Locked in an office block with a sadistic clown the staff must work together to survive the night.
Jenny| an ambitious| feisty but very successful advertising executive has her drink spiked at a fancy dress party| leading to a brutal sexual assault in the pub
toilets by a mysterious figure dressed as a clown. Slowly she rebuilds her life| and as she regains confidence in herself| she returns to work after a six month
absence. She soon becomes bogged down with work and when her bullying boss gives her a huge| last minute advertising account with a Saudi-backed circus company| the
pressure begins to mount. Forced to work alone throughout the night in the huge office block| it soon becomes apparent she is not alone. Stalking the empty corridors
is a familiar| unwanted figure| and Jenny soon discovers she is locked in with Charlie Boy the psychotic clown| driven by a blood lust and an obsession with torment
and murder. Blending suspense| horror and dead-pan humor| the film weaves a twisting tale that takes the viewer in a direction they never intended| without ever
insulting their ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Lock In torrent reviews
(au) wrote: How crazy just going to the Marin or Navy things like that happens.. good movie ????
(it) wrote: An exceptional sequel to an amazing debut! Most would say of all movies, whoever thought "The Pact" would get a proper sequel? Everyone that loved the first will be surprisingly pleased at this follow-up! It is made in the vein of the first with a build-up that might actually trump the original! Fans, this is a must-see! I hope part 3 gets to see the light of day! I look forward to it!
(us) wrote: I hate to start off with this, since this will certainly drive some people away, if there are any who read this, but this is a hipster anti-horror movie. What I mean by anti-horror is the same principle as anti-comedy. In the latter, the comedian in question says something that is purposely unfunny. The audience is expecting a joke, but when they don't actually get one, that is, in and of itself, the joke. And it's the same principle here. I don't actually mean that the filmmakers or cast themselves hate horror films, which they may for all I know. This is something as an aside, as it doesn't relate to the review, but it does relate to people hating horror movies. There's this blurb from Michael Atkinson, of the Village Voice, that comes across as so condescending to horror films. He describes it as the thinnest of genres. I believe film criticism is important, particularly if you like a particular reviewer's writing style. I believe it can create healthy debates between film nerds. What I can't stand is people throwing shade, as the kids say nowadays, on film genres without having full knowledge of them. I would respect Mr. Atkinson's opinion if he had, in fact, watched every horror movie ever made since the beginning of film. Since this covers countless films from many different countries, I find it to be an irrelevant and needless comment. Not to mention the fact that it insults independent filmmakers who attempt to push the genre forward in ways that you don't see many other genres currently attempt. So to Mr. Atkinson I say, don't be a dick regarding a genre you clearly have limited knowledge about. With that said, I don't know what quite to make of this movie. It's certainly a film of two halves. First half attempts to be a droll comedy while, not particularly cleverly, playing with horror tropes. I will say that I thought the characters themselves were solidly written, at least in terms of actually having fairly well-defined personalities. If there's one thing you cannot say about this movie is that it skimps on its characters. They're all very distinct from one another and that dynamic is what, to me, is most enjoyable about the film. The problem comes in the fact that, to me, they don't really give these characters anything interesting to make the film truly compelling or, really, worth giving a shot to. These characters are certainly loquacious, but they're not really saying anything that's worth paying attention to. It's like they were going for a Seinfeld vibe, a horror movie about nothing, at least for the first 50 minutes. But, here's the thing, I fucking hate Seinfeld. I've given the show several shots and it's never made me laugh. The only episode I remember slightly chuckling at was the first Soup Nazi episode. That's it. Which is a shame, since Seinfeld had some really good comedic actors, with the exception of Seinfeld himself, who was just awful. But, I digress. The point is that it's 40 minutes into the movie when an escaped murderer is first mentioned. It's another 10 minutes before he actually shows up. So, yes, for 50 minutes, you have these characters just talking and talking and talking without anything happening. And it's just, honestly, a little boring. The film played with the fact that you thought Hildie and Skip used their bed and breakfast as a cover to commit unspeakable acts to the people that stay there. But after about 20 minutes, that's put to rest. I will say that the horror sections of the film were far more interesting than everything that came before it. And that's because it was actually focused. There was actually something they had to work towards, instead of just talking about, literally, nothing. And it's not like the horror itself is great, since the villain doesn't particularly threatening. Yea, he's meant to be a regular guy, he's not a supernatural force like Jason or Leatherface. But there could have been more of an effort to make the villain a little more threatening. Because, the way the film played out, it felt more like a joke than anything else. And many that's what they were going for, particularly with how the villain dies. This might actually be the funniest scene in the entire film, which tells you how funny the rest of it isn't. It's certainly a stupid way to die, but it did make me chuckle. The film is well-cast, so I don't have any complaints on that front. I just wish this just hadn't felt like such a waste of time. I'm sure some think that this is a droll masterpiece, but I just didn't enjoy this movie at all. It's not a bad movie. I've seen bad movies and this is not it. I feel that some effort was actually put into this movie. But the fact of the matter is that that effort simply wasn't enough to make this a good movie. I felt it was a little boring to watch and I could have spent my 80 minutes watching something else. Or I could have been playing Horizon Zero Dawn. That would have been more productive than having to sit through this chore of a movie.
(gb) wrote: Jeunet offers us his very particular magic world, now against weapons manufacturers. The main character, with his trouppe of crazy soldiers, has a master plan to take revenge for two big arms sellers. Humor, tenderness and a very careful photography in a film in the same line of the previous works of Jeunet (Amelie, Delicatessen, The city of lost children, A very long engagement), maybe less funny and genial than others when it gets into the details of the master plan, but, as always, offers a original approach and marvelous characters.
(fr) wrote: Even though I'm too young to be asking myself Why Did I Get Married ? This movie shows you the ups and down as well as obstacles you might have to jump over in your own marriage. That's what I love about this movie its realistic the jealousy , insecurities, unfaithfulness , the lies , the laughs and betrayal its all there. In the end you can relate to at least one of the characters.
(br) wrote: I was expecting another crappy indie gay movie, instead I got an endearing, and utterly heartwarming character-driven piece. An interesting concept handled in a realistic fashion, I'd love to see more from this director because this is a GREAT movie.
(nl) wrote: That guy is awesome.
(kr) wrote: Pretty historically accurate for a movie that did not intend to be educational.
(nl) wrote: Much better than its reputation, but that doesn't say much. Can you imagine this pitch? "With a bag lady?" "Yeah, but, like... a HOT bag lady!"
(au) wrote: Classic British cinema. Dirty cinematography and unforgettable performances with real and well directed dialogue.
(ca) wrote: Not amazing Hitchcock, but a decent little flick that hints at what was to come. Some pleasant banter and appeal archetypal characters.
(it) wrote: This was interesting. I don't think I would watch it again though.
(fr) wrote: Really liked the way it started and then when they brought the asian chick into and her and Tom Selleck started to like each other it started to ruin it. Tom Selleck was pretty kick ass and the only reason you would want to watch this movie.