Choose (II) (2011) User Reviews

Choose: Mediocre thriller

[Platypuschow · 4/10 · 17 October 2017]

Similar in method to Seven (1995) this well cast little thriller doesn't live up to its potential.

A new criminal has emerged, one who presents his victims with a horrific choice such as which limb he'll cut off or which family member they have to kill.

The concept has potential, the execution however is lacking.

The movie has moments of intelligence and strong writing but sadly that's all it has, moments.

Katheryn Winnick, Kevin Pollak & briefly Bruce Dern star in this lackluster effort that should have been a great deal better.

For a far more intelligent and well conceived movie about forced difficult choices then I suggest Would You Rather (2012)

The Good:

Couple of nice touches in the script

The Bad:

Very underwhelming

Potential squandered

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Bruce Dern looks identical in every film he's ever been in

If Scarlett Johansson & Teresa Palmer had a baby it'd look like Katheryn Winnick

Sadly, Kevin Pollak isn't enough to save this movie.

[krachtm · 5/10 · 16 January 2011]

If you're a Kevin Pollak junkie, like me, you're probably willing to sit through some cheesy movies, so that you can find the gems, like The Usual Suspects. Unfortunately, this movie is nowhere near that good. Basically, it's a by-the-numbers serial killer movie, with elements of Saw grafted on. I wasn't really expecting anything better than that, so I wasn't disappointed. Most of the performances were passable, and the direction was alright. There was a little bit of gore, which was well done, and a plot twist that worked well enough for the kind of movie this is. So, should you watch this movie? If you've got nothing better to do, and you can find it on a streaming service, like Netflix. Otherwise, pass.

Too bad Kevin Pollak doesn't do standup any more.

Not that bad, but could've been better.

[Indifferent_Observer · 5/10 · 7 February 2011]

I got my hands on this movie earlier and as usual cruised by IBMD to check out the reviews. After seeing the few reviews here I had not many expectations. I must admit I almost just deleted it, but knowing the IBMD rating system I decided to give it a whirl.

All in all the movie started out with a wham and the first half really had me quite intrigued with the storyline. The few 'notable' cameos were also a treat. The acting was above par, direction and setting was on point too, and it even had style, For a minute there I though I had hit pay dirt then I found the one place this movie was really lacking is it showed too much of its hand too early in the movie which made it a bit predictable. And being predictable isn't a good idea for a mystery movie which is definitely what this movie tried to be. If they only could've added a few more characters or held some bit of info back this might have been a great movie. Still, its far from horrible. I just wouldn't pay for it. I'd wait for it to come out on cable,torrent, etc.

I give this a solid 6. I wish I could give it a 7, but its just not deserving of a 7 so the final tally is: **Great acting, Great Cameos, Great Production, but kinda weak Script**

This movie or a good one? CHOOSE!

[harekrishna · 2/10 · 12 November 2010]

Caught this at Leeds Hyde Park Picture House's Night of the Dead and wish I hadn't. Dull, by-the-numbers serial killer slasher that has one gimmick - the killer makes his victims choose between two nasty punishments - that proves to be a lot less interesting than the you'd think.

Cue a plucky young journalist who uses the power of Google searching to solve a series of local crimes that her father, a high-ranking police officer, inexplicably doesn't seem to give a toss about.

The script has unintentional laugh-out-loud moments, and that's about the best I can say about this gently steaming pile of tepid naffness.

A thriller that is a cross between "Saw" & "Untraceable" minus most of the tension. It is a pretty good movie though. I say B-

[cosmo_tiger · 28 July 2011]

"Do what I say and you live. I'm going to kill your mother or your father. You have 60 seconds to decide, choose, or I kill them both." Journalism student Fiona (Winnick) becomes obsessed with the case of a serial killer. Her father (Pollak) tries to keep her away from the case he is working on, but the further she delves the more she thinks that her mother's death is somehow connected to this case. This is a movie that was pretty good, but had potential to be better. This movie seemed like it tried to copy "Silence Of The Lambs" and "Untraceble" with "Saw" mixed in. It didn't really get close to the standards of these movies, but it is still a good attempt. The acting was pretty good though and that helped. I think the main problem with this movie is that it didn't grab you with tension like a thriller should. It was OK, but had enough chances to be great and just never quite got there. Overall, "Saw" meets "Untraceable" with out the tension of either. An OK movie, nothing that hasn't been tried before though. That said, I did like it enough to say...I give it a B-.

