User reviews

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.

It's a chilling ending that's unfortunately undermined by several things 1 – it is so slow and takes 50 minute to get to some action 2 – It is so slow I had to go to bed half way through and watch the rest the next night 3 – Back yard acting 4 - Do not waste your time watching this movie 5 - This is an "ART MOVIE "only 6 - It is slow, really slow 7 - I was told by my partner that the ending was worth it. WRONG SO WRONG 8 - No point to wait until the end. Please save your valuable time – I hope you choose wise I signed up to IMDb to save you 90 minutes of pain (The only horror about this movie)There are so many good movies out there so DON'T watch this one – I could make a better one

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.

The first and only IMDb review I read for this movie said to go into it blindly, so I did without even reading the rest of the review. Going into it blindly is the best advice anyone could give. And if you read the rest of this review, don't worry I won't expose a thing. I won't even tell you what genre this film is (because as far as I can tell it isn't any genre).

I'll be honest and say I hated the first 12 minutes because it seemed indulgent & pointless. Also I'm not really a fan of hand-held camera work. But luckily I have a tolerance/attention span of exactly 13 minutes because that's when a story began to develop. And ultimately I realized even those "pointless" 12 minutes had a point. It sets up a very subtle yet pervasive metaphor, the soul of the whole movie.

Slowly, so slowly that you might not even notice (which I'm sure was the filmmakers' intent) the film starts to get under your skin. And although the only quantifiable storyline for the first 40 minutes is a girl and her dog, it's done so convincingly and, yes, suspensefully that I was hooked. And that, my friends, is all I will say about the plot because you shouldn't expect anything more.

Now a few notes about technique... The directors did something very interesting by never taking the camera off the lead actress throughout the whole movie, not once. Also the camera would sometimes run long, continuous shots without cuts. While this method may sacrifice momentum and some viewer interest, it adds tremendous realism, almost like a documentary feel. And we begin to connect with the heroine even though she doesn't say much. And of course the difficulty in staging the rest of the action while always keeping her in the shot must've been no easy task. The final 22 minutes is a very impressive achievement, all done in one continuous take with a lot going on, and I mean a whole lot.

People have called this film "experimental", but there's no experiment about it. This is a fully finished product with a great style, a novel approach, and certainly the most memorable ending I've seen in ages, ending on an image which I can't decide if it's chilling, hilarious or beautiful.

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.

There are fans of film out there who think anything slow and boring must be deep, meaningful and intelligent. To be fair, there are a lot of films that are slow, meaningful and intelligent but have so much going on underneath the surface that it is like you are secretly seeing the most exciting action movie taking place in a way you can't describe and being able to read and feel what is happening even though everything appears to be still or uneventful makes it even more exhilarating.

ENTRANCE is not one of those movies.

This film is just slow and boring. It wants to convince you it is one of those deliberately slow films that has a lot going on underneath what appears not to be happening but it doesn't. It is made for fans who are just too stupid to know the difference between subtle and subliminal versus plodding and meaningless and thus settle for anything that is slow and boring because it makes them feel smart, sensitive and privy to details most other people would miss.

Yes this movie is that bad. To think there are people out there lame and stupid enough to call this movie a terrific "slow burn" piece of cinema is a phenomena in itself. I don't even want to imagine the kind of boring f***ing lives those who find this type of cinema entertaining must lead. It just shows how depressingly and pathetically low standards have become to have generated the kind of lead-minded audience that would champion this drudgery just because it is as ordinary and unremarkable as they are. Well, that's the Microsoft age for you. There is nothing innovative, striking, remarkable or subtle about it. It is just pretentious stupidity drawn out to an intolerable length by the unoriginality and lack of creativity of it's makers. The movie follows the life of one of the most hollow-eyed, blank-faced, vacuous idiot women you'll ever meet as she goes about her daily routine, getting her hair cut, taking care of her dog, walking around and generally doing nothing of any importance or interest. Unfortunately, she is probably typical of most women nowadays - pretty, uninteresting, unassuming and completely self-absorbed in a mentally vacuum-sealed delusion of self-importance - but the filmmakers don't bother with offering any insight or commentary into this weak-mined shell of a narrative and seem completely unaware of this all the while performing an amateurish sleight-of-hand by trying to pass their lack of style and substance off as clinical objectivity in the hopes that the audience will do all the work for them by creating subtext out of something that just isn't there. During this mind-numbing character study the woman starts to notice supposedly strange things, which I suppose are supposed to be disturbing and unsettling by the way she overreacts (and overacts) to them, like strange noises in her apartment, men looking at her on the street, a car momentarily following her, but these instances are steeped so heavily in such random banality that they could happen, and probably have happened, to anyone without any sort of threatening context and if they are meant to be foreshadowing for something more terrible to come are as lame, limp and unpromising as the advances of a chemically castrated sex-addict in a whorehouse. All this stringent boredom interrupted by dramatic farts of pseudo-ominous occurrences eventually lead to what is supposed to be, I'm assuming, the grand finale which is nothing short of being absolutely predictable and stunningly uninspired and which you have seen a hundred times before done way better. It is actually a relief when the absence of plot and story finally climaxes, not for the sake of alleviating any suspense or intensity that has built up, there is none, but for the reassuring knowledge that this truly failed attempt at subliminal cinema is finally over, like somebody with nerve damage, who in desperately trying to achieve an orgasm masturbates until they have chafed themselves down to raw tissue and blood, without noticing, only to finally recoil defensively in a realization of simultaneous disgust and agony long after you've grown bored and desensitized watching it happen. Yes, this movie is that bad. What's worse is that Stephen King apparently blogged a review about it for free in order to comment about how great it is. No wonder that guy's writing has sucked for the last twenty-five years. He's written himself into a state of mumbling infantile literary dormancy and there is no greater proof of that, besides his current work, than his advocacy of this waste of time. Not to mention the other dozen or so positive reviews by fans and so-called professional critics alike on IMDb - they are all untrue and inaccurate. If you really want to see subtle horror, anxiety-producing subtext, and fairly uniquely detailed character studies you can watch THE PACT (2012), OCCUPANT (2011), STILL OF THE NIGHT (1982), THE AWAKENING (2011), MAGIC MAGIC (2013), THE TENANT (1976), THE BEGUILED (1971), or THE COLLECTOR (1965). All these movies are awesome and the complete antithesis of whatever ENTRANCE is. And to think the same witless hacks who managed to get this garbage made are making the sequel to one of the best new psychological horror movies recently released - THE PACT(2012). It's an insult, a shame but not surprising. They may not be able to make a good movie but they must be giving great head to the ($)right($) people. I guess that's what you get when you live in a world dominated by conformity and career whores. And now you know what ENTRANCE is really about and really like. For people whose lives are dull enough to induce comas and mental retardation in others - enjoy! For all others I've made the movie sound way more interesting than it actually is by just telling you how much it sucked. The f***ing idiots who made it should be paying me.

