Entrance Reviews

  • Apr 14, 2016

    ill say one thing they know how to throw a killer party

    ill say one thing they know how to throw a killer party

  • Mar 31, 2014

    Excellent character study and mumblecore thriller. Have patience, as it is a long, slow build.

    Excellent character study and mumblecore thriller. Have patience, as it is a long, slow build.

  • Dec 06, 2013

    I am completely baffled by any praise it may receive because this is a film that does not work at all. The filmmakers are apparently trying to simulate real life by making the depiction of the protagonist's life dull and monotonous, but real life is far more interesting. Hell, just watch anybody's home movies and you're sure to find interesting people and dialogue that puts this lifeless assembly of cardboard cutouts to shame. There is a whole lot of nothing going on in this movie. Endless shots of people feeding their dogs and scrubbing toilets. The last half of the movie is the only half of the movie in which anything of consequence actually happens but it lacks the desired impact because we don't care about anyone involved. We don't care because we never got to know any of these people despite the fact that we were subjected to them for the first hour or so. They are such dullards, they hardly speak more than a few syllables, and they don't seem to have any interests beyond being an object in the movie. I was bored to death by the pretentious artsy quality. Lots of shaky cam for no apparent reason than to scream at the audience: "look, we're real!" I hated this movie. It is inept!

    I am completely baffled by any praise it may receive because this is a film that does not work at all. The filmmakers are apparently trying to simulate real life by making the depiction of the protagonist's life dull and monotonous, but real life is far more interesting. Hell, just watch anybody's home movies and you're sure to find interesting people and dialogue that puts this lifeless assembly of cardboard cutouts to shame. There is a whole lot of nothing going on in this movie. Endless shots of people feeding their dogs and scrubbing toilets. The last half of the movie is the only half of the movie in which anything of consequence actually happens but it lacks the desired impact because we don't care about anyone involved. We don't care because we never got to know any of these people despite the fact that we were subjected to them for the first hour or so. They are such dullards, they hardly speak more than a few syllables, and they don't seem to have any interests beyond being an object in the movie. I was bored to death by the pretentious artsy quality. Lots of shaky cam for no apparent reason than to scream at the audience: "look, we're real!" I hated this movie. It is inept!

  • Nov 30, 2013

    Yes, it seems slow and dull and where are we going with this, but it powerfully delivers on the methodical buildup of a sense, a feeling that something truly horrific is about to happen to this lovely, very nice girl. Wow! Looking forward to the next flick from these folks. The lead actress is wonderful.

    Yes, it seems slow and dull and where are we going with this, but it powerfully delivers on the methodical buildup of a sense, a feeling that something truly horrific is about to happen to this lovely, very nice girl. Wow! Looking forward to the next flick from these folks. The lead actress is wonderful.

  • Sep 01, 2013

    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 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.

  • Jesse O Super Reviewer
    Aug 31, 2013

    This film is pretty much dangerously slow for the first hour or so. Slow to the point that there were several occasions where I felt like stopping it. I do think the movie does a very good job at showcasing Suzy's anxiety and how she's simply not adjusting well to life in Los Angeles and the only thing keeping her there is her dog. The movie is also psychological in the sense that Suzy always feels like there's something or someone out to get her. So there is a sense of dread there, at least in some scenes, where someone's presence is implied by the use of noise. But I don't think the movie really sustains this tension because there comes a point in the movie, probably when Suzy decides to leave, that it just stops until the 1 hour mark. And this brings us to the climax of the movie, where the movie becomes a nasty little home invasion movie. And the thing is, you could watch this entire movie without thinking, at any moment, that this home invasion angle could come as a huge surprise to you. I think that's a positive, because it does add a surprising element to the film, a film that had been psychological more than anything else. I thought the last 20 minutes or so of the movie were very well done, pretty much the home invasion is everything it needed to be. It was bleak and disturbing, because you're not even sure who this man is or why he's doing what he's doing. He explains that he has been watching Suzy for a long time, but there's a senselessness to the crime that makes it even more disturbing. But the problem is that I don't think the movie has enough interesting material to go as long as it does. Yea, the movie is just 80 minutes long, not counting the credits. It does build up tension in some scenes very well but it is not sustained, the movie, for the most part, just feels aimless. You're not sure why you're even watching for the most part. And that's really a problem. Does the last act make the entire movie worth sitting through? I don't know. For some people, yes. For me? I'm not really so sure, it does make the movie a lot better, but I can't say it makes everything leading up to it better. It just doesn't. That's not to say everything leading up to the climax was bad, it was just a chore to get through. But I still think this movie is average at best. It's got a really slow build to a great climax. Shave 20 minutes off this film and I'd say this was a good movie.