Would I watch again? - I don't think I would.

*Also try - Scar & Untraceable

Seeing This Movie Is an Awful Choice

[claudio_carvalho · 3/10 · 28 March 2011]

Fiona Wagner (Katheryn Winnick) is studying for the master's degree in journalism and still grieves her mother Samantha that committed suicide in the Crescent Hotel three years ago. Her father, Detective Tom Wagner (Kevin Pollak), is investigating the brutal death of the lawyer Elliot Vincent, who was murdered by his teenager daughter that was forced to choose between killing him or having her mother, little brother and herself killed by the sadistic criminal that had broken in their house.

When the pianist Simon Campbell (Tom Cleary) is forced to choose between losing his fingers or his hearing, Tom realizes that a deranged serial-killer is attacking people. Meanwhile, Fiona is contacted by the criminal through the codename ISO_17 that shows pictures of the model Jenna (Kate Nauta), who had had to choose between her face or her vision, with her face destroyed. Fiona recalls that her mother had mentioned something about choice in her suicide note and she decides to investigate the sadistic man, disclosing secrets about her own family.

"Choose" is a thriller with a scary and sick beginning, when a daughter has to choose between killing her beloved father or her family. Unfortunately the story is terrible, and even fans of sadistic death might not like this flick. The resemblance of the face of the unknown Katheryn Winnick with Scarlett Johansson is impressive. In the end, seeing this movie is an awful choice. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "A Escolhida" ("The Chose One")

To choose or not to choose?

[RickHarvey · 3/10 · 14 April 2011]

Yawn. Acting is poor, characters are one dimensional. Story is rubbish. Lots of cheep thrills and a glut of cliché unimaginative frights. No pointing rambling on about how bad the film is. Juxaposed with Saw, it does resemble the film in terms of it using a similar plot device. Everything in the film is unprovoked. The writing is poor. Everything is poor.

If i had to pluck out one positive, heck, one mixed response, it would be that the main actress is nice too look at. I would choose not to watch.Bad film. Very Bad film. If like me, you check the rating before viewing and you have no choice but to watch it, then thank your stars that it only rolls for 83 minutes

'Cos Winnick was in it.

[BA_Harrison · 4/10 · 9 July 2013]

I was at a film convention the other day where there were a lot of DVDs for sale; I chose Choose. I didn't choose Choose because I thought it was going to be innovative and fresh (I could tell it was going to be a weak derivative of Saw, and it was); my choice wasn't based on reviews or word of mouth (I hadn't even heard of the film before then). No, Choose was chosen for one reason only: Katherine Winnick was in it. Katherine Winnick, the 'renaissance slut' sister from Satan's Little Helper. That Katherine Winnick.

Sadly, Katherine's presence alone is not enough to make this worth watching, director Marcus Graves going through the 'torture porn' motions but failing to deliver what audiences really expect. Not only is there very little worthwhile gore but Winnick's character takes two showers and a bath amidst all the screaming and bloodletting, but is only seen through a heavy plastic shower curtain and submerged shoulders-deep in a tub full of bubbles. Certainly not what most horror fans would opt for given the choice.

Why! WHY! Did I choose to watch this!

[thelbronius · 1/10 · 19 August 2011]

Pros: Beautiful lead Cons: everything else...sigh Amateurish at best. Winnick's acting leaves a lot to be desired. Right from the beginning she was irritating. She's better suited to being a nameless victim. She just kept missing opportunities to act. I think she's confused acting like a bitch with every other emotion. This is the first time I've seen a movie with her in it and I'm going to make sure to avoid any future movies starring her.

