I'm going with very badly done,
not inherently bad.
Not disagreeng with anyone, just a different take.
I suppose it really grinds people
because the film makers realllllly
insult their audience from the beginning
and treat us stupidly throughout.
THe core insult is thar we are supposed to accept
this is taking place in New York City????????
Total crap.
I found it impossible to believe it was luxembourg at that!!!
Hell, they couldn't photograph that beautiful city,
much less pass it off as someplace else.
It looked like some dark eastern european mountain town
at it's worst after a war.
So it major league sucks from a production value standpoint,
bad enough to destroy credibility.
They couldn't eeven shoot a sunny day,
much less clean up Michael sarrazin.
It all looked like the dirtiest place on earth.
BUT, at least the actors tried.
They stayed faithful in spite ofthe weak story.
So if you look past that,and can enjoy the grim
manifesto the story presents,
and embrace the horrific misery that the antagonist creates,
and try to solve the mystery, which was weak but interesting,
it's slightly bearable if only in that regard.
It's not better that a sitting for "Hostel" or "Saw"
but not a whole lot worse.
I never bothered with the sequels to either one.
Just my thoughts.
in 15 years this will become a "Freaky Cult Classic" anyway.
reply
share