fernandoneves-58430 That's right look at the title. That's exactly what the producer said when he finished this movie. It's like when just made the most fabulous cake and instead putting a cherry on top of it you put a big dump.The most messed up thing is: this producer thinks that people will still remove the top and eat the rest of it. One last aspect is how the producer tried to cover all your rational options with aspects that have 1% of happening IN ONE SINGLE NIGHT. «««««««««««««SPOILERS SECTION»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»-Main actor nervous to conceal a lie? -He is getting engaged! that will do. -Gets the wallet and leaves? -Close the building nobody gets out!-Hello Mr officer come on In to my private property! -Let's gamble lottery tickets because we are not all that broke to gamble real money.Bring me a math equation to understand how a phone call to person A Brings person B without any knowledge from A. Oh boy if I had that winning lottery ticket and asked the pope to pick it up he would have to let me know every 5 min. (oh yeah wife calls) legit!...not But yes every possible turn that this movie takes looks so forced that hurts to watch. There is nothing natural in this film, every irrational turn this movie takes is covered up by some backup master plan that exists only inside the producers head. 15 years later somebody made me watch this and I think... how Ryan Reynolds didn't laugh at the script back then?

ardentayu Despite the fact that this movie takes place in one location, it does not drag or get boring - that in and of itself is a HUGE accomplishment! I thought the story was great how it put the main character into a sticky situation. All the characters had distinct personalities, which kept their conversations entertaining. The psychological suspense was strong. It's a movie wrought with tension. I applaud an indie filmmaker (Jeff Probst) for pulling off a good movie on a budget that is tiny compared to the studio budgets.If you liked it, watch the director's commentary. Jeff Probst is very open about the process and how this film came into fruition (before he got his Survivor gig, by the way).If you are looking for an indie film with some humor, psychological suspense, and good acting, check out this film.

Joe Herbert This was a great movie, for what it was. 10/10 as far as first time directors doing a film on a 1 million dollar budget. The rest of the message is a SPOLER ----------The ONLY thing that keeps me from absolutely loving this movie is that I don't understand the plot twist at all, or how it's even possible, and I've been racking my brain to figure it out, so I'm hoping someone knows.How is it possible for there to be a second Avery Phillips? Obviously the first was a fake, or the second one was... but unlike The Sixth Sense for example, you can look back and see where you MIGHT have picked up on it.. twists are easy if you don't have anything in the story that gives it away the second or third time you watch it.If he left this message for Avery's brother in law, then how in the hell did someone else hear it? He didn't say he had a winning lottery ticket in it, just that he found the poor guy's wallet. I highly doubt someone showed up JUST for the wallet, and knew about the winning ticket. Therefore, who would know that Avery lost his wallet, that he picked the winning numbers, and that the ticket was even in the wallet? He mentioned that he bought it from the same store, the same numbers, from the same guy, until this last time it wasn't the same guy who punched the numbers... maybe it was the same guy, and that was James Earl Jones.. who would know about the ticket, but how on earth would he know Tepper had it? The brother in law might have known, and he could have been the brother in law.. but if that's the case, then how did the REAL Avery Phillips show up at the end... why would his brother in law plan to steal it, but still give him the message and the address to Teppers? The fake Avery also had to know about the parking tickets as well. How on earth would he know that? The police couldn't have been in on it, or that would just be stupid, and I want this movie to be great not stupid. They could have just busted in, and made up a phony charge and got the ticket outright... why come all the way down just to seal up the building? And another poster commented about Forrester knowing it wasn't the right ticket.So if someone can tell me what I'm missing, and if there REALLY is a good explanation, the movie will be 11 out of 10 for me... otherwise anyone can make a surprise ending if they didn't give any clues, or even made it POSSIBLE.Hope someone knows. Thanks.

cannonball66 To the person from Saskatchewan. "Would you put a (expletive) sock in it!" was what Palladino yelled. Heard it the first time and wasn't even paying attention that closely. Guess it got lost in the NYC/Regina translation. Although none of the 4 friends were raised anywhere remotely near NYC based on their generic handling of the dialog. Otherwise, my main problem with the flick is that Tepper should have made a much better effort to recover his girl's losing ticket. At least his ruse could have gone on longer. Since lots of people play the same numbers, he would have been smarter not to replace the ticket with another, but then again, we wouldn't have had a movie...