuals, sound, (sometimes) performances, etc. You can't live through your childhood and formative years watching buttloads of meticulously crafted projects and then be expected to magically overlook brutal/massive/profound differences you encounter later. No more then you can listen to a recording of a garage-level band and not notice that it (usually) doesn't sound so phenomenal.

One of the reviews gave this project 10 stars. But that person, of course, had no other reviews. Cmon people, even a kid reading the reviews would be prone to the knee-jerk "yeah, must have been someone from the cast or crew". Well, knee-jerk or not, it's clear anyone giving this more then the minimum of one-star is either very very kind, not terribly bright, or associated with the project.

Most of the other reviews gave it just that, one star.

I said "sub-student-grade" because it's just that. Poor sound, poor framing, poor everything! I mean really, what were they thinking? Rarely do you see a film which fails (and fails big) in each and every area by which a film is judged. Every single way? How is that even possible? When you've worked in the industry, you can't help but get a few things right, even if by accident. Not this project though.

I swear by Zeus, that I would defend (portions of) this film if even one single area of production was executed with more then the skills of a hobbyist, but that's all you get in this project. Even (some) student projects are done with a level of skill and talent which, though rough, illustrates the future story-telling potential of one or more of the individuals involved. So again I must loudly exclaim....hobbyists! This is honestly nothing more then pointing an cheapish video camera at actors who've learned the lines which were written. And how on earth can that be applauded? Even as an assignment this would receive and dreadful grade, unless it was a 1st-year class (and even then I don't think it would grade too well).

This film is insulting not because those who made it have (less then) student skills, but because they comically assume no one would notice. People, unfortunately for them, aren't as profoundly stupid as they'd hoped. Even those who can't quite put it into words just "know" when something stinks badly.

And lastly. Kids, learn from this. This is what happens when your enthusiasm is greater then your skills and talent. Sure, motivation will certainly ensure your project gets finished, but to what ends? Don't you want your projects to be liked by others outside your family/friends/crew? Valuable lessons are the only positive thing about projects like this one.

As has been shown time and time again, having little/no budget doesn't always seem to get in the way of those with great skills and talent. They somehow are able to make the projects shine, even with consumer gear and no money whatsoever. Those...deserve applause, for achieving what others can't even approach.

This films value lies in the lessons it teaches to future film makers.
7 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
I have read a few of the reviews for this movie and if you rated this with more than one star you may need help.
drwatts20126 September 2012
While watching this movie I tried to figure out where the director or plot of this movie were going, then it dawned on me....there is no plot. The only conclusion I could rationally come to was the writer,director and producer had a little money (and I mean a little!)and some time on their hands so they figured they would try their hand at making a movie. Seriously I have seen a middle school project film that is "Oscar" quality in comparison to this. I believe it's a great thing that anyone with enough money to throw down on a digital camera can make a movie, but please don't be so pretentious that you consider this some sort of eye opening expose on the human condition. Even the title Entrance still has me puzzled, Entrance to what, some deep awakening that there are some people in this world that are "bad", I think I may have known this going in. Thanks for the effort.
5 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Waste of Time
thefineartofnoise21 July 2013
I can sum up this movie in 2 words. It Sucked!!! A total waste of time... The main character is a 20's something girl, who shares an apartment with another woman in an undisclosed city. She's slightly paranoid, has obvious anti social behavior, owns a dog and lives with a roommate who always seems to go out of town on the weekends. If I were a professor teaching "Film Making" I would definitely use this flick as an example of "How NOT to Make a Movie". This movie lacks the following basic criteria: 1. Plot, 2. Character development, 3. Meaningful dialog, 4. Transition, 5. Relationships 6. Action, 7. Sensible climax.

Bottom line, you would derive more pleasure from watching paint dry.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Entrance Interview
thesar-218 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This isn't so much a movie, but an experiment. Student film, if you will.

I will do my best not to "spoil" anything that happens, or doesn't, in Entrance. For, this has been recommended to me several times, and not one thing about it has been revealed, other than it might be a "horror" film and that "it's one of the best of the year."

Allow me to assure you: it's neither of those. Eh, it's horror if you're a Paranormal Activity buff that absolutely loves hand-held cameras shooting absolutely nothing happening for roughly the first 85% of the film. Okay, to be fair, much like Paranormal Activity, minute things happen, but since that's been played out in four of those Paranormal films alone, it's no longer original, nor effective. And secondly, it's not the best of any year.

