To Let (2006)

This movie clocks at around one hour, and accomplishes what most modern thrillers struggle to do in twice the time. It gets to the point pretty quickly, but gives a straight, well defined portrait of the main characters without using any "super obvious" scenes to do that. While in the process it actually utilizes pretty much every cliché of the whole "kidnapping" scenario of horror movies (like for example "the hills have eyes" by the late Wes Craven)but in the best way possible. It manages to hold the viewer at the edge of the seat for every single second, surprisingly without ever feeling predictable.The cinematography and imagery is appropriately beautiful. The worn out color palette fits the ugly urban location perfectly and helps in creating tension throughout the movie. You could even say that (taking into consideration the extremely limited cast) even the weather and the building themselves are supporting characters in the film.What is really worth mentioning is that this is one more Jaume Balagueró film that breaks the mould of American horror films by having the story placed in an apartments. With the obvious exception of Roman Polanski's "Apartment" trilogy, most American thrillers are set into suburban locations and big, very big houses. Although these houses are very scary (mostly due to their abundance of entry points, making the villains job much easier) this is not very realistic considering more than most people worldwide live in blocks of flats and cant' actually relate to that "50's America" scenery.Top up all of the above with a great psychological/social study on people who are obsessed with other peoples lives and you've got an excellent, disturbing and actually very "thrilling" thriller. The only drawback I can think for this movie, is (as noted by most reviewers) the main characters lack of decisiveness at points, which, kind of feels like a mechanism for the film to go on.

(MAJOR SPOILERS)Quick, horror fans, take this test:You and your significant other are trapped inside a deserted apartment building by a crazy old woman. To your credit, after a good hour of utter stupidity, you have finally managed to turn the tables on this not particularly formidable villain, who is currently screaming in pain with a mangled hand.Now... what do you do?!a) You incapacitate the murderous woman, tie her up and then GET THE HELL AWAY; b) You run around screaming hysterically, only to find out you are trapped inside the building, so you return to the old woman but... duh! She's gone! c) You untie a big, evil-looking man in a dark room, because you believe he's another victim. Oh, you tried to help him before, but he attempted to strangle you; d) You call the police or a friend, but are unable to give them coherent informations; e) You douse yourself and your spouse with gasoline and light a match; f) You take a nap on a blood-spattered carpet.If you didn't answer a), congratulations! If they ever do a sequel of this movie, you might be the protagonist.Jaume Balaguero is definitely no hack. All his previous works show directorial competence and the skill to create an ominous atmosphere. Para Entrar A Vivir starts out promisingly, but quickly degenerates into utter silliness. The script tips its hand far too early - once we learn the main villain (and, for a good chunk of the story, the only villain) is this undeniably deranged, but otherwise hardly intimidating middle-aged, bespectacled lady, the tension almost vanishes. People actively work to put themselves in danger, get bashed in the head a lot, do a copious amount of stupid choices, the killer is not dead, and yada yada yada. One is reminded of Balaguero's Darkness and Anna Paquin's terrible decisions. And the characters of Rec weren't exactly the pinnacle of human intelligence either.The fact is, Balaguero is so enamored with the atmosphere of a particular scene that he does not seem to care about its plausibility - his characters are dumb puppets, hamsters running on a wheel and working really hard to unleash the boogeyman.So, who decided horror characters NEED to be dumb? It's a lot scarier if you get the impression even smart, resourceful individuals would be in danger.And why should I be rooting for morons?5/10

When it comes to movies, I scare easy. Real easy. I'm always the first idiot to scream in the movie theater- often I'm the only idiot screaming in the theater. I argue (unsuccessfully) with my fiancé to let me leave the lights on when we watch a horror flick at home. I flinch, I whimper, I cover my eyes with a throw pillow. At a showing of The Descent, I buried my face in my date's arm, only to have him yelp in confusion when I accidentally bit it in a moment of misplaced self-defense. I am a complete and utter wuss.So when I say that this movie was far too ridiculous to be even mildly scary, you can believe me. I mean, heck, it was entertaining; but more in a "you've got to be %@$#ing kidding me" kind of way. Twenty minutes into the movie, I wasn't scared; I wasn't even nervous. I was incensed. I was watching young, healthy, apparently intelligent people getting their behinds handed to them by someone who looked like the local children's librarian. There were a thousand and one ways that this could have been a much shorter movie. It might, just maybe, have been believable if the antagonist had been anyone who didn't look like she had just stepped out of an advertisement for maple syrup; or if her intended victims had been prepubescent (well, maybe not; that kid from Home Alone would have had her beat for sure)- or perhaps bunnies, or hamsters, or blind, deaf, and dumb geriatric pirates missing both their wooden legs. There was one point when two healthy young women- one a mother defending her child- are being menaced by the real-estate-agent-gone-bad. They are both armed (one with a cleaver, one with a taser) and safely positioned behind a metal grate. The real estate agent has just lost her dominant hand, and is clutching her bleeding stump to her chest as she cackles and pokes at them weakly through the grating with a lead pipe. This struck me as more irritating than terrifying and it seems to me that any normal person would simply relieve her of the pipe through means of a simple fulcrum (since she squatting and poking it through the grate down at you, just pull down and you'd have the pipe) and then proceed to smile up at her and calmly ask just what the hell she planned to do now. If the antagonist had been some kind of evil genius, it would have been a different story, but she wasn't; she was almost laughably predictable and run-of-the-mill movie crazy.One gets the feeling that this movie came to be because one of the writers lost a bet. "...ok, but if I win you have to write a movie about a crazy real estate agent in a little yellow raincoat. Oh, and dude, she has to look like your MOTHER."Still, if you found the killer bunny scene in Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail to be funny (and who didn't?) you might enjoy it.

The movie is about an older woman of small stature that lures "strong" healthy young couples, and supposedly overpowers and terrorizes them. LOL Even if I were drunk as a skunk this woman would never be able to over power me, and I am 54 years old. LOL Yet, we are suppose to believe that this woman has repeatedly overpowered big strong men and their partners. The worst part, and most unrealistic, was that the big strong, aggressive man was afraid of this small older woman. LOL Of course, if you like being annoyed, then please, go ahead and watch it. But don't say I didn't warn you. This movie is suppose to be a thriller, but it is too absurd to even be scary! The movie is utter rubbish from start to finish.