The story here is not so much mystical as scientific. Even proven.
Sleep paralysis. These words were probably too few in the film for anyone to focus on them. But not me. I went through a period of sleep paralysis almost every day. There was no good in my dreams. I just couldn't move and breathe. From this the heart began to beat frantically.
And sleep paralysis occurs due to an uncomfortable position during sleep, perhaps also due to psychological stress. I say this because I don’t have those dreams right now.
This phenomenon is understandable.
About deaths due to sleep paralysis. When I searched for information about this “disease”, there were either too few or none at all.
Maybe in the past they didn’t know why this happened. They thought it was something otherworldly. As usual, myths, horror stories and so on are born.
What this film showed is how easy it is to make a person believe what someone needs. Zombing. It is enough to turn on the word of mouth.
So I found this movie interesting. I didn’t even pay attention to the actors. I am not surprised that the film is based on real events.
Actor Dallas Roberts, who played the main character, kept the stamp as best he could. But if the script is false, then the film on one actor does not drag.
Whether one scenario is to blame is difficult to say. Here and cryp moments can be called cryptic only nominally. Fig writer Matthew Arnold, obviously, was also a fig director? Maybe. But what always amazed me was that there was not one person working on the film. Did the whole team really care about the drum, what kind of budget and a certain time from their movie is a complete suck?
It seems that at the beginning of the film even mentions the standard of horror “The Call”. So Matthew Arnold probably watched at least one good horror movie. But what did Hideo Nakata (director of the Japanese “Bell”) learn from the team of the film “Door”? Nothing at all.
More than 90 percent of the movie is just talk. And to some extent, it is clear why. The main character of the film is a radio host. However, the dialogue here is not even called secondary. They're nothing. The chatter here is so empty that it's not even the main part of the plot, it's something that's not the plot. If you spend the whole day on the bench before the entrance, you can hear much more interesting conversations.
The metamorphosis of the main character was very far-fetched and ridiculous. Impressed by a couple of lame and extremely dubious precedents, the burnt-out skeptic turned into the most fanatical idiot in the film, similar to an uneducated housewife who watched Igor Prokopenko's program.
The moral of the film is that Ren TV can kill. I won’t explain, just look if you don’t need time or need a film purely for the background.
By the way, I may have forgiven something, but in my opinion, the word “Door” appeared in the film zero times. As a matter of fact, nothing even pointed to this very "Door" there. I don't care. The creators did not care, and even more so for me.
If we abstract from the play of Dallas Roberts and from the tolerable technical component, then the film does not appreciate even one. Zero movie.
The genre of pseudo-documentary is perfect for debut. Agree, this genre does not require a large budget or stars of the first category, which means that your project you can shoot for pennies, and the profit from the picture will be two, three or more times more, which means that the opportunity to make the film you want is very close, because this genre is very popular, and therefore people, mainly teenagers, will easily run for such a film. Here, for example, the painting by Matthew Arnold “Doors” is also filmed using pseudo-documentary material.
Charlie Crowe is a regular late-night radio show host. The rating of the show is not enough, and the probability that their show will be bought is very small, but one evening, during one of the night conversations, Charlie calls a certain Jeff, talking about some people - shadows who come and take the lives of sleeping people. Having laughed a little and sent the guy to the nearest mental institution, Charlie continues his show. Waking up the next morning, the hero discovers a folder with files about those very people - shadows, and in the evening he receives another call from Jeff, preparing to shoot himself in the head.
