Occupant

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?

"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.

Well, I was really anticipating this film. Van Hanis did a good job but the point is this may be on the line of a Polanski-but it left me not horrified, or feeling the ending was a total twist of the mind. With the exception of a few things such as the building looking like the Dakota-the elevator operator and Van Hansis change in appearance it was a far cry from anything that Polanski ever did. However I did enjoy the Doorman, Joe-two thumbs up Thorsten Kaye-I'm biased.

Will I view it again in the 24 hours that VOD gives you? Maybe so it can grow on me. Maybe not.

This was definitely not what I had myself hyped up for.

"Occupant" isn't the smartest effort of recent memory, nor is it the scariest, but it's certainly unique enough to be worth mentioning. The plot here isn't especially innovative, borrowing heavily from movies like "1408" and Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining," but much like said inspiration, the execution is what differentiates this film from the slew of other cheap imitations. The movie is actually pretty sleek- looking for a lower-budget offering, and it makes effective use of its small, fairly-unknown cast, especially leading man Van Hansis, whose portrayal of a man grappling with his sanity is so convincing its unsettling. The atmosphere is dark, disturbing, and suspenseful, akin to an under-your-skin David Lynch head trip; it's that special blend of intentionally-ambiguous psychological thriller and supernatural horror that makes this a very carrot-on-a-stick experience, never allowing the viewer to turn away once the action begins its slow-burning buildup.

For the rest of my review, please check out my movie review blog: http://filmsallthetime.blogspot.com

Not recommended. This movie was slow and predictable. If you've seen the Shinning, then you have basically seen this movie. The acting was well done and there were some cool shots, but the actual plot is one that is constantly overdone. It never made me cringe and I rolled my eyes at the complete utter predictability of it. It's a waste of time. Really, it is. I have never looked at the clock so much during the movie, wondering when it was going to end.

And also, I am not a person that is usually good at predicting things, but this movie was so easy to predict. The other thing is, I didn't really like the main character, due to the way he was presented in the beginning, so the fact was that I didn't care at all as to what was going to happen to him made the movie even more boring. It was a well reviewed film by other users, which gave me the idea that it was original and well done. IT ISN'T.