Containment (2006 Video) User Reviews

Wow

[BigSquirrel · 1/10 · 1 January 2007]

Do I get my medal for managing to watch this to the end credits ? I think the most expensive item they bought for the film was the cling-film wrapped around the "Monsters".

The acting of the lines may as well have been spoken by a robot, they would have had more character.

90% of the film seems to take place in 1 corridor, and no its not a very nice, or very will lit corridor.

Glad I didn't pay to watch this, or I might have hunted the "director" down to demand my money back.

Bottom line, don't go watch it, even if its free..... unless you want to learn how not to make a film.

Yawn! Since when was I back in Highschool?

[slopi_serv · 1/10 · 18 December 2006]

Lets start with saying I'm glad I saw this for free...

The acting in this 'movie' comes off as more than amateurish. It feels like (and sounds like) the actors were pulled from their school classes to go make a film in someone's office. Did this film even leave the office? Who knows, I couldn't watch it that long.

If you have the unfortunate opportunity to watch this flop, you'll notice that it seems to of been shot all with hand-held cameras. Please show these people a tri-pod. Also, wait until the first phone conversation. Is the wife leaving a message? Oh wait no, that's just completely unnatural dialog that makes it sound like both actors are reading straight from cue-cards.

Now to try to find a remedy for this headache that I got from watching less than 5min of this

Childish, low-fi, and just plain awful tripe ...

[rohar2o · 1/10 · 19 December 2006]

Imagine that your eleven-year-old just got her-or-his first My Little VideoCam and decided that she-or-he was 'going to make a movie'. This would be that movie. This is just awful - lousy acting, nonexistent script, terrible video-cam work, porn-quality 'soundtrack', all hardly warranting any inclusion into IMDb. The actors, both of them (plus 'the wife' on the phone) read their lines as if either making it up as they go or reading off a script that the director/writer had just handed them, replete with chalupa stains from the Taco Bell in the mall where he has his day job.

Remember the home-movies that M. Night Shayamalan likes to include in his movies in the bonus section? Watch those instead. This is not one of those so-bad-that-it-is-good flicks; this is just awful, not even worth a free viewing on late-night TV.

'I watched it so you wouldn't have to ...'

Give this guy a break...

[clpainter-1 · 5/10 · 16 May 2007]

First off, I've seen worse... much worse. Granted, the acting does seem somewhat forced, but like the writer/director (Chris Schwartz) said in an earlier comment, these are NOT professional actors. He's giving a chance to people who may have wanted to try acting and didn't have a venue available them.

The story and plot were good. The script wasn't bad at all. I think if there was a decent budget behind the film, it obviously could have been made much better. I for one will continue to check out this guys films. I see potential in what he's doing and commend him for putting out the best film possible for what he has to work with. Would I pay $10.00 to see this in a theater? No... but I don't think this film was made with that intention.

Worst movie

[zumogo · 1/10 · 13 January 2007]

I stop watching after 15 min. Main reason. bad acting. it looked like a porn actors doing a rated g movie. I don't recommend this movie. The beginning make is kind of interested. but later on when the guard starts saying his lines you can see that he needs some more real acting to do. bad lighting, bad acting, bad movie. you also have to try to understand what the actors are saying. since they don't speak real clear. The monster special effect are kind of funny. Like the last comment, I am glad I got this flick free. If not i would have to look for someone to give my money back. Don't watch the movie. Unless you are really bored. or did something bad and want to punish yourself.

who voted 9.2 out of 10 for this?

