Key (2011) Reviews

• Great film but lacked some important elements

  jhobbs1232012-08-13

  The storyline for this independent film is very original and had me thoroughly intrigued throughout the duration. However there were some parts to the movie that had me second guessing the overall collaboration of the project. I didn't realize that the voice of the psychologist Dr. Jonathan Shoe speaking to the mental patient "Bud" was the voice of the dead man on the pathologist's table during the autopsy at first. I question why the psychologist Dr. Shoe was not featured in the film alive rather than just a corpse. It seems that his position contained significant importance being the father of the woman meeting Dr. Revell and explaining the significance of the key. Nonetheless, the project was very well done but if Dr. Shoe's character was more present, the film I believe would have been much better.

• It lies within

  nogodnomasters2018-01-18

  Samantha Revell (Farah Lavassani) is murdered in the first scene, but lives on in the memories and dreams of her husband Martin (Nathan Sapsford). Martin is a person of interest in her murder. He has a scruffy beard and downs his sorrow in drink as he freely shares his life with his bartender. Martin is also a coroner, and discovers an old key in the stomach of an apparent suicide victim (Peter McGlynn). The key was introduced in the opening as the biblical "key to the abyss." He is drawn to the key and keeps it rather than turn it in as evidence. He starts his own investigation which involves the dead man's daughter (Jessica Nicole Webb). The film never fully develops into a great terror/horror/mystery. Martin flops around looking for answers to clues that are uninteresting. In fact Martin was uninteresting. The opening scene between Martin and the detective (Arthur Richardson) was so poorly scripted, it set the stage for a substandard film.The film ends rather anticlimactically. Parental Guide: F-bomb, sex, nudity (Farah Lavassani)

• Atmosphere and vibe

  greatoutdoors662012-11-03

  My friend gave me this movie to watch without much info on it, so I didn't really know what to expect. From the cover, I thought it was probably going to be one of the recent rash of independent horror/thriller movies that have great cover art and then you watch it and you feel tricked that the movie didn't match the vibe of the cover. That's not true with this movie. I'll agree with the other reviews on here that the story could have been more developed/flowed better and what not, but I thought it was a good addition to the genre and kept me watching through to the end. It had satisfyingly creepy scenes, and I liked the pace; reminds me of when movies were trying for atmosphere and build, and not just special effects and jarring camera movements that make you dizzy and nauseous. Worth the view!

• Strong elements and a lot of potential

  cantbesure12012-11-01

  Ambiance, great pacing, cinematography, and music all working to be a deliberate, intelligent, and meticulous film with a dark humor that just barely underscores the inherent tragic quality of the characters and story. There are scenes that coalesce to achieve this effect nicely, and there are other scenes that are still pushing to find their voice. But that's okay with me, because the sum effect for me as a film lover is to be curious enough for the filmmaker's subsequent film to resolve some of the loose ends in the plot and script that must undoubtedly happen with any independently funded first feature. I'd like to see a story without Christian mythology as its impetus; it's too easy (and overused) a plot vehicle IMO. With the potential already here, I'd like to see a story unencumbered by this. And..... I'd like to see the next film pass the Bechdel test for female presence in the film industry. Some of my favorite films unfortunately don't, but the more intelligent films like this one address this epidemic, the better. Overall, some strong elements and a lot of potential!