Watch Entrance For Free

Did you people see the same film I saw?

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

The acting in this movie is really good.

The first and only IMDb review I read for this movie said to go into it blindly, so I did without even reading the rest of the review. Going into it blindly is the best advice anyone could give. And if you read the rest of this review, don't worry I won't expose a thing. I won't even tell you what genre this film is (because as far as I can tell it isn't any genre).I'll be honest and say I hated the first 12 minutes because it seemed indulgent & pointless. Also I'm not really a fan of hand-held camera work. But luckily I have a tolerance/attention span of exactly 13 minutes because that's when a story began to develop. And ultimately I realized even those "pointless" 12 minutes had a point. It sets up a very subtle yet pervasive metaphor, the soul of the whole movie.Slowly, so slowly that you might not even notice (which I'm sure was the filmmakers' intent) the film starts to get under your skin. And although the only quantifiable storyline for the first 40 minutes is a girl and her dog, it's done so convincingly and, yes, suspensefully that I was hooked. And that, my friends, is all I will say about the plot because you shouldn't expect anything more.Now a few notes about technique... The directors did something very interesting by never taking the camera off the lead actress throughout the whole movie, not once. Also the camera would sometimes run long, continuous shots without cuts. While this method may sacrifice momentum and some viewer interest, it adds tremendous realism, almost like a documentary feel. And we begin to connect with the heroine even though she doesn't say much. And of course the difficulty in staging the rest of the action while always keeping her in the shot must've been no easy task. The final 22 minutes is a very impressive achievement, all done in one continuous take with a lot going on, and I mean a whole lot.People have called this film "experimental", but there's no experiment about it. This is a fully finished product with a great style, a novel approach, and certainly the most memorable ending I've seen in ages, ending on an image which I can't decide if it's chilling, hilarious or beautiful.

There are fans of film out there who think anything slow and boring must be deep, meaningful and intelligent. To be fair, there are a lot of films that are slow, meaningful and intelligent but have so much going on underneath the surface that it is like you are secretly seeing the most exciting action movie taking place in a way you can't describe and being able to read and feel what is happening even though everything appears to be still or uneventful makes it even more exhilarating.ENTRANCE is not one of those movies.This film is just slow and boring. It wants to convince you it is one of those deliberately slow films that has a lot going on underneath what appears not to be happening but it doesn't. It is made for fans who are just too stupid to know the difference between subtle and subliminal versus plodding and meaningless and thus settle for anything that is slow and boring because it makes them feel smart, sensitive and privy to details most other people would miss. Yes this movie is that bad. To think there are people out there lame and stupid enough to call this movie a terrific "slow burn" piece of cinema is a phenomena in itself. I don't even want to imagine the kind of boring f***ing lives those who find this type of cinema entertaining must lead. It just shows how depressingly and pathetically low standards have become to have generated the kind of lead-minded audience that would champion this drudgery just because it is as ordinary and unremarkable as they are. Well, that's the Microsoft age for you. There is nothing innovative, striking, remarkable or subtle about it. It is just pretentious stupidity drawn out to an intolerable length by the unoriginality and lack of creativity of it's makers. The movie follows the life of one of the most hollow-eyed, blank-faced, vacuous idiot women you'll ever meet as she goes about her daily routine, getting her hair cut, taking care of her dog, walking around and generally doing nothing of any importance or interest. Unfortunately, she is probably typical of most women nowadays - pretty, uninteresting, unassuming and completely self-absorbed in a mentally vacuum-sealed delusion of self-importance - but the filmmakers don't bother with offering any insight or commentary into this weak-mined shell of a narrative and seem completely unaware of this all the while performing an amateurish sleight-of-hand by trying to pass their lack of style and substance off as clinical objectivity in the hopes that the audience will do all the work for them by creating subtext out of something that just isn't there. During this mind-numbing character study the woman starts to notice supposedly strange things, which I suppose are supposed to be disturbing and unsettling by the way she overreacts (and overacts) to them, like strange noises in her apartment, men looking at her on the street, a car momentarily following her, but these instances are steeped so heavily in such random banality that they could happen, and probably have happened, to anyone without any sort of threatening context and if they are meant to be foreshadowing for something more terrible to come are as lame, limp and unpromising as the advances of a chemically castrated sex-addict in a whorehouse. All this stringent boredom interrupted by dramatic farts of pseudo-ominous occurrences eventually lead to what is supposed to be, I'm assuming, the grand finale which is nothing short of being absolutely predictable and stunningly uninspired and which you have seen a hundred times before done way better. It is actually a relief when the absence of plot and story finally climaxes, not for the sake of alleviating any suspense or intensity that has built up, there is none, but for the reassuring knowledge that this truly failed attempt at subliminal cinema is finally over, like somebody with nerve damage, who in desperately trying to achieve an orgasm masturbates until they have chafed themselves down to raw tissue and blood, without noticing, only to finally recoil defensively in a realization of simultaneous disgust and agony long after you've grown bored and desensitized watching it happen. Yes, this movie is that bad. What's worse is that Stephen King apparently blogged a review about it for free in order to comment about how great it is. No wonder that guy's writing has sucked for the last twenty-five years. He's written himself into a state of mumbling infantile literary dormancy and there is no greater proof of that, besides his current work, than his advocacy of this waste of time. Not to mention the other dozen or so positive reviews by fans and so-called professional critics alike on IMDb - they are all untrue and inaccurate. If you really want to see subtle horror, anxiety-producing subtext, and fairly uniquely detailed character studies you can watch THE PACT (2012), OCCUPANT (2011), STILL OF THE NIGHT (1982), THE AWAKENING (2011), MAGIC MAGIC (2013), THE TENANT (1976), THE BEGUILED (1971), or THE COLLECTOR (1965). All these movies are awesome and the complete antithesis of whatever ENTRANCE is. And to think the same witless hacks who managed to get this garbage made are making the sequel to one of the best new psychological horror movies recently released - THE PACT(2012). It's an insult, a shame but not surprising. They may not be able to make a good movie but they must be giving great head to the ($)right($) people. I guess that's what you get when you live in a world dominated by conformity and career whores. And now you know what ENTRANCE is really about and really like. For people whose lives are dull enough to induce comas and mental retardation in others - enjoy! For all others I've made the movie sound way more interesting than it actually is by just telling you how much it sucked. The f***ing idiots who made it should be paying me.

