Tim Granite The review by VideEmbolism for this was totally accurate. If you can watch an hour of film and all you missed was the disappearance of the main character's dog, what else is there to say? Let's see the description: ENTRANCE is about the limits of our perception, how the things lurking on the periphery of our lives can lead to horrific conclusions; about how she fell out of love with the city, but it wouldn't let her go.Beyond a shadow of a doubt this description was the best piece of writing from anyone connected to this movie. I have no idea how anyone invested in it. I saw the main actress was an executive producer and thought she could have paid some film students or ONE writer for something more. Maybe it's an artistic film that has an eerie or creepy setting? Nope. I read Stephen King gave this positive reviews. Perhaps he was multi-tasking and writing at the same time. Talk about a guy that can't get his own to film adaptations to work despite being the best-selling author. Perhaps cinematography? Camera angles light? A good soundtrack? No. No. No.I gave it one star for ending. Even the dog actor apparently quit about halfway through the making. It's awful with virtually no redeeming qualities.

rooprect 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.

jinx_malone There are a lot of shills on this board giving this high marks. That's one thing I can say. Are you all friends and family of the filmmakers?To those of you discussing the masterful composition of shots: where? Shots go on for far too long to get them up to feature length, everything could and should have been trimmed drastically on both the head and tail ends. This is essentially a student film. I say this, having been a film student myself and able to recognize the repetition, non-existent pacing and lack of plot that passes for a senior year project. The fact that it took four people to write this is shameful; I wouldn't have advertised the fact that even with four 'writers' working on this there's essentially nothing happening at all.The lead is not a very good actress, she's not compelling to watch and her line delivery is pretty bad. There's a bit cribbed from Fatal Attraction where the lead switches a bedside lamp on and off post empty sexual encounter to symbolize her alienation, my response to this was a resounding 'who cares?' Shot in and around Silverlake and Los Feliz, the only fun to be had is spotting your local landmarks. I'm sure there were lots of excited story discussions in just the right tone of voice so that the other diners knew they were making a film over glasses of red wine at--hmm. I'll take a guess and say it was at Alcove on Hillhurst, though Intelligentsia probably got hit hard too. The 'shocking' ending doesn't make it any good, so don't count on it saving the day. It was probably conceived of as a short and should have stayed that way. How do you rebar two people together? Another rip, this time from a Friday the 13th film, by the way, though I can't remember which one. And I don't know too many hipsters who keep an axe in or around their houses, either. Maybe the killer brought it with him to the party in the back of his Prius. Laughably bad. P.S. It's a blue heeler, not a blue 'healer'. Did you want me to think your protagonist was stupid as well as utterly boring?

broadchef I would give this movie 0 stars if the option existed. I spent the first hour of this movie watching a sad lonely girl in the city go about her daily routine of doing absolutely nothing except going to work and occasionally playing with her dog. The last 15 minutes of the movie consisted of the sad girl walking around her house after being tied up and finding her friends either dead or left for dead. It was absolutely boring and I can honestly say that I don't believe I've ever felt this screwed out of two hours that I'll never get back. Aside from an occasional drop of foreshadowing and a truly tragic development of a relationship between a girl and her dog that eventually disappears (viewers are lead to believe the stalker that eventually kills the main character's friends took it) this movie is absolute crap. Typically, most "0-budget" films such as this at least maintain a thought provoking dialog or occasional spurts of humor to break up the monotony of simply following a girl for a couple weeks until some stalker kills all of her friends for the last 15 minutes. To top it all off: there's no resolution leading to an even more horrible sensation of emptiness and contempt for the writer/director/producer responsible for this 2 hour mess. With all that being said, I'm tempted to believe the objective of this movie was specifically to frustrate the viewer to no end with its dead end plot and abrupt frayed ending.