 | |
List Price: $26.97 | | Label: Starz / Anchor Bay
Salesrank: 29628
Released: March 17, 2009 |
| Our Price: $6.90 |
| Used Price: $1.94 |
|
MPAA Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
Recent engineering graduate Sam Walczak travels to the middle of nowhere to supervise demolition of the mysterious Malestrazza Building. She soon comes face to face with the horrifying secrets of the building and its past inhabitants, many of whom were entombed alive within the walls of the pristine building by its obsessed architect. As Sam begins to unravel the clandestine details of the architect's life and his astonishing building, she is drawn into the dark and frightening reality which forces her to accept her own dark past and turn the tables before she becomes the last victim.
Description of Walled In:
Stills from Walled In (Click for larger image)
Beyond Walled In
More From Mischa Barton - Virgin Territory
| 
More Horror - Red Mist
| 
The Anchor Bay Horror Store |
Walled In Reviews:
Lost in the Depths 
2009-11-08 - I'll say this much: the first minute or so of 'Walled In' was one of the most disturbing scenes I've seen in a modern horror movie. Not because it's gory (it's not), but because it cuts deep into one of the worst things I can possibly imagine.
This is what really effective horror does well. It takes us places we don't want to go, it leads us down paths that scare the hell out of us, but it does so in such ways that we are compelled to follow. A good horror story will terrify us, thrill us, and drag us kicking and screaming all the way to the end, be it a bad or good ending.
'Walled In' has the potential for this, to be sure. Being buried alive scores high on most people's lists of things that frighten them to the core. Just ask Edgar Allen Poe. 'Walled In' takes this basic premise and starts out of the gate running hard, looking like it could be a real winner. It falters a little but finds its pace again with a few genuinely scary scenes in the first half of the film. The final third, however, is an uncoordinated mess, and the scares that kept us going through the first part of the story are abandoned for a rather bland take on an old theme.
The film looks good, is shot well and for good creepy effect. The actors are all fine. Mischa Barton fills her role well enough, and Deborah Kara Unger is excellent as always, slightly off-kilter and intentionally so.
Its the story that fails here, both in its main plot elements and how they are told to us. The scares are uneven and the tension crescendos at about the 60-minute mark, with too little follow-through to keep it going. Simply put, that first terrifying, disturbing scene punched me in the gut and left me reeling for a while, and there was potential for more of those as it went. 'Walled In' could have led me down a very terrifying path indeed, to a place of nightmare and darkness and sorrow.
Somewhere, though, it lost its way, and I lost interest. Too bad, really.
change of pace thriller
2009-10-24 - i like Walled In because it is different. I am sick to death of all those torture-themed horror movies; they are so boring in their efforts to just out-gross each other. this is a creepy little thriller that never really let's you know where it's going. actually, it really reminded me of one of those cool made-for-tv ABC horror movies from the 70's. replace mischa barton with kate jackson or donna mills and there you have it. fun. recommended.
condemned for being structurally unsound . . . 
2009-10-04 - Walled-In (2009) does provide some twisted minor thrills, but despite having four writers, the story makes almost no logical sense. Director Gilles Paquet-Brenner is in charge of this mess that features Mischa Barton (The O.C.), as Samantha Walczak, of the firm Walczak and Sons (does she have brothers?) who are in the business of demolishing buildings. Her job is to determine the best way to demolish an ugly, monolithic apartment building, located in an isolated area, in an unspecified American location.
The structure was designed by architect Joseph Malestrazza (Pascal Greggory), who apparently had some radical ideas regarding building materials, as some fifteen years prior (1993), human bodies were discovered inside the concrete walls of the structure. One of the dead, was the husband of the building's current caretaker Mary Sutter (Deborah Kara Unger), who along with her teenage son Jimmy (Cameron Bright), are among the handful, still residing in the condemned structure. Jimmy is enamored with Sam, and their developing 'relationship' is about all there is happening here, besides Sam wandering around the halls measuring, and painting red X's where the demo charges are supposed to go. Events suddenly take a dramatic turn in the film's final act, as matters descend into a dark twisted opera.
