Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Spikeopath Directed by Brad Anderson and written by Anthony Jaswinski. It stars Hayden Christensen, Thandie Newton, John Leguizamo and Jacop Latimore. Music is by Lucas Vidal and cinematography by Uta Briesewitz.Detroit falls dark and silent and people are disappearing into thin air. A tiny group of survivors "exist"...Well it went down like a lead balloon! Critics and horror fans alike can't find much to like about it. It's certainly a tricky film to have confidence in recommending to anyone, for it's a bit short on answers and scares, sort of? However, considering the budget there's some technical guile here, and if giving the makers some credit, there's possibly intelligence of thought in the writing as well. Religio observations, a sly incorporation of the Roanoke colony disappearance and an existential undercurrent.Yet it's such a frustrating picture, especially if you are a fan of Anderson's best works, or even if you rock up expecting the scarer that the adverts and plot synopsis' suggested. Cast are by the numbers wasted due to being hamstrung by the plot's attempt at blending chills with deeper thought, rendering the characterisations as unfleshed, while the ending feels like a cheat of unfinished business.Personally I'm glad I didn't pay at the cinema to see it, but with that comes the fact that in my darkened living room the other night I enjoyed it to a point. But here's a thing, it probably needs a second viewing for it to breathe better, but I'm not sure I could ever sit through it again... 6/10

Blazehgehg Conceptually, this is a cool movie: all of a sudden, the world is plunged in to darkness. Those that vanish in to the night are never seen again. And those that survive to see the sunrise find that even the sun itself is beginning to disappear, bit by bit."Vanishing on 7th Street" is presented to maximize confusion and to scare the pants off you. With a high-contrast visual style where light sources are constantly blown out, it definitely has a unique look all its own, and the whispering, living darkness will make you think twice about sleeping with the lights off.Here's the problem: adrift in an ocean of style, the movie barely gives you anything to hold on to. Some of it is being cryptic on purpose, and that's fine, but other parts of it just don't have enough meat on their bones. Or, like, uh, any at all.Vanishing on 7th Street doesn't have any characters. This should be obvious enough, as the lights go out barely even five minutes in to the film without establishing anything or any one. It's not until almost halfway through the movie that anything really begins to solidify in to a coherent narrative, and even then, the cast of characters we're given mostly exists as the same "scared survivor" clichés that have become so common in zombie movies: the traumatized orphan, the hardened curmudgeon, and so on. Hope gets lost, nerves get frayed, guns get pointed, and should we leave him? I DON'T KNOW, MAN! WE GOTTA GET OUT OF HERE! LET'S GO! The movie throws out vague ideas about what *could* be going on, but they never amount to anything more than just suggestions. And so, our characters of one-dimensional stereotypes move from light source to light source, running from shadows, and doing incomprehensible things that jeopardize their own safety for no other reason than to manufacture fake tension.It all feels a little thin -- a spooky concept that just needs to be fleshed out a little more. I'm not asking for it to over-explain itself to death, I'm just asking for it to explain literally anything at all even a little. It doesn't.

bejancamelia87 This movie is interpretable as the director want it to be.It has religious elements about life and what we do do it as long as we walk in the light of good,as long as we are enlightened.Our sins and bad acts create dark to our life,to our soul.. Why at the end only the children has remaining and ride a horse?Because children are sinless and animals too are creation of God even animals doesn't have soul,than biological breathe.It is twisted-mind by the way and every character has his own good play that sends to watcher a strong feeling of mystery,something not found that keeps your mind searching and searching for any explication.

Scott LeBrun Existentialist horror film from director Brad Anderson ("Session 9") and writer Anthony Jaswinski exploits the all too understandable human fear of the dark. It stars Hayden Christensen as Luke (a reporter), Thandie Newton as Rosemary (a physical therapist), John Leguizamo as Paul (a movie theatre employee), and newcomer Jacob Latimore as James (a 12 year old son of a barmaid). They're brought together in a bar when mysterious forces overwhelm the city of Detroit, turning daytime into the night time. Also, dark spirits seem to be everywhere, and the human population of the city has mostly disappeared (leaving only piles of clothes behind). These four people must ponder such questions as why this has happened and why it's the four of them that are left, in addition to struggling to survive.Anderson creates such spooky atmosphere and tension that it's a shame that the film doesn't work better than it does. This viewer would agree with others that it does feel like an unfinished script, and it leaves people wanting to know what comes next. Obviously, Jaswinski and Anderson aren't about to really explain anything in this slim story, which in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but then our four main characters are never fleshed out that much. Therefore, it's hard to maintain much rooting interest in them, despite the best efforts of this cast. Still, you do feel for Rosemary and James to some degree since they don't know the fates of their son and mother (respectively). The film is very well shot in the 2.35:1 aspect ratio by Uta Briesewitz, with the lighting never revealing more than it should, and the visual effects are generally well done. One of the main problems is that the set-up is just too familiar to be that engaging. For one thing, the piles of clothes left behind automatically calls to mind "Night of the Comet" from 26 years previous.Look for Andersons' filmmaking peer Larry Fessenden as a bike messenger.Six out of 10.