siderite 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.

rojito23 "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!

chrichtonsworld 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.

filmlover33 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!