IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,2/10
12.753
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Ein Mann entführt einen Blumenladenbesitzerin und hält sie in einem kleinen, schalldichten Raum gefangen, um ein dunkles Geheimnis aus ihrer Vergangenheit aus ihr herauszuholen.Ein Mann entführt einen Blumenladenbesitzerin und hält sie in einem kleinen, schalldichten Raum gefangen, um ein dunkles Geheimnis aus ihrer Vergangenheit aus ihr herauszuholen.Ein Mann entführt einen Blumenladenbesitzerin und hält sie in einem kleinen, schalldichten Raum gefangen, um ein dunkles Geheimnis aus ihrer Vergangenheit aus ihr herauszuholen.
Christian Blaque Meier
- Jarrod
- (as Christian Meier)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
The stage curtains open ...
It's really hard to talk about this movie without spoiling it ... but, I will do my best not to. Let's just say that nothing is as it seems - sounds familiar, I know. It's another one of those kind of movies.
The movie starts with a man watching a woman, and then eventually, abducting her and taking her to his rural home in the trees. He drags her inside the house and throws her into a 10x10 padded room (hence the movie's title). Right away, you are intrigued. Why does he have her there? Why all the preparation of the room, hiding the room, and why her? The movie does a good job of building the suspense and the questions are coming up right and left as it begins to develop. I actually liked the story and the reason why she was there.
My problem with the movie, though, is in how the answer is delivered. I felt this was a missed opportunity for something really special. First - for having "months" to prepare for this, he really wasn't too bright. Abducting her in broad daylight, in the middle of a shopping center parking lot - she even got out some shouts for help (but, of course, the ONLY person in the vicinity is wearing headphones and listening to loud music...lol). Then when he gets home, before he takes her out of the trunk of his car, he just leaves the garage door open. There is a reason for this - a real eye roller too. And then he isn't quick to notice that she still has her cell phone on her, even inside the secret room.
She isn't too bright either ... for starters, there is one point in the film where she manages to knock him out cold. And instead of taking his gun, she wastes time trying to get out the door, use his phone ... pretty much everything except for the one thing she should have done. But, I guess if she would've done that, we'd have no spectacular ending - which really isn't that spectacular.
I can't recommend this one. The idea of the movie was better than the movie itself. This could've been so much better. The promise just got worse and worse as the movie wore on. Too bad. I just hate seeing great ideas go to waste like this one.
It's really hard to talk about this movie without spoiling it ... but, I will do my best not to. Let's just say that nothing is as it seems - sounds familiar, I know. It's another one of those kind of movies.
The movie starts with a man watching a woman, and then eventually, abducting her and taking her to his rural home in the trees. He drags her inside the house and throws her into a 10x10 padded room (hence the movie's title). Right away, you are intrigued. Why does he have her there? Why all the preparation of the room, hiding the room, and why her? The movie does a good job of building the suspense and the questions are coming up right and left as it begins to develop. I actually liked the story and the reason why she was there.
My problem with the movie, though, is in how the answer is delivered. I felt this was a missed opportunity for something really special. First - for having "months" to prepare for this, he really wasn't too bright. Abducting her in broad daylight, in the middle of a shopping center parking lot - she even got out some shouts for help (but, of course, the ONLY person in the vicinity is wearing headphones and listening to loud music...lol). Then when he gets home, before he takes her out of the trunk of his car, he just leaves the garage door open. There is a reason for this - a real eye roller too. And then he isn't quick to notice that she still has her cell phone on her, even inside the secret room.
She isn't too bright either ... for starters, there is one point in the film where she manages to knock him out cold. And instead of taking his gun, she wastes time trying to get out the door, use his phone ... pretty much everything except for the one thing she should have done. But, I guess if she would've done that, we'd have no spectacular ending - which really isn't that spectacular.
I can't recommend this one. The idea of the movie was better than the movie itself. This could've been so much better. The promise just got worse and worse as the movie wore on. Too bad. I just hate seeing great ideas go to waste like this one.
This film tells the story of a woman who is abducted to a remote house.
Most of the film only feature two people, and it is quite intense and suspenseful. The reason why the woman is abducted is only revealed at the 58 minute mark, which is a long time to wait! The house is beautiful and is exactly the style I like. Luke Evans is great in his role as well. The ending is a little far fetched, but the film serves the purpose of delivering suspense and thrill.
Most of the film only feature two people, and it is quite intense and suspenseful. The reason why the woman is abducted is only revealed at the 58 minute mark, which is a long time to wait! The house is beautiful and is exactly the style I like. Luke Evans is great in his role as well. The ending is a little far fetched, but the film serves the purpose of delivering suspense and thrill.
Wasn't bad at all it could've been better actually it has a good acting good fights plot not too much but entertaining this was the first real film for director Suzi Ewing I would support her and would recommend this movie to others , keep up the good work Suzi ...
If you are just looking for anything to watch you should give this movie a try. Slow in some parts, and very predictable. Not only that, but the scenerios in the movie are very far fetched, and in my mind could not happen.
I want you to tell me your name.
Cathy.
My name is Cathy Noland.
One thing is certain. "10X10" breaks all records when speaking of resurrections. The number of times you see one of the two protagonists getting back on their feet again seemed endless. It looked like a newer version of "Night of the living dead". But this time with two stubborn non-zombies playing in it, whose resilience seemed superhuman. At one point I was more concerned with figuring out which of the two had the lowest IQ. Because you can't keep up with the number of stupidities after a while. And finally, I also wondered at the end what statement Lewis (Luke Evans) would give about the whole event when the police show up on his driveway. It's clear I didn't really like this film. And that because of the accumulation of absurdities.
