AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Yazmin Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

sjalkarjadottir 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.

huguespt I live in Australia and like a lot of Australians, we try and support our film industry, however there seems to be more flunks than triumphs. I watched this movie on the back of a particularly good Aussie flick. This film is extremely slow to start, that slow I was tempted several times to switch off and go to bed, it was just lucky I had to wait for something. So as the movie progresses the tension is palpable, even had be jump a little now and then, so much so I thought I would stick it through, then as I found out later there was another very slow part. I still hung in there and woe is me forever trying to watch this movie. NO ending is what awaits for you unless you expected it all along.Stephanie King gets the lead in the billing, what for? Who knows, yes she played, what there was of her role well, the star who shone with acting ability and totally believable was second billed was Lindsay Farris, totally believable, excellent performance and realistically the whole film rides on his back, it is a shame the director or writer could not see the extremely long slow spots and a bit more of an ending, can't say more because I don't write spoilers.

S. Soma Much is made about the fact that the movie "Observance" was made on a budget of about $11,000. Frankly, in my opinion, the budget shows. The production values actually look surprisingly good for such a low- budget entry, and that explains a lot. All the money and effort was expended to produce a film that LOOKED reasonably good in spite of a shoestring budget, and so no money was spent elsewhere, like, say, writing a story that was interesting enough to make into a film.From what I understand, "Observance" has done fairly well on the film festival circuit, so maybe I'm a Philistine. But I don't think so.I've lived long enough to see more than a few horror movies where I can recognize cheap and cheesy results because there simply wasn't enough money left in the budget to spend on the story.Remember when you were a kid and had something like mumps or chickenpox, something that gave you a very high fever sufficient to distort your perception? Your small-child experiences during the course of the fever were INNATELY horrifying because everything was nightmarishly distorted. As a kid, you had no understanding of what a fever was and what it could do to your perceptions. You didn't understand whether what you were seeing was real, a hallucination, basic reality distorted through a fever lens, and so on. You might not even have understood that there were even such things as hallucinations. As far as you could tell your whole world had gone crazy and terrifying, especially in the dark. I can remember some of the things I saw to this day and they still have the power to scare the snot out of me as an adult.Well, that's what the viewer gets with this movie. You can't tell if what you're seeing is real, hallucination, something supernatural, symptomology of a disease or some kind of poisoning, and so on. So, intrinsically, whatever you experience as a result of this devil's brew of cognitive pollutants being flung at you from the screen leads to a sense of queasy confusion. It is anything BUT good, scary storytelling.I also get the sense that there's an element of The Emperor's New Clothes going on here. What you experience with this (and similarly structured movies) is such a mishmash of incomprehensible goulash that you're worried that some sort of sophisticated symbolism or metaphorical abstraction is going on and that you, personally, just don't get it. So you pretend that you DO get it so you don't look stupid, cooing at its insight and sophistication, all the while having absolutely no idea what "it" is.You can achieve essentially the same effect much easier by just tying a victim to an office chair, covering their head with a bag, and then twirling them around until they get sick and throw up.I give the movie maker props for making a professional LOOKING movie so cheaply, but that's it. He's not a filmmaking impresario. He's more of a sneaky hack.

kosmasp Movies that are stake outs and that may feel weird to say the least, do have issues with character credibility at some point. And it's not different with this one, where you think, shouldn't our main character do something else instead? Shouldn't he see the signs and react to them rationally? But we wouldn't have a movie if he did. Also the actions are somewhat explained by his financial situation.So while you can argue these flaws and bumps in the story, you can also just a "enjoy" the suspense this builds up. And it has some very shocking moments indeed. It's a one location sort of deal, but it makes the most of it. And the suspense might be killing some people. And that's why I was surprised to see the lower rating here on IMDb. Didn't expect that to be truthful