The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

It feels like it wants to be a bit like "the ring" with fancy black and white flashbacks or flashes anyway .. a somewhat non linear storytelling and very little exposition. There are efforts to make it "disturbing" .. that result only in mild confusion .. while the story itself remains unsatisfactory.Acting is OK .. although not much seems to be asked of the actors ... brooding, indifferent and surprised are the emotions that are required.While i did not hate the movie, i also did not like it. It was "mehh" .. solid enough not to be "bad" ... but unremarkable. The kind of movie that you look up on google during the runtime to re-check what the title was .. and a movie that you forget entierly 10 minutes after having watched it.

Although there was so much promise to this movie, the director left out so much information as to what was going on. Comparing it to Rear Window is a criticism of Rear Window. Too many pieces of incident that didn't connect. Why was he getting sick. Why was he throwing up 'tar', as it were. Why is he even monitoring this woman? Who was the child? Why go back and forth to the ocean view and chat with his friend? What's with the jar on the shelf? Who was the male visitor? Just not good enough for me to watch again to pick up what I missed...and I always miss something in movies that I watch more than once. Why end the movie the way he did? Sorry....thumbs down!

I definitely didn't have many expectations for this and I had no idea what type of film it would be. I love its ambiguity. Many people will hate it for that same reason but I found that it was able to sufficiently explore its story and characterization (it does a great job of developing its main character) while still not revealing itself completely and by sustaining great atmosphere and mood (and well-done jump scares too) throughout its entirety. I think it's a simple, but scary film, one that will only appeal to a specific kind of horror fan but the type of horror we need more of. I would definitely recommend it, although be cautious because it's not for everyone.

"When I first saw this film", said the London Film Festival luminary who introduced it, "I was haunted by it for weeks". I can't say I had the same reaction: I was mildly annoyed for a few minutes, perhaps.The plot is actually pretty decent: Parker, a surveillance operative, is hired to spy on a young woman. He moves into a dilapidated building opposite her flat, from where he takes pictures and listens in on her telephone conversations. But strange things are happening in his building: the shower water suddenly runs scalding hot, blocked-up windows mysteriously unblock, and there's a jar full of an ever-increasing amount of black liquid in the corner. All this - plus strange visions of his deceased young son - seems to be having an effect on Parker's health...But the film has the feel of a student project that somehow metamorphosed into a full-length production. It's very arty-farty - the washed-out shots of isolated clifftops had me expecting to see Death with a chess board at any moment. No effort is made to explain many happenings - such as the bear's head, or the faceless woman, or that jar of black liquid - giving the impression the producers thought they'd be really cool things to put on screen but couldn't be bothered to work out why they should be there. And that's before we consider the mistakes: the energetic sex scene where Parker is obviously still wearing his underpants, and the woman supposedly just stepped out of a shower who is, in fact, bone dry. But in the scenes where Parker is roaming around his claustrophobic house, the film-makers have unquestionably successfully created a dark and threatening atmosphere, and some the close-up camera-work of, for example, carpet threads or drops of blood is pretty good.In the lead role, Lindsay Farris is a near-constant presence on screen; as such it's fortunate that he's easy on the eye, nicely filling his white T-shirt and black jeans. But there are too many shots of him leaping backwards in surprise, and his American accent wavers all over several States (and becomes Irish at one point). In fact, although the cast is largely Australian - and this is an Australian film - they all use American accents - an emerging trend in Australian cinema? (see also 'Infini').I like to end reviews on a good note, so here's one: when Parker awakens from a nightmare, does he do the usual thing of sitting bolt upright in bed, panting heavily? No he does not! His eyes snap open in surprise, but he stays laying down. A definite plus point in the film's favour - some film clichés really should be laid to rest.