picmanjoe I've noticed in the past that movie-watchers tend to be very loyal to their genres and that when a movie crosses genres, as this one does, it tends to provoke a hostile reaction from a certain segment of the viewing public. The problem is that this movie appears to be an action thriller, but it isn't one at all. Not to give too much away, but it's actually a supernatural drama. (And when the genre of your movie is a spoiler, that's a bit of a marketing nightmare!) Certain reviewers have criticized this movie for being a bad action thriller--which makes sense because it isn't an action thriller. Others have assumed that the movie simply lost its way, when it has been very carefully crafted from the very first second (looking into a mirror) to be exactly what it is. Much has been made of the no-cut technique as if it's a gimmick, when it is in fact integral to the story. A cut in a movie, more than anything else, implies a jump in time, but time is a metaphysical impossibility in this movie--hence the comments about being punished for what will happen later and the protagonist's frequent musings on whether she has met these characters before.Some have felt that the actors are too wooden or melodramatic--"one-note," I believe a reviewer said--without realizing that this is exactly what they are supposed to be. Again at the risk of giving too much away, I'll just point out that these characters are not what they once were. They have eroded. What remains of them is a kind of imprint--thus, for example, the cop can't remember exactly who his family is even though he instantly identifies himself as a father. Each character has preserved only a core of habits, unresolved emotions, and concerns, and it is from this core that the characters speak and act. Even the most trivial comments convey this.Another problem with this movie is that it doesn't mesh neatly with our preconceived ideas of metaphysical reality. So, for instance, we could all deal with Angel Heart because we could tell right away that Robert De Niro was the devil, but here, we can't seem to find the right archetypes to help us along. Another review suggests that Dad is the devil, but I doubt that very much; I think he would say he's just a sick old man who likes power, who has done a lot of horrible things, and who still mourns the loss of his daughter. And I think he's very close to being right.The mood of the movie is perfect. It conveys the impression that we have stayed up all night and have reached that vulnerable time shortly before dawn when all decent, normal people are in bed, or possibly are in a different reality altogether; when the world seems empty of all vitality or meaning; and when even the most familiar settings seem unfamiliar. The anonymous sets convey as well this idea that we have stepped into some sort of shadow world where all the late-night fast food places are locked up, all the gas stations are closed, and all the daytime rules no longer apply.Altogether, this movie perfectly tells the story it has to tell. Unfortunately, those who had hoped that story would be an action thriller will continue to be disappointed.

bernie-122 Don't pay any attention to one-star reviews by total idiots. This is one of the most, if not THE most amazing piece of film-making I've ever seen. And I'd like to know why the ONLY one-star review is the one featured on the main page. Who decides which review should be the leading one? At first I thought it was done in 3 or 4 takes, which would have been impressive enough, but upon watching it again, I see it really is one continuous scene, start to finish. I don't see how anybody could pull that off. One mistake, one prop out of place, one line-fluff is all it would take, and you'd have to start all over again. This requires planning and execution beyond imagining, at least for me.I could say that it got a bit over the top in the melodrama at times, but did it really? I'd have to say it all fitted with the surreal mood of the whole film.I can't really say much more, else I'd risk giving away too much. If you like, or at least don't mind, something really different for a change, then please don't miss this.

Scarecrow-88 Angela Bettis stars as a troubled young wife of a man being set-up for a hit thanks to "Dad"(David Proval). She convinces the The Contract(Scott Cohen)to not go ahead with the planned hit, but must coerce Dad to take away the order to kill. Her journey is the large part of this film as Bettis walks a hell of a lot in this film shot in one long continuous take from director Yuri Zeltser. The film is snake-bit by hammy overacting theatrics from a game cast who seem to try too hard for realism and melodramatic depth. The cast is also saddled with corny, sometimes embarrassing, dialogue as well. Not to mention, the film is full of weird characterizations creating an oddball experience which may or may not be the intent. Strange movie. The title is essentially referring to a never-ending cycle..or some sort of nightmarish limbo, is you wish.

hdale04 Very unusual experience this film. Refreshingly, I didn't know what to expect at any given moment. The energy of the film was almost gorilla-like. The filming of the movie seemed very raw and simplistic, with a mysterious feel. I found myself eerily captivated. And the most interesting part is the dialog, simple, yet if you don't pay attention, you miss so much, even the most inane conversation is important to the plot line, brilliant! This is the first truly independent film I've seen in years. I recommend this film to anyone tired of the clean Hollywood feel of so called "independent films" these days. If you want an honest, no frills movie experience, check out this movie, you won't know WHAT hit you when your done!