User reviews

Not recommended. This movie was slow and predictable. If you've seen the Shinning, then you have basically seen this movie. The acting was well done and there were some cool shots, but the actual plot is one that is constantly overdone. It never made me cringe and I rolled my eyes at the complete utter predictability of it. It's a waste of time. Really, it is. I have never looked at the clock so much during the movie, wondering when it was going to end.

And also, I am not a person that is usually good at predicting things, but this movie was so easy to predict. The other thing is, I didn't really like the main character, due to the way he was presented in the beginning, so the fact was that I didn't care at all as to what was going to happen to him made the movie even more boring. It was a well reviewed film by other users, which gave me the idea that it was original and well done. IT ISN'T.

"Occupant" has one of the nicest, most believable set-ups of any recent urban thriller: Danny (Van Hansis) moves into his granny's (whom he's never met) rent-controlled Manhatten apartment (if you can call a 3500 sq ft space merely that) hoping to continue her $675 a month renting price, with the aide of an overly-friendly/sinister doorman (Thorston Kaye). The only glitch? To secure the place at the low-low figure, he only needs to barricade himself inside the plush joint long enough to lawyer up and win legal custody of the property.

Of course, this isn't as easy as it seems, as a series of eerie coincidences gradually convince Danny that someone's not exactly playing above board in their attempts to foist him out.

Henry Miller's latest film is much glossier than his previous outings, nicely shot, with some inventive camera angles. The story, by writer/producer Johnathan Brett, is engaging, if not rendered a bit campy sometimes with it's use of 250-point Helvetica fonts screaming DAY ONE, DAY TWO, etc.

The real weakness, I think, is the casting of Van Hansis --- a soap opera actor who looks a bit too Abercrombie to be mistaken for the average working-joe-farm-boy-come-to-the-big-city. He's not bad, really, his acting is just very one-note (as with many soap opera alumni, his range is either in the "super sincere" or "utterly hysterical" registers...they're either whispering or shouting).

Unfortunately, he doesn't do well with the latter. It appears Miller found that out, because the film tends to lapse into gimmicks like speed-frame, freeze-frame, and wipes particularly in the final scenes. It takes a lot of gravitas to pull off the kind of gut wrenching panic that's needed here, and Hansis just doesn't have it. This is a shame, because the film, overall, has a lot of unique touches going for it. It just needs an actor with a resume that's longer than his Facebook page to support it.

I saw this title on a website that I subscribe to and when I saw the reviews on IMDb I figured I would give it a try.

I will say this, it is not a BAD movie. It also is not a great movie.

It runs VERY slow and tries to build up the suspense.

I had a feeling I knew what was happening from the beginning, but the movie just tries to pull your mind in too many directions.

First, there is the creepy feeling the people around him give. Second, there is the building itself. Third, there is the feeling like something else is there.

Don't expect to be scared by this film, but don't expect to be impressed either...

"Occupant" isn't the smartest effort of recent memory, nor is it the scariest, but it's certainly unique enough to be worth mentioning. The plot here isn't especially innovative, borrowing heavily from movies like "1408" and Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining," but much like said inspiration, the execution is what differentiates this film from the slew of other cheap imitations. The movie is actually pretty sleek- looking for a lower-budget offering, and it makes effective use of its small, fairly-unknown cast, especially leading man Van Hansis, whose portrayal of a man grappling with his sanity is so convincing its unsettling. The atmosphere is dark, disturbing, and suspenseful, akin to an under-your-skin David Lynch head trip; it's that special blend of intentionally-ambiguous psychological thriller and supernatural horror that makes this a very carrot-on-a-stick experience, never allowing the viewer to turn away once the action begins its slow-burning buildup.

For the rest of my review, please check out my movie review blog: http://filmsallthetime.blogspot.com

At the start of this movie my hopes were high - an original plot with the scope for scary ghosty stuff. Unfortunately, when you're stuck in an apartment which you 'can't' leave it doesn't take long for the boredom to set in. There was an opportunity for chills and thrills but for some reason the execution is dull and listless. For some reason I started getting a hankering for The Shining - the definitive descent into madness. If you watch The Apartment then you'll get similar pangs after about 20 minutes.

If you delve into Korean horror then you can discover interesting themes fully realised and not just imagined by the director.

Nili has put together a classy list - http://www.imdb.com/list/8txFAcBLcUo/

Originally I was kind of p!$$ed because all I saw were these painfully OBVIOUS and stupid 'planted' 'reviews' REALLY going over the top on how orgasmically awesome this film was. An INSTANT turn off. However, in reading later reviews I was able to gather that there was a decent chance that I might like this movie. I really like Psychological Horror films. Well, I just now finished watching it and I was quite impressed by the quality of the movie. Also, This type of film is not terribly easy to do because the direction and writing REALLY have to be spot on in order to pull it off properly. Well, I'm here to tell you that in my lowly and wretched opinion, they did a very good job indeed.