The premise is interesting. But a premise is just that, a kernel of a a great film. The rest is a collection of scenes that drag or were borrowed/stolen from other films. There were scenes where I thought I was watching: Scream, Se7en, The Last House on the Left, Saw. The only thing chosen can claim to have in common with those films is that people died. But! These people died and I didn't care! There wasn't time to care about these victims.

The movie is all about style over substance. It suffers from phoned in acting, scenes that do nothing to move the plot forward, scenes that don't belong in the same movie, mediocrity. If a movies is going to be this bad it had better be charming. If I hadn't watched it on Netflix I would have been really irked.

Please do yourself a favor and just select a horror film that you've already seen and like. Much like Chosen, you've already seen it. But you can feel confident that you will at least like the movie.

p.s. Kevin Pollack: Even you couldn't save this movie.

I thought it was quite good...

[ririgal13 · 7/10 · 22 March 2011]

While I will admit that I wouldn't classify this film as the best i've ever seen, it really wasn't that bad. It has been compared to Saw quite a bit and although I suppose some aspects are Saw-esque, you really cant compare them. Saw ended up becoming about torture rather than the value of life, in my opinion, whereas Choose really wasn't like that. Its nice to watch a film where they don't get torn apart by something or other (not that i'm complaining, I like the Saw films but sometimes enough is enough and you want to see something a little different) Just wanted to get that out of the way.

Choose is great in that it comes up with a few fresh ideas. I don't know about anyone else, but I have never seen a film where a teen has to choose who survives between their parents. I found that quite fascinating. While some of the plot would be recognisable in various other films (I'd figured the twist out within the first 15 minutes of the film starting... I watch a lot of movies, what can I say?) you never really come across a movie that hasn't taken an idea from somewhere else and changed it to suit their script. Such as the Resident Evil films and 28 days/weeks later. They have so many similar aspects I could scream!! I'm aware that 28 days later came out a few months after so they were the ones who took the idea but you catch my drift.

What was also good was that they weren't determined to show every 'choice' they were to make. Some movies like to prolong death or torture scenes whereas in this film they got the point across, showed what they needed to and moved on. After watching so many gory slasher movies, its nice to see it done simply.

The only real issue I have with this movie is predictability. They made it far too obvious where the story was going to end which almost spoilt it for me and probably others too. I give it a 7 due to that fact and although it was good, it still didn't merit any higher.

I hope that this was somewhat helpful, I didn't want to give too much away because where is the fun in that?

Don't bother

[Teuton1978 · 1/10 · 5 August 2012]

The idea is rather interesting but the execution was poorly done and drags on. It is cheesy right from the start, as one would expect from a C-Movie, a rating which this movie achieved effortlessly. The daughter seems to do her fathers job, in which he doesn't seem to be very interested... As creepy it might be to have something like that happening in the real world, as uninteresting it is to watch here! Editing of the movie seemed to have been huge challenge also. Which in part makes this movie look like a school project shot on a weekend, thus the cheap C-Movie appearance. To summarize, slow boring movie acting is poor, character development also. Uninteresting and dull!

Good Horror, with choices

[eddie-32826 · 8/10 · 13 November 2019]

This is a good horror film. The poor victims have to choose what they would like done to them, and the helpful murderer makes sure they get what those asked for.

Its a lot different to other films, and the main person in the film, Fiona Wagner (played by Katheryn Winnick) had to choose way back as well, on who out of her family she would prefer to be alive or dead.

Definatly one to watch

Give it a shot. . . It might be worth it.

[cayax22 · 7/10 · 7 August 2012]

I don't agree with every one's reviews on here. Honestly, for a moment i thought about not even trying to watch it because every one was so negative. Yes, it did not have a lot of action or gore like you would expect a thriller to be. But the movie was not bad at all. I don't think i have ever seen the main chick in any other movie before, but she did great. Of course Pollock is an awesome actor so it was great on his part. The movie is worth giving it a try. You honestly will never know unless you try and you might get angry later for not even trying to watch it. And like I said, it is not as bad as people made it seem. I mean, the beginning had me hooked and because of it I couldn't stop watching it.

