Mart Sander Whatever the artistic qualities of this film, I have to say that it has (at least) one redeeming point: it is a very interesting watch. One can only wander, what it would look like, had the director secured a hollywoodian budget for this project where poverty is occasionally visible, even though well masked. It is quite lynchian and just like with most every Lynch film, you find yourself enjoying the going-ons immensely, yet at the same time being deeply afraid that the ending will fail to produce a satisfactory solution. In this case, the film doesn't just end in coitus interruptus (a technique that makes Lynch very irritating) but does offer an 'instant satisfaction', that unrolls during the last 1 minute or so. Yet, as with all things instant, after the first rapture has evaporated, the whole thing seems somewhat silly and artificial. Nevertheless, the film captivated me, kept me guessing and was a very good way to spend 1,5 hours.

krepsilent I didn't see anyone comment on the ending, other than to say it goes nowhere, and I don't really agree with that, so here's my thoughts: the protagonist (Jason Scott Campbell) gets his first clue on how to "end the movie" / "catch the killer" / "end the murders", when his teacher tells him "it's time for the protagonist to take control - everyone's been a victim so far, it's time for him to take control - and time for you to finish the movie." A further clue comes from his classmate, the guy making the other movie: "... there's no villain.. it's almost as if, the director, he's the villain, he's the one putting us through all this." That's when he gets the idea - to end it, he must take control, so he invites Natalia over, grabs a knife, sets up the camera, starts it recording and he and Natalia lay on the bed, the knife hidden beside him. Increasingly certain he's the killer and/or crazy, Natalia starts fighting him, afraid he's going to kill her (or perhaps playing along, understanding his intent).Then the "movie with a movie" starts happening, and quite simply the protagonist kills the director, or the person filming. Next the scene cuts to the class film set, and the ending of the movie and movie within movie is shown - and then Natalia and protagonist huddle while he says "it's over, it's over".Who was the director? I think that is left up to the viewer. The literal interpretation could be the person who set everything up entered the room - maybe the janitor, maybe someone else, and the protagonist killed him. Another interpretation, more magical but still inside the movie, is the camera was some kind of window to another dimension, or the mind/dreams of the director, and somehow a magical second reality was interfering, and the act of killing the "director" was a way to pick an ending and stop it. Yet another interpretation is, the whole work is not actually a horror movie but an inside comment on film making of horror movies, and the comment is, in movies such as this, or Blair-witch, etc, the villain is simply the director.Personally, I think in some cases this type of ending can be brilliant, but in this case we weren't quite there (thus a 6). The viewer wonders, was this an intentional plan of a writer with a message? Or is this just a cowardly way to end a movie from a writer who was unwilling to write an actual ending, or couldn't make up his mind, or ran out of money? And I think that is what bothers so many viewers about endings like this.

celr I rented this film because the blurb said it was a 'thinking man's horror film.' It is neither, definitely no thinking was involved in making this piece of drek, and it's certainly not a horror film. I am writing this to warn any possible renters away from this awful excuse for a film project. I can only believe that the positive reviews here are from people who helped make it. I checked the spoiler alert but there's nothing to spoil: the movie doesn't make any sense. It is stupid in the extreme. The only spoiler I can think of: don't see this movie, it will ruin your day! Okay. A guy and a girl wake up in a room with a video camera parked at the foot of their bed which wasn't there the night before. They play the video in the camera and it looks like something shot by a chimpanzee--you see flashes of naked bodies and fake blood but it's all too jerky and blurry to make out anything. Maybe you can see flashes of faces and two of them might be the very guy and girl who are viewing the tape. Though the film in the camera is blurry and jerky we are meant to see that it shows the guy and the girl killing a nude woman or two. Did the two of them murder someone during the night and they can't remember it? There are no clues in the room, no blood or weapons anywhere. The experience is strange and disturbing but they don't tell anyone about it. Now get this: the guy is a student film maker and the mysterious camera at the foot of the bed that morning inspires him to come up with a brilliant idea for his film project-- he'll make a movie about a guy who wakes up with his girlfriend from a night of sex and finds a video camera pointed at the bed and so they view the tape...and of course the film class (full of total nerds and halfwits) thinks that's a wonderful idea for a movie. So the guy goes around finding some people who are willing to pose naked in a sort of soft- core gore romp with a lot of fake blood. Lucky filmmaker, he gets to work with naked girls! The fact that none of them can act doesn't matter because nothing else matters in this sorry excuse for a story. But the actor who plays the filmmaker guy plays him as a brain-dead zombie most of the time who has no idea what to do from one moment to the next. But maybe he's not acting, maybe that's how he really is. Certainly it never occurs to him to call the police.I could go on, but you get the point. Not really a spoiler alert but a DUMB alert.

Coventry Oh boy, here we have another over-ambitious young filmmaker who single-handedly intends to restore everything that's wrong with nowadays horror cinema…Pardon my cynicism but we all heard this before and – usually – these youngsters fail to live up to their own expectations. For his debut film, videostore clerk turned director Dylan Bank comes up with a psychedelic but immensely confusing story about a film student who makes a movie about his own nightmare that miraculously appear to be taped on camera every morning when he wakes up. The idea is admirable and the film does feature a handful of nice touches, but Dylan Bank never really seems to realize that his visions and interpretations on horror AREN'T groundbreaking or even that shocking. This type of 'mental assault'-cinema is the territory of genius directors like David Lynch, Alejandro Jodorowsky and Shinya Tsukamoto, only their films are more fascinating and truly a lot more disturbing! The story material has potential but "Nightmare" lacks involvement and commitment with the characters whereas, with Lynch, you pretty much feel like you're inside the protagonists' heads and you fear what they fear! The film often just exists of blurry and roughly edited images that make no sense or add nothing to the basic premise at all, but Bank uses them (as padding?) anyway. New characters and locations are introduced randomly and they simply disappear again without any form of coherence. Also, for being a new type of horror film, "Nightmare" doesn't contain much atmosphere, scary moments or even violent images. There's quite a lot of nudity (the non-artistic kind), the acting performances are acceptable and the use of uncanny music is very good. Worth a look if you're in an experimental mood once.