The film was directed by debutant Matthew Arnold, who, I confess personally, was able to surprise me not only with a great atmosphere, but also with a new, and also very easy, presentation of the plot. The film turned out not bad and interesting, and the atmosphere of mysticism gives it the appropriate atmosphere. Arnold did not work badly with the script, which was based on a real case of an unknown disease death during sleep, but unlike other horror films with such a stigma, this one confirms his hypothesis with real shots, shootings and photos, which I want to believe and be surprised. The idea of people - shadows in itself is interesting and its implementation could be much better, but the budget does not help the picture to open for real. Unfortunately, the script begins to lose ground towards the end of the film, the film lacks something, or more of an inflating atmosphere, or more dynamics or because of some illogicality, and maybe because of the similarity of the script with the film “The Call”, where there is a similar synopsis, but in any case the film begins to lose ground and it is very bad. However, the script is not bad, much better than meaningless thrashacks or crazy horror movies. The cameraman – debutant Matthew Hackerling works well, giving the film a corresponding dark scale, which helps the viewer to plunge into the appropriate atmosphere. Not bad music Corey Wallace also sometimes saves the film - in some moments it is a bridge over which the atmosphere crosses and only thanks to music it does not collapse.
Not a bad game of actors also goes to this film, however, the characters of the film do not resemble their real prototypes and this can be viewed in two ways. To a large extent, the film rests on the shoulders of Dallas Roberts, who played the role of Charlie Crow, since it is he who we will see almost the entire film and together with him we will solve this case. The rest of the actors are not working badly, but it will be very rare to see their audience and they will appear in one or two episodes, except for Alison Eastwood, sometimes dragging a blanket not herself and not leaving Roberts to drag the film alone. A good cast and very not bad, well-coordinated play of actors gives the film another plus in the overall piggy bank.
Total:
Of course, before evaluating this film, it is worth thinking about how many horror films like this exist, there are a lot of them, each in its own way is good and interesting, but “Doors” can overtake their pursuers thanks to a good cast and not a bad presentation of the plot, but the main trump card is the real confirmation of their guesses and the story itself. The script can be considered both “for” and “against”, where the plus is the first half of the film, a few good moments and a good disclosure of the characters, but the minus and the main thing can be the similarity with the “Ring” of Gore Verbinski, where everything is done at the highest level and easily closes the debut of Matthew Arnold from the audience. As for me, the film was not bad, including for the debut, but for once, as they say: “I looked and forgot.” But to watch it or not - it all depends only on you, someone likes the film, someone will seem boring and uninteresting, so if you want to watch it, then take risks and hope that you do not lose.
Thank you for listening!
Journalistic investigations are a fertile topic for creating high-quality, tense thrillers that are able to excite and keep their viewer under stress for a very long time. And this is not at all surprising, because the audience has always been interested in watching how the most ordinary, unprepared people who challenge the forces of evil in the face of ghosts, monsters or simply maniacs meet with dangers. Well, journalists have always been welcome heroes of various detective stories, because they are the guardians of public order immediately behind the police. Often, pen, screen and radio workers are able to do more to solve crimes than valiant law enforcement officers, and watching such stories is at least interesting. Well, it is much better when the current reality is intertwined with the mystical element, so that the story begins to acquire an unexpected shade and it is almost impossible to predict the end. Just such a movie can be called the thriller “Door”, also known as “Shadow Men”. The mass viewer knows almost nothing about this project, as it passed at the box office completely unnoticed and immediately entrenched in the world of home video, where it was very difficult to find it. Unfortunately, due to the total dominance of powerful Hollywood studios, such independent projects are forced to struggle for crumbs of audience attention, but it is good that sometimes such films as “Door” still get to their audience. The director of the extraordinary thriller was the debutant in the profession Matthew Arnold, who also had a hand in writing the script. Dallas Roberts was invited to the leading role, who at one time took part in a number of noteworthy films, including the Dallas Buyers Club, Train to Yuma and The Fight. But despite the fact that the actor is often invited to such promising projects, the viewer will not immediately remember his name, because often Roberts vegetates on the second or third plan, playing along with his star colleagues. And now the “spare player” has a chance to show all his talents and prove to his comrades in the workshop that the actors of the second tier are able to play at the maximum of opportunities and attract the attention of the audience with their professionalism, which is not affected by cute appearance.
