Blur (2007) User Reviews

We need to get rid of the body!

[rojito23 · 4/10 · 1 July 2007]

"We need to get rid of the body!" It is at this exact point in the movie, right after that line is said, that everyone who was watching burst out laughing. It doesn't make any sense. I'll call that the breaking point. I can break this movie down into three parts. What happens before the breaking point, after the breaking point and then the ending. The first part of the movie basically consisted of a bunch of nothing happening. An hour of a guy who supposedly has " a thousand things to do" but really doesn't do much of anything. You meet his neighbor who is somewhat humorous and the only reason I didn't fall asleep. Also some nudity for no apparent reason except to keep the men watching awake. It really seems like you are watching what happens in between the "action". I also need to mention that whoever did the soundtrack to this movie must have been like 12 years old. Very odd music. somewhat porno sounding. and it is Always playing!

After the breaking point, it turned into a bunch of bad movie clichés. They do and say stuff so ridiculous that you just have to laugh!

The third part is the ending which tries to save the movie. The ending is actually good enough for me not to rate this a 1. But besides The Sixth Sense, I'm not a fan of M. Night Shyamalan type movies. (Bore you to tears for over an hour and a half and then try a surprise to save the movie.) But it did explain some things and the very last scenes cleared up some confusion.

I wouldn't recommend this. Completely boring!

Not worth your time

[chrichtonsworld · 3/10 · 29 June 2007]

After reading some of the comments given here I am beginning to think that I have seen another movie. I understand that this is a independent low budget movie. So what. Only for this fact people are praising this movie. At least that is the impression I am getting. A higher budget for this movie wouldn't matter much since "Blur" seems to be depending on the story and not style or special effects. I think thrillers (in particular) have to be judged on plot and creativity. In "Blur" the plot seems to be going in a lot of directions without an actual goal. This is obviously to mislead you. Nothing wrong with this as long there are subtle hints for us to find out what is going on. In here lies the problem. We only get one perspective and that is from the main character. So we automatically assume that what he sees is actually happening. Not once we get a clue from other characters that something is wrong with him. The only thing that is said that he is paranoid. I did had my doubts on Adrien's behavior,but could not make out if it was scripted or bad acting. The surprising twist really comes out of nowhere and only in the epilogue it gets explained. This has got to be one of the worst twists I have ever seen. Come on how could I accept it without a single clue given in advance. This is not being creative. It's laziness. And why is this movie being called a horror movie. There are no supernatural elements involved. Apart from a scare or two and the main character who believes he is a psychic there is nothing going on. This movie has been very disappointing and certainly is not worth watching.

Don't see this movie

[JTMokko · 1/10 · 4 July 2007]

I am glad that I didn't pay to see this movie. This movie seems to be made by the bunch of film student straight out of school. Story is incoherent and totally meaningless. Actors are not beliavable and especially artist(Salvator Xuereb) is just delivering a stereotypical performance. Whole movie was basically just depiction of some painting, paranoia, partying and crying over a dead body.

Music was totally of the mood. There was like action music on suspenseful moments. I was left with an impression that composer probably didn't see the movie when he was making music.

Definitely the highlight of the movie was when charming young Allyssa(Nicole Rayburn) was posing naked - such beauty! And art works in the movie weren't that bad.

This movie could serve well as a example how to not make a movie.

Go to an art museum instead!

[rambrandt1234 · 2/10 · 30 June 2007]

I thought that the hideous red face on the main character's canvas looked familiar so I looked it up and, yes, it's almost line for line the famous sketch "Head studies" by Leonardo da Vinci at the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest. Of course, it could be just a coincidence, but I think it's a subliminal message, something like, "Go to the museum, go to the museum, don't waste your money, don't waste your money..." Anyway, it starts out interesting, with good acting on the part of a group of interesting practically unknowns. Then it ever so slowly gets spookier and cornier in a grossly subtle and confusing fashion. They use lots of contrived false leads to nowhere in particular until the end, when it slaps you in the face and blatantly says to you, "You should have gone to the museum, you wasted your money..." I just wish I could spoil the ending for you, but for the most part, it was so boring that it's a blur.

Horror(able)

[hydrophatt · 1/10 · 10 July 2007]

We know its low budget. We know it was all filmed on one location. But that's what made me wonder about something. With all the money saved on the filming costs, couldn't somebody have kicked in a little for some acting lessons? This was so hard for me to watch ... actually, I turned it off at the 60 minute mark. I challenge you to make it further. What does it say if you make it further? Either you are really bored. Or, you were able to laugh at it. Sadly, I was neither bored enough to watch it nor was I able to laugh at its stupidity. I will say the paintings weren't bad. Especially the one from the film's poster. Sadly that was the best part of the film. Remember, this was me going to watch a movie, not a guy going to an art show.

