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.

That was an excellent one.

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

I won't argue with anyone who pronounces this film execrable, as is January Jones's performance, but please check her out, if you haven't already, in the AMC TV series 'Mad Men," starting later this month. She's excellent, as is the entire cast. I'll charitably assume she took on the "Taboo" role strictly for the money, and, realizing what a putrid mess it was going to be, turned in a minimal acting job to avoid starvation. Don't know if that's the case, but I (now) know for sure that she can act.At first, watching "Taboo," I was convinced her flat delivery was a shrewd choice that would later give rise to some significant revelation about her character or the plot. No such luck. Hard to believe the director didn't suggest to her at least once that not changing expression for 17 successive scenes could cause lockjaw.Ironically, her winning performance in "Mad Men" comes as a character who, at least in her early appearances, is very repressed, reserved, unsure of herself, and rather colorless, not unlike her "Taboo" role. But as the TV series progressed, she began to blossom into someone who questions her traditional early-60's whitebread Mom role. Can't wait to see where they take her character in the 2nd season.To sum up, avoid "Taboo" like leprosy, but definitely check out "Mad Men."

...And I never thought a movie deserved to be awarded a 1! But this one is honestly the worst movie I've ever watched. My wife picked it up because of the cast, but the storyline right since the DVD box seemed quite predictable. It is not a mystery, nor a juvenile-catching film. It does not include any sensuality, if that's what the title could remotely have suggest any of you. This is just a total no-no. Don't waste your time or money unless you feel like watching a bunch of youngsters in a as-grown-up kind of Gothic setting, where a killer is going after them. Nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing worth watching. Max Makowski makes the worst of Nick Stahl.

The story in 'Taboo' lays at the border between teenager horror stories and the close space mystery plots, where the authors gather a small - and decreasing - number of characters into a close enclosure, preferable a castle or a running train, or a cabin in the mountains, under the pretext of a snow storm, or more recently of reality shows rules. In this case, the formula works quite well, and the story has some logic, triggered by a kind of cruel 'truth or deed' game, pushed to its ultimate solution. I saw that many other viewers who cared to comment on IMDb did not like the result, I am wondering why because the film never gets into ridicule, the pace is quite appropriate, and the solution of the plot makes sense. If I am to blame the authors for something, their main sin seems to be to me the fact that they avoided shocking the viewers in any way. The result is that despite having at hand a group of young and talented actors, the film never gets its promise of conflict, sexual, or artistic tension - almost like the film makers were trying to get some prime time rating from American TV parent counseling. I was slightly disappointed, but I am not asking for my money back. 6 out of 10 on my personal scale.

I watched this film despite reading that it was appaulling for one reason. Mr Stahl. I ended up rather enjoying it despite some of the worst acting I've seen in a long time thanks to January Jones(I've seen bricks that can act better than she can). The ending was a big surprise but then I was pretty drunk at the time I was watching it.... Only really worth watching if you're into one of the actors and you like this kind of film.