Foreverisacastironmess Okay, for a film that was shot in just fifteen days I don't think this is all that bad and I never did, I think they got a lot out of the little that they had to work with. One of the few things about it that does bug me is the girl's nightmare scenes, they look really cheap and tacky and it takes me right out of the film and makes me very aware that what I'm watching is low budget, not that it's by any means the most rotten- looking low budget I've ever seen. I think when constrained by such a budget a horror movie should really at least be able to deliver on the things that it can and in my opinion this is one that does. It is rather held back by the few set pieces, which are only about three maybe, but the story's done with just the right amount of action and suspense, and it's all about the tense mood and characters. What I most enjoy about it is that it's very much a character-driven horror film that doesn't rely on gore effects or big jump scare moments to get its shocks across to the audience. And no way is it a 'torture-porn' flick, there's no torture in it. Unless you count the psychological kind... I thought the interplay that they managed to get going between the two leads was pretty terrific. The scenes between them which form the main bulk of the plot create an effectively claustrophobic atmosphere of unease that gets under the skin a little because of the cruel and humiliating nature of the imprisonment, as well as the forced intimacy of the situation. She's got no choice but to engage with and get to know this man a little if she's ever going to be in a position where she can prey upon his weaknesses, and which leads to the interesting back-and-fourths and mind games that drive this film. I thought James Dumont's performance was brilliant, and he alone makes this picture worth viewing. He truly embodied the part, he actually looked like the type of man who would have to kidnap and tie up beautiful women before he'd ever get any attention from them, like one of those creepy sneaking types of people that you'd never notice in a million years but when you'd catch one observing you it'd give you that tingly feeling at the back of your neck. But even though his character was portly skulking and loathsome, Dumont also manages to make him somewhat sympathetic at points, because he was so pitiful. I liked his eyes, he had this really great, wide-eyed almost child-like stare of mock naiveté that you could imagine how it'd work on your mind if you were ever this freak's prisoner! I found the part where he lets her go hungry as a way of punishing her fairly disturbing. I don't know if anyone on hear has ever had to starve for an extended period of time, but after enduring that for long enough you will be ready to apologise for just about anything. I uh, I really love when he kills the Mormans! It's so funny because they pick the very worst time possible to land their little visit! Those people creep me out, they're always so damn attractive and too..nice! It ain't natural! He's better than her, but it's very much a double-act picture, they play-off each other excellently, and for me it's both of their performances that keep it afloat, entertaining and enjoyable. And in good classic tradition the movie reaches its conclusion and ends, and it's pretty-dang satisfying when "Rudy" finally takes control after suffering some kind of surreal mental break at the sight of her friend being slaughtered by "Herman", and she becomes the twisted bride of his sick dreams to trap him with his own repressed lust for her by luring him into his wooden cage of tricks and then proceeding to completely shred his crotch with a many-spiked implement that I fail to recognise and then leaving him to bleed out and throwing away the key - yeah! Go women!!! And I just love the closing macabre image and notion of a demented blood-splattered bride strolling downtown in broad daylight. Being L.A., I bet hardly anyone looked at her twice! I always liked this film, and overall I find it an engaging and straightforward film that while it's definitely not great, is very good for what it is. Oh, hopeless romanticism...the downfall of every man!

gary-444 This is the Directorial debut for Matt Zettell, and Christopher Nelson's first screenplay- and it shows. There is a rich and honourable tradition of " captured women at the mercy of depraved men", but this does nothing to add to it. The premise is fine, and familiar. A loner pervert abducts young women for lewd purposes. But crucially, beyond that, Zettell loses his way.It isn't a sexploitation movie. There is no overt sexual violence and hardly any nudity, so voyeurs will be disappointed. This isn't a standard "slash & splash" movie, the body count is too low. Nor is it a psychological thriller, the Direction and writing isn't good enough. The shame is that the two lead actors, abductor Herman, (James Dumont(, and abductee , Rudy, (Michelle Tomlinson), do a decent job with what they have, which isn't very much.There are some decent scenes, the pre opening credits chase across a deserted storm drain is solid, the supermarket scenes where Herman buys self consciously for his captive well observed if under exploited, and the dispatch of some pesky Jehovas witnesses quite amusing. But overall it is a long 85 minutes.The film's flaw is that Zettell does not know what to do with the story. The characterisation is weak, so we don't really bond with any of the characters. Herman's creepy and perverted desires are not played on enough, and the violence requires a level of suspension of disbelief in the final act which is laughable. This film really is not very good.

gavin6942 A potential serial killer and his kidnap victim... can they develop a relationship, a rapport? This is what viewers will be left wondering after the socially inept kidnapper is forced to take care of his victim, including buying her feminine hygiene products.The film starts out with some of the most awful shaky cam I've ever seen. If the viewer is prone to motion sickness, this may be a bit unbearable for them... I'm not overly susceptible, but another five minutes and this film would have been ejected. Luckily, it stops after the introduction.And once the shaky cam goes away, we realize something that makes or breaks an independent film. In this case, it makes it: a good story. Thanks, Christopher Nelson. Sure, I've read multiple reviews saying this film covers familiar ground. And they're right. There's nothing particularly unique about a kidnapper and his victim. We could use a twist -- like a female kidnapper and a male victim. But as far as this archetype is concerned, I think they executed it well.About the acting... the lead actor (James DuMont) is a bit silly, but fit the quirkiness of the role. The lead actress (Michelle Tomlinson) is solid. I don't think she stands out, I don't think this will launch her career... but she did well.The quotations on the box are a bit weak --do you really need multiple quotes from my friends at Pretty Scary? -- but the movie was good. If you're a supporter of independent film, this certainly is worth your time. Not the most polished, not the greatest film of the year... but it held my attention and the attention of my friend Seth, which is more than we can say for most films when we're drunk off our butts.

wroutson As I stated in the subject line of this post "your movie sucks", while I have no Idea how anyone could sit through it once let alone a second time I myself turned it off after ten minutes or so wondering how anyone could spend not only money making this garbage but the time to actually film it and then edit it and further I can't believe the distributors actually paid you for this. The only positive thing I take away from this movie is that I didn't waste anymore time watching it so my ten minute investment was at least kept to a minimal, you might have a future in how to videos as long as their is a market for this type of movie. I can only hope you never make another movie or at the very least are forced to watch this film till you claw out your own eyes. This is the exact type of movie that gives horror movies a bad reputation I'm just surprised that Lions Gate didn't snatch this turd up and add it to it's collective pile of crappy films. In the future where ever you may land if I ever have the pleasure of meeting you just remember this "Yes I want fries with that order" And "Don't spit on the bun"