Film making amateur hour

[mcotoole · 1/10 · 9 May 2007]

If you are looking for a film with a lot of gore this isn't for you. I Wanted to see this since it was film not far from where I live. It was a total disappointment. The entire film is shot at the same farmhouse location. There were really only two shots: in the house and outside of the house. The actors motivation made no sense – the main guy is losing his mind during the first half of the film – he then turns into a mass murdered during the second half. The epilogue where the two women tries to explain what happened looks added on. This scene is too little too late. Really bad casting all the actors were not right for their parts. The script is all over the place, the party scene is too long and nothing really happens except girls kissing each other. The film drags on until the last ten minutes when it takes off in another direction. The script writers obviously don't know about three act structure. We have seen the man haunted by demons movie too many times. Very poor directing the actors just stand there and speak their lines, very poor framing of shots, no build up of dramatic tension. Avoid at all costs.

Big nosedive in the plot

[wolfbeast · 1/10 · 28 December 2007]

I was intrigued by the first part of this movie, where an interesting idea is given shape, a painter that is obviously psychically gifted which shows in his work, and in the obvious premonition flashes he gets. The characters, however, stay flat, aren't given much depth, and the attempts at establishing clear relationships between the characters in the movie fails because of it. With the introduction of suspense through the "mysterious neighbour" the plot starts to turn towards a rather negative and unfortunately also quite predictable direction. There is some mystery but it gets debunked soon, which leaves us just with the painter who is obviously losing it, and who is also obviously a complete spaz that shouldn't be left near sharp objects because he'd get someone hurt.

The worst nosedive happens when he ends up with a firearm in his possession and kills his friend by accident. All logic goes out the window, and the movie turns into a series of really bad clichés where all the worst and most stupid responses from characters are shown that have been thought up in Hollywood. The killing was an accident, but even the rational wife who offers a perfectly viable course of action gets ignored, and then swayed to the absurd. At this point in time I looked at how far I was in the movie, and decided to sit out the last part of it. It didn't get any better, only worse.

Please don't waste your time on this movie. It starts interesting, but turns into the worst kind of drama you can imagine.

Solid debut film...

[goflyersgo99 · 9/10 · 2 May 2007]

I thought Blur was a solid debut film for Nick Briscoe. Well written with a great storyline and a twist ending that no one would expect. The directing is fantastic...so good that you find it hard to believe that it is his debut film. The camera angles, lighting, and editing are all superior to what you would expect from a small independent film. The acting is a little on the amateur side, which is the only thing that keeps this film from being a 10. But that is to be expected in a small indie film such as this. If you like suspense films and surprise endings in the tradition of The Sixth Sense, I highly recommend checking out Blur. All things considered, I would say you can expect great things from Nick Briscoe and Belvedere Films in the future. Given a much larger budget, I believe the sky is the limit.

Surprise Indie! Check it Out!

[yournewfriendsam-1 · 7/10 · 18 June 2007]

This is an indie film doing what an indie film should do: shocks, breaks the rules, and entertains. I hadn't heard too much prior to watching other than a recommendation from a buddy, but I was impressed with the film. The production value and the talent of the actors were both great. Very interesting artistic shots and great use of wide-angle lens. The actors also were a treat: fresh talented faces. The story was well written, predictable at some points, but never uninteresting. It had a really nice pace to it building the suspense into a crisp three-act structure. I loved the art work. The art played such a substantial role throughout the film. The hallmark piece was stunning. It played along with the story really well. I was also impressed with the editing sequence during the party scenes. It was very cool. A bit out of the ordinary, but very effective. The style was quick jump cuts reminiscent of Breathless or more recently Brick. MOST IMPORTANTLY: The last 15 minutes made the movie! It went from a suspense thriller to all-out horror--Beautiful representation of complex human emotions and behaviors. It is absolutely worth checking out.

Great Low-budget Film!