Needed more violence and gore

[LaverneandShirleysucks · 3/10 · 14 December 2020]

All the violence was off screen so this is in no way a horror film. It's more like the many crime drama procedurals that play on TV. I managed to make it through to the end which had a little twist...but the final minute made absolutely no sense at all. After the killer offs her Dad in a motel room, and she manages to kill him soon after....what does this intelligent journalist do?....Not pick up the phone to call police to come to the crime scene. Instead she just wanders out of the motel like a zombie and starts walking in the middle of the road and then accepts a ride from a stranger in a pickup who pulls over, waits till she gets in...and says "I liked your mother" lol. She's then whisked away to her deadly fate and the credits roll....WHY?! After all we've seen of this character for the last 90 mins, she would not have acted this way....especially with a cop father. She would've picked up the motel room phone and reported the crime immediately....but since she decided to just walk away into the road like a zombie instead, I was glad she met her demise because she was too stupid to continue living after that. 3 stars for this one.

Good

[neil-476 · 14 August 2011]

A teenager wakes and finds her parents tied up, and a deranged assailant gives her 60 seconds to choose which one of them must die before forcing her to carry out the killing herself.

This pre-titles sequence leads to a story of a psycho nut, offering his victims impossible choices, tied up with a trainee reporter and her Chief of Police dad (and possibly also with her mother's suicide years earlier)

The reviews on IMDb all seem disappointed that this isn't Saw, or a variation of it. It is instead a psychological suspense thriller which develops steadily, without much in the way of action sequences, and with a relatively low gore quotient (but I said low, not non-existent). It is well photographed, well acted, relatively well-written, and a satisfying small scale thriller (satisfying unless you want it to be something it isn't). It keeps you guessing throughout and the explanation, as eventually revealed, does not cheat you.

The only thing seriously wrong with the film is the ending (as distinct from the resolution of the story), which is somewhat perfunctory and slightly unsatisfying, and followed by a wholly unnecessary and unconvincing "shock" addition.

But overall this is not a bad movie.

Bland detective-story based slasher

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 4/10 · 6 January 2016]

After a series of brutal murders, a college journalism student finds the link between the killers' game of making his victims choose their fates and her mother's suicide several years ago and tries to stop his rampage from continuing.

This here was quite the disappointment and rarely had anything really worthwhile about it. One of the main issues here with this one is the fact that so much of the film rests on the investigation angle that isn't even properly played out at all here since the actual detective work to do this is so haphazard, slowly developed and not in the slightest bit interesting. By going through the motions of her being questioned more for not partying with her friends at college rather than actively being a part of the investigation, stumbling upon the nature of the killer rather haphazardly and then not even being targeted until the very end as the actual police don't seem that invested in what's going on make this quite played out and rather bland about this supposed part of the story that's one of the biggest selling points about it. As well, there's also the fact that the actual kills here are just beyond lame that it really torpedoes the film quite readily by facilitating such an utterly lamentable feature that's not even that well developed at all. By forcing them into making choices that come off with a ridiculous air that's not in the slightest bit intimidating, when a small measure of muscle against him would've rendered a successful counterattack that stops the spree rather easily, this one doesn't really exploit this all that well by even still only featuring such a small handful of kills that it really undermines what could've been a lot of fun. These are all placed up front to start this going, but instead there's so little of interest in how this goes about the murder scenes that there's not much to really gleam from them other than the sadistic actions that take place, and that's not all that special an accomplishment here with the way this goes about deploying it's stalking scenes. These are fun only in the sense of the cruelty played out throughout the dismembering of the bodies, as the deaths are pretty bloody and gruesome here which manages to be quite a nice feat with the way this brings about these quite brutal kills, especially in the opening as the way it plays out is for once quite chilling with the family held hostage and then bringing along the second piano-player's fate even though there's no death there. That one works more for its strong stalking in the auditorium for anything else, but it's the closest the film comes to getting any kind of tension or suspense here and works nicely along with the outcome of the brutal kills here. Otherwise there isn't much else to this one.

