Occupant

I had no idea that this film would be in a style similar to one of my all-time favorite thriller film makers. At the same time, it is extremely current and cast with a fantastic lead whom I had never heard of, Van Hansis. He seems like an actor who could have a real future - his transformation from unassuming hipster to something QUITE different was a real accomplishment. The twists and turns of the story line kept we wondering and guessing throughout the movie which flew by after the first scary moment. The look of the film morphed in a very satisfying way, which combined with subtle and effective special effects made the movie very special. I loved that the apartment/ apartment building became a central character (and a very scary one) in the movie. I was truly gripping my seat tighter and tighter as the film progressed and felt crazy scared and surprised by the end. I have not seen a thriller like this in a long time - but I wish there were more out there in this genre.

At the start of this movie my hopes were high - an original plot with the scope for scary ghosty stuff. Unfortunately, when you're stuck in an apartment which you 'can't' leave it doesn't take long for the boredom to set in. There was an opportunity for chills and thrills but for some reason the execution is dull and listless. For some reason I started getting a hankering for The Shining - the definitive descent into madness. If you watch The Apartment then you'll get similar pangs after about 20 minutes.

If you delve into Korean horror then you can discover interesting themes fully realised and not just imagined by the director.

Nili has put together a classy list - http://www.imdb.com/list/8txFAcBLcUo/

I loved this VERY scary psychological thriller. I always like it when I feel like the movie is a step ahead of me. It was a slow burn but worth the wait!! I loved Van Hansis - personally I think he is hotter than Robert Pattison and a better actor. I hope this is a break-out role for him. Plus, Thorsten was great, not his usual hunky role. In fact, he was 100% different and almost unrecognizable. The secondary characters seemed really well-cast. Weird and creepy. The end of the movie was a crazy surprise, not to mention the crazy cool direction of the photography in the second half of the movie. It also reminded me of The Shining, which still freaks me out when I think about it. Except that it was in New York City - always cool to see something shot there. I also loved the music, creepy but edgy - wonder if the soundtrack is available. The song at the end, when the credits roll is especially cool. This is a REALLY great film!

"Occupant" has one of the nicest, most believable set-ups of any recent urban thriller: Danny (Van Hansis) moves into his granny's (whom he's never met) rent-controlled Manhatten apartment (if you can call a 3500 sq ft space merely that) hoping to continue her $675 a month renting price, with the aide of an overly-friendly/sinister doorman (Thorston Kaye). The only glitch? To secure the place at the low-low figure, he only needs to barricade himself inside the plush joint long enough to lawyer up and win legal custody of the property.

Of course, this isn't as easy as it seems, as a series of eerie coincidences gradually convince Danny that someone's not exactly playing above board in their attempts to foist him out.

Henry Miller's latest film is much glossier than his previous outings, nicely shot, with some inventive camera angles. The story, by writer/producer Johnathan Brett, is engaging, if not rendered a bit campy sometimes with it's use of 250-point Helvetica fonts screaming DAY ONE, DAY TWO, etc.

The real weakness, I think, is the casting of Van Hansis --- a soap opera actor who looks a bit too Abercrombie to be mistaken for the average working-joe-farm-boy-come-to-the-big-city. He's not bad, really, his acting is just very one-note (as with many soap opera alumni, his range is either in the "super sincere" or "utterly hysterical" registers...they're either whispering or shouting).

Unfortunately, he doesn't do well with the latter. It appears Miller found that out, because the film tends to lapse into gimmicks like speed-frame, freeze-frame, and wipes particularly in the final scenes. It takes a lot of gravitas to pull off the kind of gut wrenching panic that's needed here, and Hansis just doesn't have it. This is a shame, because the film, overall, has a lot of unique touches going for it. It just needs an actor with a resume that's longer than his Facebook page to support it.

OK, I'm gonna write this short: This movie has some really nice shots, in the beginning it creates an interesting, little weird story, the acting is pretty nice ... BUT there are so many plot holes, so many stuff that happens without any reason, just for the effect and there's no horror at all. This movie is just a concept ... looks like they ran out of money and had to end it somehow. This is sad, because it really had a decent start and could have been a remarkable film. This way there is no comparison to any Polanski movie.

Usually it's nice to watch a movie and in the end be left with a few questions to talk about and to discuss ... but here it's just too much. Why all this?