[filmlover33 · 9/10 · 18 June 2007]

I am always intrigued to watch low-budget films and to see how, if at all, they make up for the tight budget. For a low-budget film and a director's debut, this film exceeds any marginal expectations and delightfully presents a chilling tale through a very unique, visual approach. From the beginning of the film, director Nick Briscoe, captures the mood with a style that is very much reminiscent of Hitchcock in the way the camera slowly tampers with the feelings of the characters who remain at an unusual, or at times, uneasy distance from the audience. As a result, it is a technique that, much like the master of suspense created, divides voyeurism from paranoia. However, in Blur, Briscoe tells the story through visual images which represent more than just the aforementioned characteristic. As the story takes us through a mystified vision of the main character's paranoia and sexual illusions, we are presented with the idea of an identity becoming blurred. During the scene at the party, with everyone dressed up and wearing masks, references toward Greek mythology are presented and suggests the main message of the story. However, what makes this low-budget film impressive, is that the story succeeds in creating ambiguity, forcing us to find a specific message found through visual representations, and by looking underneath the surface.

Even though it may seem like a simple story, there is a strange complexity in the way the film is structured.

Highly recommend it!

It was alright.

[b-kunwar · 6/10 · 9 June 2007]

I didn't really like this movie that much except until the end. The fact I didn't like it was because I dread horror movies. However, I think it was also the characters that failed to convince me. It was a typical low budget movie. When you hear the characters cry, it seems quite raw and hard to swallow, so I guess, that part was interesting. I feel that this movie could have been better in a number of ways. It could have had more budget firstly and the length of the movie could have been shorter. It leaves you with an empty feeling at the end because the masked character isn't revealed. It is actually relieving at the end to have the troubled character dead as it assures you that no more people will be hurt. Anyway, it is watchable but don't expect to be too impressed as the other reviews seem to imply.

Intriguing

[elmariachi33 · 8/10 · 5 June 2007]

Although I was sketchy while first recommended via NetFlix, I decided to check it out. Let me first say, I am a HUGE Nicole Rayburn fan, I think she is highly underrated and i will watch anything she is in. Yes, I've seen "Candy Stripers" and "Boo!" The film starts out with this great title sequence showing these great art pieces... with vivid vibrant colors. We then are taken into the art infused work of Adrian Jonas, who is painting one of his pieces in preparation for his big show in SoHo. The day takes a turn for the worst when Adrian has a vision that something bad is going to happen.

The film is not what I expected, i seriously thought I was going to be watching a bad horror movie, with bad acting and bad dialog. I was pleasantly surprised when I was proved wrong.

The film is both intelligent and intriguing. I was taken into this world of this artist who could possibly be on the verge of something extremely creative or extremely terrifying.

It almost felt documentary-style. Almost like I was peaking into someone's private life, where I shouldn't be. Salvatore Xuereb was just astonishing, he really took the role to the next level and gave you such a great feeling. Wendy Carter was also great as the wife who may be in danger. Jana Kolesarova was a true gem and a surprise when she came onto screen. She really was the true standout for me personally. And of course, Nicole Rayburn was my personal favorite. I hope this girl does more, I really enjoy her.

At the end of this film, I was in shock. I couldn't believe what I just saw and I was blown away. After second viewing, I pieced more information together and I was extremely excited and enthusiastic.

I would recommend this film to everyone. This is a film that you want to talk about after you've seen it.

Starts great, ends in disaster

[siderite · 6/10 · 6 July 2009]

It could have been great. It starts with the distorted reality of a painter, described in slow (sometimes too slow) detail, and it evokes that "old school" feel of knowing the characters and getting into their world with them. And then the movie goes sideways, loses control, hits a tree and dies.

I tell you, rather than release this film they should have thrown away the last quarter and remake it into something that made sense. It is difficult for me to explain what is wrong with the film without giving away the ending, so you have two choices: watch it and be lenient or don't bother.

Absolutely fantastic!

[lagriff05 · 8/10 · 16 June 2007]

Wow, this is probably the best horror movie I've seen in a long time. The director is apparently a newcomer, but it doesn't often show. This movie may be one of those low-budget type things, but it's honestly one of the coolest and most original films I've seen in ages. It may move a bit slow, but it's more of a 'comfortable' slow pace than a sluggish one. It's only about 90 minutes, but it takes it's time to let things happen and let the plot unfold.

As for the plot, I wasn't originally impressed, since it did not seem that exciting from the tiny blurb I saw here. It starts off a bit slow, and you're not sure exactly how good it'll be. Moving at a rather deviously slow pace, you're kept in suspense until the ending just explodes on you, surprising you with a force that big-name movies rarely muster anymore. I'm wholly impressed by this. Nothing is done to excess, there are no plot holes, nothing. This is just the best low-budget horror movie of 2007, hands down, and it beats even most of the big-name blockbuster ones at their own game.

Highly recommended. Plus, this is a movie about a masquerade. How classy can you get?