I wanted to see this movie solely because of Luke Evans appearing in it. Personally, I don't think he's a bad actor. He has a certain likable appearance. In my opinion, he didn't act so bad in "No one lives" and "Message from the king". He radiates a calmness and coolness. But here he also seems to have the gift of stupidity. Or they tried to portray him as a real amateur. However, it all starts fairly intriguing. The patience with which Luke observes his future victim Cathy (Kelly Reilly) and the seemingly perfect way in which he carries out the abduction. From then on it started to look more like a slapstick than a nerve-racking thriller. The abduction wasn't perfect, but rather a combination of coincidences and pure luck. But for all we know, he could have been caught red-handed and taken into custody. On the other hand, would that be the case, this would have been a short movie. Speaking of luck-pushing.
The next hilarious moment (intentionally I suppose) is the arrival at his hypermodern, tastefully decorated house. There the victim awaits an ingenious installed, low-noise isolation cell of 10 by 10 meters. Luke turns out to be a regular do-it-yourself shopper because he made it all by himself. He did manage to do that. But apparently, a perfectly functioning garage door was a bit too much. And from then on a psychological cat and mouse game starts that only revolves around revenge. It's best I don't tell more specifics of this less successful film. Contentwise, it's already nothing much. Let alone I'd reveal more. Actually, the content is so limited that they decided to fill it up with irrelevant trivialities and artificial emotional moments. You have to admit that the creators of this film ensured that the pace is high. Only half an hour has passed and poor Cathy is already gagged and screaming anxiously in her cell.
The fact that "10X10" didn't meet my expectations is, in my opinion, not due to the acting itself. That wasn't so bad. It was even reasonably convincing at times. I think that the script is the cause of this disappointment. And this because of a too limited story. How can you make a whopper of a film from a wafer-thin, simplistic plot? Even the Spielberg's and George Lucas's wouldn't figure out how to do that. To be honest, it didn't matter to me anymore who would die in the end. I was already satisfied that at least an acceptable playing time had been provided.
One thing is certain. "10X10" breaks all records when speaking of resurrections. The number of times you see one of the two protagonists getting back on their feet again seemed endless. It looked like a newer version of "Night of the living dead". But this time with two stubborn non-zombies playing in it, whose resilience seemed superhuman. At one point I was more concerned with figuring out which of the two had the lowest IQ. Because you can't keep up with the number of stupidities after a while. And finally, I also wondered at the end what statement Lewis (Luke Evans) would give about the whole event when the police show up on his driveway. It's clear I didn't really like this film. And that because of the accumulation of absurdities.
I wanted to see this movie solely because of Luke Evans appearing in it. Personally, I don't think he's a bad actor. He has a certain likable appearance. In my opinion, he didn't act so bad in "No one lives" and "Message from the king". He radiates a calmness and coolness. But here he also seems to have the gift of stupidity. Or they tried to portray him as a real amateur. However, it all starts fairly intriguing. The patience with which Luke observes his future victim Cathy (Kelly Reilly) and the seemingly perfect way in which he carries out the abduction. From then on it started to look more like a slapstick than a nerve-racking thriller. The abduction wasn't perfect, but rather a combination of coincidences and pure luck. But for all we know, he could have been caught red-handed and taken into custody. On the other hand, would that be the case, this would have been a short movie. Speaking of luck-pushing.
The next hilarious moment (intentionally I suppose) is the arrival at his hypermodern, tastefully decorated house. There the victim awaits an ingenious installed, low-noise isolation cell of 10 by 10 meters. Luke turns out to be a regular do-it-yourself shopper because he made it all by himself. He did manage to do that. But apparently, a perfectly functioning garage door was a bit too much. And from then on a psychological cat and mouse game starts that only revolves around revenge. It's best I don't tell more specifics of this less successful film. Contentwise, it's already nothing much. Let alone I'd reveal more. Actually, the content is so limited that they decided to fill it up with irrelevant trivialities and artificial emotional moments. You have to admit that the creators of this film ensured that the pace is high. Only half an hour has passed and poor Cathy is already gagged and screaming anxiously in her cell.
The fact that "10X10" didn't meet my expectations is, in my opinion, not due to the acting itself. That wasn't so bad. It was even reasonably convincing at times. I think that the script is the cause of this disappointment. And this because of a too limited story. How can you make a whopper of a film from a wafer-thin, simplistic plot? Even the Spielberg's and George Lucas's wouldn't figure out how to do that. To be honest, it didn't matter to me anymore who would die in the end. I was already satisfied that at least an acceptable playing time had been provided.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesThe house used in the film was featured in the Channel 4 programme Grand Designs. This documented the construction of the house from start to finish.
- PatzerAt 17:42, Lewis (Luke Evans) tells Cathy (Kelly Reilly), that she's being kept prisoner in a room with "four-foot thick concrete walls," yet when he opens the door, it's clear that the walls (at least around the door) can't be more than about six-inches thick.
- SoundtracksCountry of Mine
Written by Beranger
Performed by Beranger (Beranger Gras, Todd James)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is 10x10?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsländer
- Offizieller Standort
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Una verdad inquietante
- Drehorte
- Atlanta, Georgia USA(Outside scenes)
- Produktionsfirmen
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Bruttoertrag in den USA und Kanada
- 2.263 $
- Eröffnungswochenende in den USA und in Kanada
- 1.430 $
- 15. Apr. 2018
- Weltweiter Bruttoertrag
- 68.260 $
- Laufzeit
- 1 Std. 28 Min.(88 min)
- Farbe
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.35 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen