ridiculous rating

All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Some Hitchcock elements here too. but overplayed.Pause and silence on of the powerful tools in movies but both overdone.And one of the slowest movies I have ever seen,... very little intrigue,...action seems to get started but each time momentum dies off with long boring sequences.So "Crawl" refers to how time crawls in this movie.Do yourself a favor, keep your remote handy and your finger on the fast forward button,...one sure sign of whether a movie is good is if you would like to see it again - this is a definite no.Ram

One of the dullest so-called thrillers I've seen in a long time, CRAWL has aspirations to be the next classic Aussie movie. The only good thing I can say about it is that director Paul China clearly knows his movies, but there's being inspired by and ripping off, and CRAWL falls into the latter category. In various press releases, China and his brother are described as the new Coen Brothers, but CRAWL is more like a Coen Brothers rip-off.The opening scene is about the most memorable bit in it and even that rips off NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN like nobody's business. After this point we're in BLOOD SIMPLE territory, with a slow-burning plot involving a small cast who come together on one fateful night. Bloodshed ensues, but everything is dragged out to an endless degree so it becomes a chore to sit through. There's no artistry here, no suspense or gripping moments, just a film that eventually becomes silly because it's so po-faced.It doesn't help that the script fails to breathe life into the various uninteresting characters, or that the cast members are singularly unmemorable. But by far the worst thing about this is the director himself, who has no idea of how to make a thriller work. I think even I, with zero training in film-making, could have done a better job.

If you read the online comments on various internet message boards, you'll see phrases like 'a thinking man's horror film' and 'highly atmospheric.' Then, when people - sadly, like me - who simply describe the film as 'boring,' we get criticised for 'only liking the lowest form of film' and 'not appreciating it.' It's about a seedy bar-owner who hires a mysterious hit-man to do away with an out-of-favour colleague. However, things go wrong and the hit-man ends up stalking a hapless (and overly-perfect, in my opinion) barmaid who works at the bar.I'm afraid, for all the high-brow talk about Crawl, I just found it dull. There are long periods where there's no talking. And, in an attempt to 'create tension,' the same three chords are played endlessly on a cello. These scenes repeat at various intervals all the way through the film and you're just as well fast forwarding them and watching the speeded-up version (as you'll see what's happening at a fraction of the screen-time).I don't just watch Michael Bay films and movies filled with endless car chases. I do watch other movies where I also have to (occasionally) use my head to figure things out. However, I just couldn't help but get bored with this.Obviously, judging by the amount of positive praise there is out there for this film, then it has found an audience out there somewhere - I'm just one of those philistines who didn't appreciate it. Sorry! On the plus side, it's short!

I'm a big fan of clever movies and sometimes feel the less action the better, but wow is this utter garbage. I can tell that there was a decent idea in there somewhere, but the execution was so bad the idea died on the vine. Either that or the director thought drawing everything out five times longer than needed was a good substitute for suspense. Other than the excruciatingly slow pace, and the multiple references to crawling that weren't clever at all the move suffered many other issues. At the heart was a hit man who was older than my grandfather (easily 80 and looked about as threatening), an idiot fiancé, a overly creepy bar owner (I mean who would work there after the interview?), and a heroine that moved at a snails pace and stared every time there was the slightest noise. The worse criticism I can give is that the movie was relatively short at just under 80 minutes, but still seemed 40 minutes too long.The acting was decent and the lead actress was very attractive, but the lack of character development made it pretty irrelevant who lived or died. In short unless you really like slow, painful movies without any payoff skip this clunker.