This movie was absolutely incredible. I couldn't believe that anybody was idiotic enough to greenlight this turdfest. I have never seen a worse movie, and I doubt I ever will.

There is zero plot, zero suspense, and absolutely no reason to be interested in what happens to any of the characters. If crap like this passes for movies, I could make an Oscar-winner.

I would like to say that there is one tiny, insignificant mote of worth to this movie, but there simply isn't any. No doubt this movie is continually being shown in hell or by the CIA as a superior method of torture. I would gladly choose death over having to watch this movie again.

What a time waster......and I actually sat through the whole thing. Shame on me. I can't believe that this film actually made it to production. The plot was terrible, the acting horrific and there was really no proper storyline. I am the first person to embrace independent works of art but this never captivated me at any time during the entire work, The ending was neither here nor there leaving the viewers with an unsettling feeling as to "what is the purpose of all this?". This movie exudes that empty feeling that one gets when they watch the season finale of a series on TV with the exception that they don't really care one way or the other.

Go into 'Entrance' blindly.

Don't look up anything about this movie, not even a plot summary or trailer. I had no idea what kind of movie it was, so when it all came together in the end it was an unforgettable experience.

'Entrance' is a very creatively and craftily made no-budget movie. It is the best film of its kind that I've seen in years.

This is an incredible effort that I would recommend to anyone looking for something that is atypically effective and defies the norm.

The shot composition in 'Entrance' is outstanding, the directors certainly know how to frame a shot. The acting is superb, there was a great suspension of disbelief throughout that normally doesn't happen with such low budget efforts. These filmmakers have a bright future ahead of them, and I can't wait to see what they do next.

Great stuff all around, enjoy!

While watching this movie I tried to figure out where the director or plot of this movie were going, then it dawned on me....there is no plot. The only conclusion I could rationally come to was the writer,director and producer had a little money (and I mean a little!)and some time on their hands so they figured they would try their hand at making a movie. Seriously I have seen a middle school project film that is "Oscar" quality in comparison to this. I believe it's a great thing that anyone with enough money to throw down on a digital camera can make a movie, but please don't be so pretentious that you consider this some sort of eye opening expose on the human condition. Even the title Entrance still has me puzzled, Entrance to what, some deep awakening that there are some people in this world that are "bad", I think I may have known this going in. Thanks for the effort.

OK, the movie sounded good & I was quite looking forward to it. After about 20 uneventful minutes in, I decided 2 watch it in 'Fast Forward'. In my opinion, it didn't really help matters as it was STILL too slow. Hmmm. It starts 2 get interesting just b4 the end. Oh wait, my mistake! I think this is supposed to be one of those thought provoking, intellectual films but in reality it is just too slow to get going and even then it just fizzles a little rather than being 'Explosive'. Much of the story seemed a little pointless & I couldn't've cared less about any of the characters. All in all, I should've just gone for a kip instead. At least that would've excited me more. Personally I found this film to be one of those films you watch and let out a disappointed 'Oh' at the end.

At the beginning of this movie I was most taken with the editing and photography, and the storyline. You really feel as if you have the 'fly on the wall' point of view while the "mysterious happenings" confuse this single girl.

I was thinking what a great look at living in a huge city like L.A. So many people both wonderful and strange. People in cities do weird things.

So all my interest and involvement with the daily life of Suzy is suddenly flushed down the toilet when the story becomes just another slasher/splatter psycho movie. Did the writers just give up? It would have been so much more interesting if Suzy had gone back to her parents and to find out her dissatisfaction and fears were all in her own mind.

I was also disturbed by people reviewing this movie and saying how "bored" they were! Have we become so out of touch with the reality of things that so easily can and do occur in our now very sick society, that we rate films such as this only as "poor" or "great" "entertainment"? I feel that this film addressed that very phenomenon: the false sense of security that we all gain just in going about our daily lives, not really heeding little signs that perhaps we should be investigating a bit more, dismissing them as mere 'paranoia'. I found the non-intrusive ease, the quickness, and the possibility of such events happening to any one of us, despite living in the most densely populated cities today, quite upsetting. Not for women living on their own.

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.