It's a ho-hum account of a nameless girl (Karen Baird) who we get to "gleefully" see shower, brush her teeth, feed the dog, walk down the street, make coffee two times in the morning, converse with her roommate, talk with a boy-with-a-crush and drink wine…daily. We see this so many times, I lost count on how many days progressed in this unnamed location.

Then, suddenly, with 17 minutes of footage to spare, the movie finally finds its footing.

Again, no spoilers, but this final minutes are what the movie is about and you'll have to drudge through over an hour of a YouTube video to get to it.

You must have patience with a project like this. You must not have seen any of the many films, including the Paranormal Activity series, that feature the nothing-nothing-bump-nothing-something screenplays. And you must like $5 art-house movies that rely on the public's ignorance on cinema.

I will give the movie some credit: the scenes in the third act are effective and the performance of the nameless lead character is actually decent. I hope to see her use this stint on her resume. The rest of the no-names can handle the boom microphones from here out.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
So bad it's unbelievable
ectvet15 July 2013
This movie was absolutely incredible. I couldn't believe that anybody was idiotic enough to greenlight this turdfest. I have never seen a worse movie, and I doubt I ever will.

There is zero plot, zero suspense, and absolutely no reason to be interested in what happens to any of the characters. If crap like this passes for movies, I could make an Oscar-winner.

I would like to say that there is one tiny, insignificant mote of worth to this movie, but there simply isn't any. No doubt this movie is continually being shown in hell or by the CIA as a superior method of torture. I would gladly choose death over having to watch this movie again.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Total Garbage
Trebronus H6 July 2013
What a time waster......and I actually sat through the whole thing. Shame on me. I can't believe that this film actually made it to production. The plot was terrible, the acting horrific and there was really no proper storyline. I am the first person to embrace independent works of art but this never captivated me at any time during the entire work, The ending was neither here nor there leaving the viewers with an unsettling feeling as to "what is the purpose of all this?". This movie exudes that empty feeling that one gets when they watch the season finale of a series on TV with the exception that they don't really care one way or the other.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10 Avoid or skip the whole first hour if you must.
Tim Granite15 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The review by VideEmbolism for this was totally accurate. If you can watch an hour of film and all you missed was the disappearance of the main character's dog, what else is there to say?

Let's see the description:

ENTRANCE is about the limits of our perception, how the things lurking on the periphery of our lives can lead to horrific conclusions; about how she fell out of love with the city, but it wouldn't let her go.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt this description was the best piece of writing from anyone connected to this movie. I have no idea how anyone invested in it. I saw the main actress was an executive producer and thought she could have paid some film students or ONE writer for something more. Maybe it's an artistic film that has an eerie or creepy setting? Nope. I read Stephen King gave this positive reviews. Perhaps he was multi-tasking and writing at the same time. Talk about a guy that can't get his own to film adaptations to work despite being the best-selling author. Perhaps cinematography? Camera angles light? A good soundtrack? No. No. No.

I gave it one star for ending. Even the dog actor apparently quit about halfway through the making. It's awful with virtually no redeeming qualities.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
What a disappointment !!
zif ofoz3 July 2014
At the beginning of this movie I was most taken with the editing and photography, and the storyline. You really feel as if you have the 'fly on the wall' point of view while the "mysterious happenings" confuse this single girl.

I was thinking what a great look at living in a huge city like L.A. So many people both wonderful and strange. People in cities do weird things.

So all my interest and involvement with the daily life of Suzy is suddenly flushed down the toilet when the story becomes just another slasher/splatter psycho movie. Did the writers just give up? It would have been so much more interesting if Suzy had gone back to her parents and to find out her dissatisfaction and fears were all in her own mind.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Matchsticks needed For Eyelids.
littlemisshydro16 January 2014
OK, the movie sounded good & I was quite looking forward to it. After about 20 uneventful minutes in, I decided 2 watch it in 'Fast Forward'. In my opinion, it didn't really help matters as it was STILL too slow. Hmmm. It starts 2 get interesting just b4 the end. Oh wait, my mistake! I think this is supposed to be one of those thought provoking, intellectual films but in reality it is just too slow to get going and even then it just fizzles a little rather than being 'Explosive'. Much of the story seemed a little pointless & I couldn't've cared less about any of the characters. All in all, I should've just gone for a kip instead. At least that would've excited me more. Personally I found this film to be one of those films you watch and let out a disappointed 'Oh' at the end.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews