If we split this movie into two halves, those two parts could easily camouflage as two different stories with two entirely differing interpretations.
The first half leaned more towards a conventional work of nail-biter as it delineates a tale fraught with adequate anticipation and raw energy, and I liked it primarily because of the tension that was nurtured quite brilliantly.
The second part, however, embraces a "movie-within-a-movie" approach, and I have got mixed feelings about this.
They do give us some exciting insights into the craft of filmmaking, but because I am not personally a fan of all these 'breaking the immersion' sorts of things, I didn't enjoy it and felt like the movie could have done much better without it!
But hey, that's just me; if you disagree, I totally get it.
The first half leaned more towards a conventional work of nail-biter as it delineates a tale fraught with adequate anticipation and raw energy, and I liked it primarily because of the tension that was nurtured quite brilliantly.
The second part, however, embraces a "movie-within-a-movie" approach, and I have got mixed feelings about this.
They do give us some exciting insights into the craft of filmmaking, but because I am not personally a fan of all these 'breaking the immersion' sorts of things, I didn't enjoy it and felt like the movie could have done much better without it!
But hey, that's just me; if you disagree, I totally get it.