Entrance

Entrance's concept of an unknown killer that's been lurking is a decent one...but the set-up is weak and includes so much of her just walking the streets. By the time the fear comes, there's only 10 minutes left in the movie and the execution is poor.

This movie follows an aimless young woman in LA. That would be fine for 20-30 minutes, and it's bearable for a while mainly because she's beautiful. It's not until the very last 10 or 15 minutes that something happens, terribly unexpected and frankly, quite disjointed. We kept waiting for something to happen, and by the time it did, my husband was fast asleep. Not that I blame him-- I was jealous. This movie is perfect to help you get to bed at night. Some people called this movie a "slow burn." I'd say it's NO burn, and then sudden burn. Others say we need too much stimulation that we call this boring. But the main character also felt that her life was boring. So why should we have to suffer through it, too? Wow, I honestly can't believe IMDb is forcing me to write more. There is more action in my review than there was in the entire movie. I registered on this site just so I could write this review and warn others away.

Somehow a favorable review from Stephen King still hasn't provided this movie the cult fandom it deserves.

Though it was directed by two men, the story is from a female writer, and that shows in the film's excellent portrayal of the constant quiet threat of living in a big city as a single woman. The palpable tension in moments when harassment might become something worse builds a healthy paranoia in both the lead character and its viewers.

I say healthy paranoia because it is not ill-placed. By the end of the movie, we have been shown in unblinking detail exactly what there is to fear, and it is relentless and unforgiving. The power of the final act, though, only works because of the glacial pace of the first hour, making us froghtened and restless in various turns. Like life, the trouble comes at the point we're least ready.

To lesser degrees, Entrance is much like critically acclaimed Michael Haneke's "Cache." It focuses on the verisimilitude of the medium without using shaky cam or other tricks. Rather than inundating with atmosphere and creepiness, he drains the audience with banality and normalcy. Defying the audience's expectations of a horror film helps to create a vacuum of uncertainty with a hard to place uneasiness.

Where your typical stalk and slash film might rely on popcorn scares to pass the time between kills, Entrance leaves you with nothing. On the right viewer it creates a sense of unsettling voyeurism and begins to wear on the actual conscience. On the wrong audience, it instills boredom and anger for lack of gore/shock/scares/etc - sadly there has been a lot of the wrong audience watching this film after Stephen King praised it in Entertainment Weekly. Not to knock King's typical fans or the readers of Entertainment Weekly, but this is not a pop-horror piece. Its more art-house indie horror than anything.

In recent years there has been a lot of interest in evolving the horror genre past its current state and in that regards Entrance may be ahead of its time. Fans of the ultra-slow-burn horror such as "Red White and Blue" or Ti West's "House of the Devil," should certainly have a profound appreciation for this film. Typical horror fans may only like the final twenty minutes when the pace finally picks up.

I for one immensely enjoyed Entrance, but thoroughly understand how a vast majority of its viewers simply won't like it. I rated it lower than the very similar film Cache due to a few issues with the sound and simply because on a repeat viewing I didn't find all the cerebral stimulation that Cache offers.

I can sum up this movie in 2 words. It Sucked!!! A total waste of time... The main character is a 20's something girl, who shares an apartment with another woman in an undisclosed city. She's slightly paranoid, has obvious anti social behavior, owns a dog and lives with a roommate who always seems to go out of town on the weekends. If I were a professor teaching "Film Making" I would definitely use this flick as an example of "How NOT to Make a Movie". This movie lacks the following basic criteria: 1. Plot, 2. Character development, 3. Meaningful dialog, 4. Transition, 5. Relationships 6. Action, 7. Sensible climax.

Bottom line, you would derive more pleasure from watching paint dry.