As others have noted here, it is very similar to Polanski's 'REPULSION'; a Psychological Horror film. Since there was ultimately very little dialog, I really appreciated the quality of the sound design. It was very intriguing and quite effective in creating the right mood for this story. Right off, I really liked the soundtrack; and, as things progressed and the mood got more off-kilter, the band really did an excellent job in enhancing the increasingly disturbing atmosphere. Toward the end it REALLY reminded me of Goblin in some of Argento's films like 'SUSPIRIA'.

The script and direction worked well together in that the director was able to build a very believable mood and atmosphere, which is critical to this type of film. He also brought out an excellent performance from the main actor depicting his progressively unravelling state of mind. I didn't really care too much for the way the doorman was portrayed. I think I understand what the director was trying to do with his character, but to me personally I felt that he came across as a bit clichéd in his dialog and the way it was delivered. A bit too cardboard for my taste. However, that doesn't really take away too much from the main thrust and weight of the film or the disturbing / unbalanced mood that is very effectively created.

So, bottom line... IF you like this kind of slower, more heavily psychological type of Horror / Thriller that is mostly mood, atmosphere and state of mind, then you will like it because it is done very well. BUT, if you like your Horror more gory and in your face, then you most likely will find this more boring and slow.

I really liked the use of time lapse photography across the city and the use of the Gothic images in the designs of the building, etc. I REALLY felt the way that the director used the lighting & editing was extremely effective. I particularly loved the scene, even though very subtle, where the lighting flickers across behind the boy watching the laptop. VERY nice! Without giving too much away, I REALLY felt for the guy and I could feel myself saying 'Come on man; if you can just hold on a little longer...!'

Oh, and it was also interesting to see how the fellow apparently liked his pv$$y... (heh heh...)

After reading some of the reviews on IMDb I almost didn't give this one a chance. I'm glad however that I took the time to watch this film. I'm not saying I stumbled upon an instant classic, or one of my new favorite movies. I wasn't blown away by it or anything, but I felt as though it was an entertaining horror/thriller. It did become slightly predictable, but not enough to turn me off from it. For having such a small cast of characters and lack of different settings. It kept me waiting for the next "day".

If your a fan of "The Amityville Horror" or "The Shining" I recommend this as one worth watching.

Well, I was really anticipating this film. Van Hanis did a good job but the point is this may be on the line of a Polanski-but it left me not horrified, or feeling the ending was a total twist of the mind. With the exception of a few things such as the building looking like the Dakota-the elevator operator and Van Hansis change in appearance it was a far cry from anything that Polanski ever did. However I did enjoy the Doorman, Joe-two thumbs up Thorsten Kaye-I'm biased.

Will I view it again in the 24 hours that VOD gives you? Maybe so it can grow on me. Maybe not.

This was definitely not what I had myself hyped up for.

This was a pretty good mystery/thriller. It was obviously low budget but it had a very strong story and an extremely strong cast. I didn't know what was truly happening until the absolute final scene. It was NOT predictable in the least. Go in with an open mind and you will enjoy this movie.

Danny (Van Hansis) has to ID his dead Granny. She had a rent controlled apartment in New York City. Danny illegally takes over tenancy of the apartment, and is told he can't leave until the court order comes through where he can take over the lease(?!). Joe (Thorsten Kaye) is the touchy-feely Russian doorman Danny has to contend with. He likes to refer to himself in the third person. "Joe got paint for you." "Joe go ATM for you." "Now you need Joe." Also irritating, Sharleen (Cody Horn), who is filming Danny for her video blog.

By the 40-minute mark, I was wondering if anything was going to happen at all. Bodies eventually start turning up, and we all know the fate of pets in a horror movie. But no amount of camera shaking, jump cutting, or tense music can up the anxiety when nothing's really happening. Ultimately, nothing in the way of an explanation is given for the semi-strange goings on. A waste of time.

OK, I'm gonna write this short: This movie has some really nice shots, in the beginning it creates an interesting, little weird story, the acting is pretty nice ... BUT there are so many plot holes, so many stuff that happens without any reason, just for the effect and there's no horror at all. This movie is just a concept ... looks like they ran out of money and had to end it somehow. This is sad, because it really had a decent start and could have been a remarkable film. This way there is no comparison to any Polanski movie.

Usually it's nice to watch a movie and in the end be left with a few questions to talk about and to discuss ... but here it's just too much. Why all this?