Rated R: Graphic Violence and Graphic Language.

Terrible ... a band wagon horror!

[Majikat76 · 4/10 · 4 March 2020]

At best, it's an easy watching film that you do not have to concentrate on, it gets 4 stars for that reason. The rest is pretty naff and jumps on the band wagon of such films like scream. Nothing to jump at, nothing particularly gory and a story with no originality

Tough decisions

[kosmasp · 3/10 · 31 December 2010]

Is it clever writing or just another Saw rip-off? Is it disgusting or necessary to move the story and the central idea forward? Can you stomach it or would you rather see a more philosophical approach to the whole "choosing" game (psychologically it is interesting)? Can the movie do justice to the central idea or not?

These are all legitimate questions, that have to be answered. But as with other movies that are trying to ask those things, the answers will mostly be lying on your side and your taste. There is another question though too: Do you care or do you just want to be thrilled/scared/entertained? The viewers who wish the latter will take more from the movie of course. But have to endure weak acting and a weak script.

Saw-Lite

[gregsrants · 5/10 · 13 February 2011]

A teenage girl is walking through the house late at night when she opens the door to her parent's room. Her mother and father are both tied to the bed and a masked psychopath grabs her from behind. She is asked to choose which one of her parents would die. She refuses to decide and soon a gun is being held at the head of her younger brother forcing her to make the decision. As she blurts her choice, she is horrified to learn that her decision does not end there – now she must take the knife and the kill the parent she elected. This is the opening scene of the new horror film Choose, and it is an opening that definitely grabs your attention.

Flash forward and we are introduced to journalist student Fiona Wagner (Katheryn Winnick). Fiona's father Tom (Kevin Pollack) is the Sheriff which will come in handy when the psycho continues his Jigsaw killer type antics and picks seemingly random strangers and forces them into choices that are all lose-lost propositions. Makes for good copy.

Like the concert pianist that is given the option of losing his hearing or losing his fingers. A drill to the ears or an axe to the hand. Tough choice indeed.

Things get more complicated when the murderer contacts Fiona and digs up the history of her dead mother than committed suicide. Could her mother have been the victim of the killer and offered a chance to kill herself to possibly save another? And just how does Fiona and Tom fit into the killers master plans? Choose is like Saw-lite. It takes an elaborate plan of choice determining demise and twists it into a serial killer thriller that mildly entertains while concluding in an overblown and elaborate climax that is typical of uninspired films of this ilk.

But whereas Saw was able to construct a franchise out of the Jigsaw killer, Choose will simply go down as an average horror film. One that had more potential than realization and less gore than might have been required to leave an indelible mark.

www.killerreviews.com

Nothing Noteworthy About This

[sddavis63 · 4/10 · 2 September 2011]

It isn't bad, but in all honesty it isn't especially good either. One of the main problems is that it gets progressively weaker as it moves along, rather than building to a strong finish. It's actually quite good in the beginning, as right from the start we're treated to a horrific crime and find ourselves wondering who in the world would do this and why? The basic plot is that some psychotic is on the loose and forcing people to make horrific choices. So in the opening scene, the madman invades a home and forces a teenager to choose whether her mother or her father will die. A pianist has to choose between his hearing or his fingers; a model between her eyesight and her beauty. Thus, the title.

Through it all, the madman is playing with Fiona's mind. Fiona (played by Katheryn Winnick) is an aspiring journalist and daughter of the local sheriff (Kevin Pollak.) Years before her mother died in what was believed to have been a suicide, but Fiona starts to see a connection with the psychotic on the loose and starts working with her dad to figure out who he is.

The movie's pretty short at well under an hour and a half, so a lot seems to be left undeveloped; it moves pretty quickly and too much is revealed way too soon. By half way through we pretty much know the story and so there's no real mystery involved. There's a fair number of "turn your head away" scenes if you're at all squeamish. The closing scene was weak and to be honest seemed strangely disconnected from the basic story of the movie, so that I wasn't sure about the need to include it, other than to reintroduce (for no particularly good reason) a creepy character who's had a brief scene earlier in the movie. I wouldn't call this particularly noteworthy. (4/10)

Not too long and not too cliché... I liked it!...