    This film is pretty much dangerously slow for the first hour or so. Slow to the point that there were several occasions where I felt like stopping it. I do think the movie does a very good job at showcasing Suzy's anxiety and how she's simply not adjusting well to life in Los Angeles and the only thing keeping her there is her dog. The movie is also psychological in the sense that Suzy always feels like there's something or someone out to get her. So there is a sense of dread there, at least in some scenes, where someone's presence is implied by the use of noise. But I don't think the movie really sustains this tension because there comes a point in the movie, probably when Suzy decides to leave, that it just stops until the 1 hour mark. And this brings us to the climax of the movie, where the movie becomes a nasty little home invasion movie. And the thing is, you could watch this entire movie without thinking, at any moment, that this home invasion angle could come as a huge surprise to you. I think that's a positive, because it does add a surprising element to the film, a film that had been psychological more than anything else. I thought the last 20 minutes or so of the movie were very well done, pretty much the home invasion is everything it needed to be. It was bleak and disturbing, because you're not even sure who this man is or why he's doing what he's doing. He explains that he has been watching Suzy for a long time, but there's a senselessness to the crime that makes it even more disturbing. But the problem is that I don't think the movie has enough interesting material to go as long as it does. Yea, the movie is just 80 minutes long, not counting the credits. It does build up tension in some scenes very well but it is not sustained, the movie, for the most part, just feels aimless. You're not sure why you're even watching for the most part. And that's really a problem. Does the last act make the entire movie worth sitting through? I don't know. For some people, yes. For me? I'm not really so sure, it does make the movie a lot better, but I can't say it makes everything leading up to it better. It just doesn't. That's not to say everything leading up to the climax was bad, it was just a chore to get through. But I still think this movie is average at best. It's got a really slow build to a great climax. Shave 20 minutes off this film and I'd say this was a good movie.

  • Edgar C Super Reviewer
    Jun 19, 2013

    Listen. Whenever a couple of slasher horror enthusiasts get inspired by the likes of Cloverfield (2008) and the mood of Rachel Getting Married (2008) with a school break lunch budget, you get this. The intentions are not that bad, nor the original influences. I have always believed that one of the multiple ways in which you can create horror is creating in the audience a certain familiarity with the situations that are shown and, if possible, building empathy towards the main characters. The film fails miserably in the latter, but succeeds in the first thing skillfully, considering its budget. One gotta be brave with this kind of films. Cinema connoisseurs will never get close to them and mainstream audiences will bash them, so here I am, as a modest vote of confidence. What a bad luck for a couple of newcomers attempting to make a decent film. It is not a good movie, but it reached the quality of your typical gore-oriented Hollywood garbage of today without using certain amounts of gore, and it surpassed any Eli Roth / Steve Beck flicks. Props for the endless (20-minute split in two) tracking shot which actually compiled all of the horror found in the feature. The terror we felt during those last minutes happened thanks to the first hour! 47/100

    Listen. Whenever a couple of slasher horror enthusiasts get inspired by the likes of Cloverfield (2008) and the mood of Rachel Getting Married (2008) with a school break lunch budget, you get this. The intentions are not that bad, nor the original influences. I have always believed that one of the multiple ways in which you can create horror is creating in the audience a certain familiarity with the situations that are shown and, if possible, building empathy towards the main characters. The film fails miserably in the latter, but succeeds in the first thing skillfully, considering its budget. One gotta be brave with this kind of films. Cinema connoisseurs will never get close to them and mainstream audiences will bash them, so here I am, as a modest vote of confidence. What a bad luck for a couple of newcomers attempting to make a decent film. It is not a good movie, but it reached the quality of your typical gore-oriented Hollywood garbage of today without using certain amounts of gore, and it surpassed any Eli Roth / Steve Beck flicks. Props for the endless (20-minute split in two) tracking shot which actually compiled all of the horror found in the feature. The terror we felt during those last minutes happened thanks to the first hour! 47/100

  • May 19, 2013

    Pure, unadulterated rubbish masquerading as some kind of 'art horror'. Unbearably slow and lacking in any kind of cinematic value for the first hour, and then an onslaught of depraved, artless violence for the remainder. This is what happens when technology democratizes art.. you get pretenders gumming up the works with trash like this.

    Pure, unadulterated rubbish masquerading as some kind of 'art horror'. Unbearably slow and lacking in any kind of cinematic value for the first hour, and then an onslaught of depraved, artless violence for the remainder. This is what happens when technology democratizes art.. you get pretenders gumming up the works with trash like this.

  • May 17, 2013

    If it were possible to give this movie no stars at all, I would. Watch the last 20 minutes and you will still be disappointed. Terrible.

    If it were possible to give this movie no stars at all, I would. Watch the last 20 minutes and you will still be disappointed. Terrible.

  • Mar 27, 2013

    One of the worst movies I've seen in a long time, the first sixty minutes are completely pointless, twenty minutes are shots of the lead actress brushing her hair and feeding her dog. Avoid this film at all costs.

    One of the worst movies I've seen in a long time, the first sixty minutes are completely pointless, twenty minutes are shots of the lead actress brushing her hair and feeding her dog. Avoid this film at all costs.