There are a lot of shills on this board giving this high marks. That's one thing I can say. Are you all friends and family of the filmmakers?To those of you discussing the masterful composition of shots: where? Shots go on for far too long to get them up to feature length, everything could and should have been trimmed drastically on both the head and tail ends. This is essentially a student film. I say this, having been a film student myself and able to recognize the repetition, non-existent pacing and lack of plot that passes for a senior year project. The fact that it took four people to write this is shameful; I wouldn't have advertised the fact that even with four 'writers' working on this there's essentially nothing happening at all.The lead is not a very good actress, she's not compelling to watch and her line delivery is pretty bad. There's a bit cribbed from Fatal Attraction where the lead switches a bedside lamp on and off post empty sexual encounter to symbolize her alienation, my response to this was a resounding 'who cares?' Shot in and around Silverlake and Los Feliz, the only fun to be had is spotting your local landmarks. I'm sure there were lots of excited story discussions in just the right tone of voice so that the other diners knew they were making a film over glasses of red wine at--hmm. I'll take a guess and say it was at Alcove on Hillhurst, though Intelligentsia probably got hit hard too. The 'shocking' ending doesn't make it any good, so don't count on it saving the day. It was probably conceived of as a short and should have stayed that way. How do you rebar two people together? Another rip, this time from a Friday the 13th film, by the way, though I can't remember which one. And I don't know too many hipsters who keep an axe in or around their houses, either. Maybe the killer brought it with him to the party in the back of his Prius. Laughably bad. P.S. It's a blue heeler, not a blue 'healer'. Did you want me to think your protagonist was stupid as well as utterly boring?

This film follows this woman aimlessly going about her life, doing this and that, certainly nothing profound or exciting happening.For the first sixty minutes this is like a bad romcom without the romance & comedy. It belongs in the drama section, although there wasn't really any drama either.Then at her moving away party suddenly some stalker shows up & starts doing bad things off camera to her friends. It was less than 70 minutes of actual movie time and there was very little suspense,tension or horror. The long wait for something to happen just didn't pay off.Honestly watching grass grow is a fine alternative to watching this. If you do choose to watch it you risk having the same senseless feeling that I had. This gets a 2/10