[cat_ranchero · 6/10 · 8 December 2012]

It's pretty well made, although on a budget. I did find it pretty creepy in a few places and I liked that it didn't slip too far into 'cliché territory'. The performances were all good and it was nice to see Bruce Dern still working, although he only had a small part to play in this one. OK, so why didn't I dislike it as much as everyone else seems to? Well, first of all it doesn't try to be too clever; I did try to second guess the identity of the killer but was way off because there are very few breadcrumbs to follow. Second, although it takes you to the edge of the cliché, e.g. the idiot friends who get our heroine into trouble routine; but never quite gets there. There has to be the scene where at least one stupid person walks into a darkened room with just a torch and ends up being trapped (it's one of the hard and fast of the horror genre isn't it?). Finally, I liked the way the ending was left open to interpretation and the fact that, at 86 minutes, it wasn't too long! Over all, although not the very best horror I've ever seen it's certainly one that stands out because it doesn't always follow the rules.

SteelMonster's verdict: RECOMMENDED

My score: 6.4/10

You can find an expanded version of this review on my blog: Thoughts of a SteelMonster.

sad AKA one good idea just is not enough

[therefdotcom · 2/10 · 27 February 2011]

as a screen writer i am able to enjoy movies for multiple reasons, apart from the entertainment aspect alone. i admire great ideas, so i am able to overlook major flaws, just as long as the script is halfway tight and the idea to flaw ratio does not get out of hand.

MAJOR spoilers ahead!

my motivation to see this movie was ignited by the basic idea of the killer that forces you to "chose", which seems like a brilliant basic idea to start a script. actually even further i was convinced that it would be almost impossible to mess this up. oh, how wrong i was... for the second time even.

the very last time i got tricked by a great basic idea was the movie "die (2010)" (as in dice, not as in death), which has a similarity interesting "chose someones destiny" theme and interestingly falls apart just as early into it's runtime, as this movie.

"choose" manages to put off it's audience within the very first 2 minutes into the runtime, which is incredible. it is almost an achievement of some kind, as i rarely lose my interest so quickly. very few movies have managed to do that before. even the ridiculously euro- trashy "das komabrutale duell" kept me interested (laughing) for the first 30 minutes.

the problem with this movie as well as with "die" is, that the writers completely ignored all human factor AT ALL. since both movies kind of come off as cheap "saw" knockoffs i am kinda curious if they even saw (no pun intended) the original "saw" movie.

OK, long talk short: dear fellow screenwriters, if you feel the need to include into your story that one or more person is/are forced into choosing their own or someone else's fate, then for Christ's sake, write it in a way that the person you are writing about is forced into some kind of machine or chair or whatever force/tool that leaves them no inch of other movements than the ones that are needed to make said choice. even worse, don't write that the killer reaches them a deadly weapon. no, it does not matter if you write a gun or whatever into the killers hand. it does not matter, because every living person will discard the killers game and take his chance instantly.

this is why the "saw" movies worked for the most part and the named movies did not.

die/choose scenario: killer holds gun to characters head, hands over weapon, tells other character to hurt third character. all three people are in close range of each other. that does not work, people. e.g. in this movie they really expect someone to rather kill her father, while her mother watches with a knife, instead of attacking the killer? seriously? that does not make the script stupid, it also makes the killer an insanely stupid character.

saw scenario: voice of "killer" (who is not even in the room) coming from a tape tells character to hurt second character, who is immobile, to free third character, that is shown on a TV (person is also not in the room). additionally the room is sealed for the time of the game. this works, because there is nothing left to chance.

the second big mistake they made with this particular movie is, that they would not stick to their guns, which would be that the killers game is solely a choice of letting someone chose one or the other loved ones death, which is a very good basic idea, as i already pointed out, but they could not even do THAT. it switches to "chose your eye sight or your fame/career", which was the moment where i lost all remaining hope in this flick. it is double jeopardy since that also destroys any plausibility. serial killers don't change their ways such significantly from hit to hit. the unabomber did not suddenly switched to knife stabbing out of a sudden. know what i mean?