[jezroberts75 · 1/10 · 19 December 2006]

this has got to be the worst film i have ever seen. extremely poor acting poor settings (all in an office)maybe the votes came from the actors themselves i would give this film a miss.Unlesss you are feeling very tired one night and need something to send you off to sleep.The use of bin bags is a bit alarming, odd , cheap. it seems like the budget for this film was about £300.00 ,its like something you could do yourself using a hand held camcorder and a few friends.Pay the friends with a crate of beer or a bottle of vodka and hey presto you have this movie made.The only good point about this movie is the way the makers have used the music to add a bit of spice. Trying to use up 10 lines on this awful movie is also extremely hard. The lowest rating you can give here is 1 but i would really of liked to give it a huge minus 10.

stay far away....very far away

[tjk64 · 1/10 · 19 December 2006]

man this has to be one of the worst films....looks like a high school..Av project.The acting is horrible...even though there are only about 5 people in it total.the sets are non existence..set in empty office building.I cant comment on the story line...because I could not stomach the rest of the film to even grasp it

the high rating from the first 5 people must be from people involved in the film!!

this film is so bad...it doesn't even come close to "code 9" from outer space....or plan 9 ?? woo ho shout out !!..I am very glad I did not have to pay good money to see this...a refund would have been in order..

The 9.2 rating was obviously from the cast and crew.

[CinemaVoltaire · 1/10 · 21 December 2006]

Unlike a couple of people here I saw this one to the end. Incidentally, you have no business commenting on a film until you see the end credits roll. That said,Containment is bargain basement amateurish dreck period. How the producer thought it would benefit his career by releasing it remains a mystery. The few cast members appear to be friends of the director and the location such as it is, must be the basement of a factory were someone involved in the production worked. How could you otherwise explain the non existent acting?,the threadbare art direction? The minimalist script written on a napkin? $900 bucks in you're bank account is no reason for zero effort.

Comments for the commentators, from the director himself .all in good humor, like comments should be! (hey, the film is fun!)

[cschwartz-7 · 10/10 · 8 February 2007]

Actually, your perceptions are correct. About half of the cast/crew was composed of high-school students. We're a huge supporter of new talents, and though this reflects poorly on us at times, we believe that we'll find that undiscovered talent someday. Unfortunately, our budget was "high-school" level as well. And I don't like to film with a tripod, because I like the organic feel of a free cam. It more closely resembles life, which isn't mounted on 3 steel legs, and is barely ever stable (how's that for symbolism?). Yet, I understand that it looks unprofessional...hell it is unprofessional, but I like it. Oh, and we did use a consumer cam for the picture. We all agreed that the grainy, horrible quality fits this kind of production…..guess we were wrong on that too. Good to know though.

In any case, I recommend watching this movie for the plot, story, and gore, not acting and technical aspects that unfortunately require more funding than we had. We were contracted to do a graphically situated B-movie with an interesting plot twist. I think we hit it. Follow the plot and gore..It throws in some twists that you never saw coming, I'm sure of that.

Bear with us through the technical limits if you can. The acting gets better….if you get a headache, then take a break… or take a Tylenol and come back. If you make it the whole way through, we'll give you a cookie, just for being a good sport....seriously

But I feel the real treat is in the story alone. Though that doesn't make a great film, at least you can follow the plot. Look at some of the other indy films out there...I suggest watching the movie the whole way through first, before condemning it. We had less than 1/3rd of the funding that the Blair Witch Project rode on. Please watch the 2 and compare. Then come back, if you made it through the BWP without tearing your eyes out. So try not to compare us with the million dollar or even $100k+ films. We're just another small company making a jump from commercials to film. And Steven Spielberg was out of the office during production;)

If this is the worst movie you've ever seen, I invite you to send me an e-mail, and I'll get back to you with a list of productions that fall way behind ours. If this is the worst movie you've ever seen, go rent 100 indy HORROR flicks with budgets under 100K and come back. Then when you whine about how bad it is, I'll listen. And hey, it's not the worst movie in the world...but it is funny how every "attempt" suddenly becomes the "worst movie ever" go look at the reviews on here. Just about every film is "the worst movie ever" in someone's opinion.

But thanks for the comments. We'll keep working on making better films. That's all I can offer until someone coughs up 1/2 a mil to fund us. Then I'll give you $50 to refund you if you still hate it and feel like it was a waste of your time.