At the center of the story is the host of the midnight radio show Charlie Crowe (Roberts). The hero can not boast of happiness in his personal life, as his wife filed for divorce and took with her son, who was still not enthusiastic about his father. Professionally, Charlie is also unlucky. His program is on the verge of closing, and he has no illusions that a more respectable and wealthy company will buy his life’s work. Every day the hero is more and more immersed in a state of despondency and his undisguised cynicism has become a feature of the show, although not all listeners like it, which is why ratings fall. And interesting topics for conversations Charlie recently failed to find. His life flies into the abyss and only a miracle could bring him back to the top of popularity. And it does happen! One evening, a young man called on the radio, clearly frightened. Judging by his statements, certain Shadow People come after him during sleep and the day is near when they will take him to their other world. Taking the words of the guy as a joke, Charlie immediately forgets about him, but the persistent listener still achieves that the presenter is interested in his problem. Throwing under the house of Charlie evidence of the existence of unexpected guests and again breaking into the air, the guy thereby threw Charlie the idea of how to return the show to the top and achieve considerable public resonance. But the investigation played a cruel joke with the hero. He became an involuntary prisoner of his own investigation. And now Charlie may lose what little he has left and become an outcast forever.
If we consider the film by Matthew Arnold according to the scheme of narration construction, then it can be compared with the much more famous “Fourth Kind”, in which Mila Jovovich played the leading role. The director of “Doors” adopted several techniques of the older film and inserted into his project a lot of shots, allegedly existing in reality. According to the assurances of the creators, the whole story shown to us is based on very real events and the writers tried to bring the film as close as possible to reality, while limiting their wild imagination. It’s hard to say whether or not what we saw in the video is true. The same “Fourth Kind” in its advertising campaign relied on documentary, but in fact it turned out that its director and producers cheated and filmed their entire “chronicle” in parallel with the main narrative and with the help of invited actors. There is a considerable probability that Matthew Arnold did the same in Door, but to his credit, the film turned out to be moderately entertaining, the dynamics of the narrative constantly moves the plot forward and it is also important that the main character is interesting to watch, because his character changes. “Door” is built as a mysterious detective, in which it is not clear what is true, what is false. The creators weave government conspiracies, mysticism and science into the plot. We are deliberately led by false ways, so that the effect of surprise played to the maximum and in the final we were surprised by the decision that the main character made. The film does not give unequivocal answers to the questions of the existence of Shadow People, but at the same time it puts forward several interesting theories, and each viewer has the right to choose which of them is the most truthful. When I was watching, I had two fights. The first sincerely wanted to believe that everything that was happening was the machinations of evil spirits. Well, the second leaned towards a scientific explanation, which seems the most probable and quite justified.
Matthew Arnold thought that a rather impressive part of the timekeeping should be given to the so-called Sleep Paralysis. This is a dangerous syndrome, during which you may well die due to the fact that your body is unable to function and dies from lack of air or a sharp drop in pressure. Such deaths in the world do not occur so often, but to explain their nature to the full extent so far no one could. The director tried to collect the most interesting facts related to this phenomenon and added to them certain information that official science tries to ignore. For example, few people know that sleep paralysis can be a mass phenomenon and as if the epidemic will spread among a huge group of people.
Also, the director put in our heads a simple truth, which for some reason we began to forget. But it says that you should not believe in your nightmares, because they are quite capable of taking over our consciousness and coming to life. It is quite possible that numerous publications and simply hysteria around the Shadow People have activated mentally unstable inhabitants and they have actually destroyed themselves by their fear. Who knows...