.... and it gets worse.

anyway, i really liked the cinematography, soundtrack, cuts, lighting and the acting was OK as well. nevertheless, the script killed it for me.

Bad acting. Great movie!

[wolfie-23088 · 8/10 · 27 December 2020]

Main actress not so good. Movie is really good. Saw and Silence of Lambs type combo. Definitely not a 4 star movie. Gets better as it goes which is rare.

Was it the better choice to watch this movie?

[searchanddestroy-1 · 7/10 · 8 March 2022]

Of course the basic idea, in the first minutes, is very exciting, unusual, inventive. But the following is not what we could expect, not really. Except some gruesome, brutal killing scenes, nothing really new in the story line. But that remains a rather good serial killer movie. I have seen far far worst, I mean. But because of the general idea of choosing, and the genesis of the reasons for the murders, it is really worth. Especially for the ending. So, yes it's a rather good choice to watch this film.

Lamenting a mass murder of potential.

[nitzanhavoc · 4/10 · 12 November 2012]

Reading the short plot summary of Choose immediately got me on edge and very excited, on account of its great resemblance to the gist of the Saw series, my favorite Horror/Thriller anthology of all times. I believe my fellow horror freaks also couldn't avoid having some Jigsaw associations, 5 minutes into the film if not upon reading the two lines synopsis.

The beginning and first half of the film were excellent and profoundly intriguing, building up a lot of potential by telling a great story using some well thought of (if not all that new) ideas. The "choices" offered were horrific and well thought of, but way too few in numbers (on account of too few victim stories). Katheryn Winnick's acting was realistic and convincing, and along with the excellent exposition paved the way to what should/could/would have been an excellent film.

So much for anything flattering, good or even remotely positive I could bring myself to say about this film. Sadly from here on it's bad to worst.

The voice of "Mr. Choose-It" lacked conviction, charisma and strength. When a face is not visible - the voice is extremely important, if and when the goal is to make the killer threatening. Kevin Pollak's acting, portraying the Sheriff in charge of the investigation, was at best anemic and unconvincing. Story-wise, for a policeman in charge of an investigation to allow his journalism majoring daughter to walk in and out of police situation rooms as she saw fit, exposing her to police work and top secret investigations, was simply amateur screen writing.

All the great exposition and story build-up reached its anti-climatic climax halfway through the film. From there on - no twists, no turns, and barely any surprises. Why not expose the audience to some details about the mentioned psychological theories? Why not add victims? Why not use a few more characters, or give some of the existing ones a little more than 3 lines, in order to at least appear to be trying to throw our guesses off? Why not make the film longer than 80 minutes and allow the story to advance a little slower? Why not make the minimal effort to follow through on the promising exposition? I ask these questions with disappointment, regret and sadness rather than criticism....

Everything about the second half of the film felt like it was forcebly rushed, like the director suddenly noticed "oh, I've only got 40 minutes left, lets speed through the rest of the screenplay!". The details of the investigation, the interaction between the characters, the unfolding of events and even the dialogues! Not to mention the crime scene footage.

The twists towards the end and in the end were, if to be forgiving, clever. Not mind-blowing nor shocking, and not the least amazing. Just plain clever. After all the build up - the 2nd part is simply a stoop fall into a less than mediocre abyss, and a crash through the bottom.

In addition (and pardon my speculating), as if to add insult to injury, the footage ambiance and lighting appeared to be of pretty high quality, supposedly indicating the film wasn't that low budget. However, every other aspect implies a very low budget. Why not plan the budget in a little wiser, more professional and dare I say more mature way?

The longer and higher the climb - the harder the fall. Disappointments are as great as expectations. Any similar cliché. With such a promising beginning, the continuation simply left me very, very disappointed.

I rate this film 4, if only to reflect that the beginning made me think of 8-9. Too harsh? Not when such potential is diminished to such waste.