Relying on `atmosphere' and ignoring reality, pretentious, melodramatic, drivel like this, insults the intelligence of the audience. The setting is unique, but not in a credible way. The unattractive building is supposed to have been the home for hundreds of people, yet there isn't even a paved road to the place. There are no visible utility poles, so power and communication service apparently gets there via underground lines. Most unlikely. The building is built alongside a lake? Tricky to do, but possible. The structure isn't compliant with building code, as it has no elevator, landscaping, fire alarm system, exterior lighting or covered parking. It does however have crappy lighting, hidden shafts and passages, some restless spirits, a totally wacked out roof (are those solar panels?), and an overall design that would never have been built. The building's biggest 'secret', just could never happen.
Sam Walczak is laughable as an engineer. This is her big test as a professional, yet she knows absolutely nothing about the history of the building, and has to rely on a kid for information. The term 'blueprint' is archaic, referring to a process that has not been used for decades. A structural wall does not crumble when hit with an axe, so there's no point painting an X there. She's afraid of the dark (who isn't?), and is working in a low light environment, going down unlighted shafts, but doesn't even have a flashlight? Mischa Barton does what she can, but the script is appallingly awful. Cameron Bright does a good job as an annoying, creepy kid, but unfortunately the best acting that Deborah Kara Unger does, is in the humorous making of featurette, where she talks about how great the film is. Where did her career go?
The week's most pleasant surprise by far. 
2009-09-30 - Walled In (Gilles Paquet-Brenner, 2009)
The trailer for Walled In was hands-down the best trailer I've seen so far in 2009. That always means one of two things: either the movie it belongs to is going to be eight different kinds of totally awesome or one of the worst movies I see that year. And while Walled In has its flaws, it's definitely closer to the awesome side of the equation. In fact, I'd call it the best movie I watched this week without much hesitation.
Sam Walczak (The Oh in Ohio's Mischa Barton), a newly-minted engineer at her father's demolition firm, gets sent on her first assignment--the government-ordered demolition of a high-rise apartment building in the middle of nowhere. The building still has a few quirky inhabitants, most notably the caretaker, Mary (Paranoia 1.0's Deborah Kara Unger), and her lonely son Jimmy (Cameron Bright, who will soon become the heartthrob of teen girls everywhere in New Moon and Eclipse). Jimmy and Sam hit it off, though Jimmy seems to be reading a bit more into it than Sam intends. Things get a touch tense when Sam's boyfriend (Saw IV's Noam Jenkins) appears, but the romantic entanglements take second fiddle to the ghosts wandering around the place. You see, the nutzoid architect who built the place entombed sixteen people in the foundations of the building. While they were still alive. And they ain't happy.
No, the movie is not without flaws. Yeah, there are some minor plot holes (I think the people who were complaining that the movie was one big plot hole just weren't paying close enough attention), and some of the acting was worse than average, but about ten minutes into this movie, I started saying to myself, "who is this kid playing Jimmy? 'cause man, he's good." Unger is always a treat, and Barton is always at least capable. The plot is a lot of fun, and the haunted house theme just never gets old; just in the past decade we've had six or seven really good haunted house flicks to balance out the junk. Paquet-Brenner brings in some very cool variations on the theme to keep things fresh here, and it works. I just have one request: can someone translate the Serge Brussolo novel from which this film is adapted? I've gotta get my hands on this. *** ½
This movie was horrible. 
2009-08-13 - This movie was horrible.
There was no chemistry between any of the cast members, and although the acting was okay, the writing was ghastly.
It was about as thrilling as someone reading a cereal box onscreen. I wasn't at any moment frightened by the haunted "architect" or whatever he was supposed to be, I was just psychological bored. When I wasn't naturally asleep, that is.