Chatter, chatter, chatter, and really? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Why is this still happening in 2013? The film is frankly bad, but maybe there are things that will pull it out of the hole. Doors is a 2013 film based on true events. It touches on the subject of many known deadly files. The plot tells about a video from YouTube, after watching which, a person soon dies. Why this is happening is unclear. The main character is a loser, who left his wife and hates his son. Hell, I'd give an Oscar to a movie that doesn't have that stamp. He works as a radio announcer and hosts nighttime broadcasts, takes calls and hammers empty airtime with chatter. One day, a guy calls him and says that shadows have come for him. Naturally, he offers to tell him the problem to a psychiatrist and laughs at him, despite the fact that the guy is desperate and clearly needs help. The conversation ends with a shot. The next day it turns out that the guy shot at the wall, he was taken to the hospital, where he died in his sleep. For a reporter, this was a reason to get involved in the investigation of this accident. Well, enough with you spoiler, although I’m not sure that many will watch the film to the end, but come on. In fact, this film is a full-length debut of Matthew Arnold, before that he was known for the short film “The Resurrection of Mary”, apparently, when he was told that he was a director from God, he was not told that he should start with simpler objects, and things like hard color correction, noir, nudity, it is better not to touch until you gain enough experience, that’s where they are in their infancy. The main enemies of the shadow? Whatever! They did not manifest themselves here, what are their motives and goals unknown, who are they and how to get rid of them? Who knows her? All we know about them is that they are shadows. And whose, by what principle they choose victims and how to defeat them does not matter. I also note that the film is full of chatter and over time it just starts to infuriate. Because of this chatter, it is difficult to watch the film and, in addition to the chatter of the actors, we are shown the real participants in the incident with a YouTube video known as “Doors” (In narrow and not very well known circles). But one question, why? After watching a horror movie with strange interviews, are we supposed to believe in the Crippie files? I doubt it very much. Acting game, a separate topic about which you can write indefinitely. I will say one thing, it is both terrible and beautiful. First of all, there are not only no stars, there are no good actors. Actors like to invest emotions in replicas, but they get to convey the characters and personalities of their heroes worse than microsoft to make browsers. Can you name one reason why we should empathize with a fat, nasty, always-smoking American? Although he is quite kind in nature, in horror films, the external content often plays a greater role than the internal. “Friday the 13th” is a cult horror movie, but there are so poor characters that you can only empathize with Jason, that’s where it’s difficult to empathize with someone. Although the son of the hero was able to remember, once again the child played better than adults. Again, the technical side is terrible. Color correction, camera work, editing, everything is terrible and it is extremely difficult to look at it. The film is not for everyone, hardly anyone can argue. It also leaves a lot of questions. 5 out of 10Original
So why didn’t they tell you at the beginning of the film how this “infection” was transmitted? I wouldn't watch the movie.
Personally, I am very impressionable, and today was not a good day. Comedies were annoying, so I decided to watch this movie. Everything would be fine, but here is the statement that says that once you have seen, then wait for such guests. I did not look at the titles, and judging by the reviews, I did the right thing. I will not say that I am sitting in a panic, but just such cheap intimidation is not pleasant, it can really affect the psyche, sleep is a dream. And I personally, after him, also on YouTube, obtained “evidence”. Someone, of course, my comment will make fun of, but as impressionable people like me, categorically do not recommend watching this film.
In general, the film was shot normally, everything is essentially, it does not stretch, everything goes at a normal pace: event - reaction - consequences. But still, I believe that this is not the basis of films. At most, you can make a transmission, and for those who deliberately want to tickle their nerves, and not announce at the very end that once you watched, you have already become infected.
Ten years ago, on a quiet spring evening, I inserted a videotape with the American film "The Call" into the player. Fifteen minutes later, the lights went out in the apartment. A phone call came a minute later. On the other side of the tube was a neighbor who wanted to know where the electricity had gone. But I never watched the call. Little by little.
Only people with a very strong psyche and an incorrigible sense of humor should watch such films. I highly recommend this picture to impressionable people. Particularly to squander the titles...
The whole film is a mixture of cinematic investigation and documentary footage. Prototypes of the characters are completely different from those who eventually played them. Essentially a film about chatter, gossip and flow of information. We swallow them day in and day out, polluting our brains. It’s about filtering information before allowing it into your life.
I really liked the main character’s approach to raising his own son. Yeah, he wasn't much involved in the kid's day-to-day routine, but he was throwing up valuable ideas. For example, the fact that live communication will not replace a person either computer games or Internet communication. He was really trying to get the guy out of the media cocoon.
Otherwise, the main character is a typical American loser who chased his dream, but managed to catch it by the tail only in a very sad way. Did he do the right thing in the end? More like it than not. Putting himself on the mockery of everyone, he tried to save someone, not being able to warn about the consequences. There’s a saying: “Curiosity killed a cat.” We are cats that hunt for intrigue, investigation, research, to somehow diversify life, to make it even a little less boring.
