Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

ironhorse_somo This movie had the potential to be pretty darn good. The historical aspect involved made it even more interesting. The acting ranged from passable (the leading man, who comes across as not likable at all,) to strong (Skeritt.) The plot was fairly good, until just after the half-way point, but left some threads hanging that I kept expecting to be tied up, but they never were. The ending was nothing short of unfortunate. It was as if the writers couldn't come up with a good ending, and took the cheap route out. I can think of a couple of endings that would've earned this movie a solid 6 or 7 rating. Unfortunately, the writers couldn't, so they're stuck with a 4 - and I'm stuck with my disappointment.

Guy Lotgering I am giving this movie 5 stars because while it may have been confusing in parts I did enjoy the cinematography and the plot was interesting (when I thought there was one). The acting wasn't bad but it certainly could have been better. The movie kept my attention and I really thought this movie was going to have a great twist. There were many unanswered questions and I was hoping for great ending to bring it all together. Instead the movies it just ended and leaves feeling short changed. It as almost as if the director didn't know how to end the movie and decides to end the movie in a psychiatric ward as if none of it ever happened. Pretty poor ending for a movie with such promise.

fredroque1 The project was too big for this director/screenwriter. Unexplained (all the way to the end) phenomena happened throughout the entire movie, and when the plot was finally revealed, went on to explain that everything that happened was just a figment of the protagonist's imagination. Q. Who was the boy in the white suit? A. it was all in his imagination.Q. Why did he imagine people disappearing (like the real estate agent) when he wasn't even present in that sequence? A. it was all in his imagination.I can go on and on with randomly idiotic examples from the movie. Make sure to steer clear from this unless you want to waste 90 minutes of your time.

Kashmirgrey A supporting cast consisting of Tom Skerrit, Tom Bower, Joanna Cassidy, Kris Kristofferson, Frankie Faison, and Rachel Nichols made For Sale By Owner appear to be very promising indeed, and each of these stars put in decent performances albeit all fairly small in this low budget flick. Unfortunately, from the start, Scott Cooper's abominable acting and scripting proved nothing could salvage this debacle.The Ronoake legend is one that has received a fair amount of play the past few years in films and the mystery surrounding the disappearance of the 16th Century British colony is the backdrop once again here in this discombobulated tale. Father to be, Will Custis (Cooper) decides to purchase a dilapidated old Virginian home to partake in some historic renovation. When he discovers an old antique cross and a strange mural painted on the wall in the basement, things get a bit quirky. His wife (Nichols) doesn't dig the house and wants to call it quits and his father in law (Skerrit) wants to steal the credit for what could be an historic archaeological discovery. Top it off with ghosts apparently running around.The film travels in a multitude of directions that lead nowhere and concludes with an absolutely ridiculous ending all in an effort to tie up all the loose strings. It's bad. However, it would not have been so lousy had it not been for Cooper who portrays a character so obnoxiously uninteresting I almost gave into the taboo temptation of hitting the stop button.Anna? Anna? Anna?