“The Blair Witch” opened the cinema world a door, sorry for the pun, in cunning marketing moves. Note that as soon as there is an inscription “filmed on real events” or included somehow some documentary chronicle, immediately pulls to look. And if it is a thriller, horror or other “unknown animal”, the desire increases.
As a person with a psychological background, I was interested in this film on the same level as The Exam, where human experimentation and morality collide, ultimately giving rise to an interesting, exciting project. As an impressionable person, especially after that "The Bell" story, I would prefer not to watch this movie.
The artistic value of this film product leaves much to be desired - the weak work of the operator in staged scenes, the predominance of Hitchcock music over action in order to enhance the effect of the scarecrow ... Plus, the film is frankly delayed. On the other hand, it's the best combination of documentary and horror I've seen to this day.
A good alternative to paintings like “The Key to All Doors” and “The Astral”, for fans of the genre who are not afraid to sleep at night. There's a lot to think about... It leaves a sediment. Another question is, do you want to live with the knowledge that the Door will give you, or is it better to remain without it?
Well, I have to say that while it's not a box office movie, it's not going to be very exciting, it's going to be interesting for people with sleep paralysis. It's the first movie I've seen about this phenomenon or disease, I don't know what it is. Since I have been suffering from this phenomenon for more than 20 years, I was very interested, because there is a lot of “truth”. I mean, the film shows how people feel about sleep paralysis, which is what I felt. And the slogan of the film may well be a phrase from it:
“If you think about them, they will come. How can you stop thinking about something?
Sleep paralysis is considered a normal physiological phenomenon that occurs with improper sleep patterns. But here's the paradox, if you think about it, it happens. I've noticed this many times before. So the film was a revelation to me in many ways, because the subject is unexpectedly profound. But the connection of sleep paralysis with death in a dream is too much. But without it, there was no intrigue or danger.
Anyone who is interested in the topic of sleep paralysis, be sure to watch!
The rest is a terrible movie, you can watch for the night!
7 out of 10
The question is, how do you stop thinking about something?
Many of us have heard of sudden sleep death syndrome. This phenomenon is trying to explain doctors from all over the world, but in vain. Healthy people continue to die just by closing their eyes at home. What is it? Disease? Or is it another mystery of humanity?
This is the question raised by Shadow People along with many others.
And those questions, I have to admit, are very skillful, despite the fact that I'm sure half the audience will find the film somewhat boring. What are the criteria for good films? The plot, the soundtrack, the quality of special effects, acting, dynamism and novelty? All this is certainly important, but sometimes it happens that it is impossible to say exactly what attracts. One of the points is not strong enough, but more than enough it will be blocked by the excellent performance of the other.
This is the case with Shadow People.
Scattering attention and scrolling half of the film can lose all impression.
But this is not the thriller or horror from which to expect screamers and creepy pictures, demons or scary images of people-shadows.
This is a movie where it is so important to listen and listen.
Acting game and lyrics still do their job, delay, make you think, immerse yourself in the atmosphere and, as a result, believe.
“They come when you’re asleep.” Every night. I close my eyes and they come. You can’t get rid of them, they are your thoughts. When you think about them, they find you. Like sharks swim to blood. The question is, how do you stop thinking about something?
That's a damn good question. And an incredible game on human psychology. We believe when we see. But the game of the human brain is that if you believe too much, you can bring it on yourself.
We often don’t think about many things until we know them.
Did people fear wells, little girls and videotapes before the release of the iconic "Ring"?
Did your own reflection often evoke strange emotions before the release of "Mirror"?
And how many thought that the house can also be dangerous before the release of the franchise?
So the thing about this movie is that it's what makes you think. And it is the thoughts that cause what he shows.
“This is how shadow people spread.” From person to person, around the world. Orally, through a book, the Internet... or a movie.
8 from 10
Oh yeah, there's a little surprise after the credits. Don't forget to scoot.