Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

krepsilent I didn't see anyone comment on the ending, other than to say it goes nowhere, and I don't really agree with that, so here's my thoughts: the protagonist (Jason Scott Campbell) gets his first clue on how to "end the movie" / "catch the killer" / "end the murders", when his teacher tells him "it's time for the protagonist to take control - everyone's been a victim so far, it's time for him to take control - and time for you to finish the movie." A further clue comes from his classmate, the guy making the other movie: "... there's no villain.. it's almost as if, the director, he's the villain, he's the one putting us through all this." That's when he gets the idea - to end it, he must take control, so he invites Natalia over, grabs a knife, sets up the camera, starts it recording and he and Natalia lay on the bed, the knife hidden beside him. Increasingly certain he's the killer and/or crazy, Natalia starts fighting him, afraid he's going to kill her (or perhaps playing along, understanding his intent).Then the "movie with a movie" starts happening, and quite simply the protagonist kills the director, or the person filming. Next the scene cuts to the class film set, and the ending of the movie and movie within movie is shown - and then Natalia and protagonist huddle while he says "it's over, it's over".Who was the director? I think that is left up to the viewer. The literal interpretation could be the person who set everything up entered the room - maybe the janitor, maybe someone else, and the protagonist killed him. Another interpretation, more magical but still inside the movie, is the camera was some kind of window to another dimension, or the mind/dreams of the director, and somehow a magical second reality was interfering, and the act of killing the "director" was a way to pick an ending and stop it. Yet another interpretation is, the whole work is not actually a horror movie but an inside comment on film making of horror movies, and the comment is, in movies such as this, or Blair-witch, etc, the villain is simply the director.Personally, I think in some cases this type of ending can be brilliant, but in this case we weren't quite there (thus a 6). The viewer wonders, was this an intentional plan of a writer with a message? Or is this just a cowardly way to end a movie from a writer who was unwilling to write an actual ending, or couldn't make up his mind, or ran out of money? And I think that is what bothers so many viewers about endings like this.

izzyfnlee I had the pleasure of viewing Bank's film at the Boston Underground Film Festival recently. The theater was packed, and the director was on hand for an introduction and Q & A, to which the audience was very receptive. This film is one of the best I've seen in a long time, and for a first feature, this film presents itself as a phenomenal work. The acting is excellent- the leads have won numerous awards at several festivals, as well as the film itself, and of course, Mr. Banks. The film has a touch of Lost Highway as well as American Psycho, and nearly from the start, you descend into a type of madness into which you cannot escape, because reality versus perhaps another plane of existence blur continuously until the bitter end. With a film as strong as this, I was surprised to learn how young the director is- it seems as if he's been doing this for at least a decade. Everything about the production is very professional- I would not be surprised if Lion's Gate picked this up for distribution and released it in theaters. I hope that happens. This is a film that deserves to be seen. It crawls under your skin in a perverse, horrific, and sexually exciting way. And I'm a film programmer myself. I should know. No matter what film snobs may say, this is an audience film and one that's very enjoyable and deserves to put this director on the map.

Coventry Oh boy, here we have another over-ambitious young filmmaker who single-handedly intends to restore everything that's wrong with nowadays horror cinema…Pardon my cynicism but we all heard this before and – usually – these youngsters fail to live up to their own expectations. For his debut film, videostore clerk turned director Dylan Bank comes up with a psychedelic but immensely confusing story about a film student who makes a movie about his own nightmare that miraculously appear to be taped on camera every morning when he wakes up. The idea is admirable and the film does feature a handful of nice touches, but Dylan Bank never really seems to realize that his visions and interpretations on horror AREN'T groundbreaking or even that shocking. This type of 'mental assault'-cinema is the territory of genius directors like David Lynch, Alejandro Jodorowsky and Shinya Tsukamoto, only their films are more fascinating and truly a lot more disturbing! The story material has potential but "Nightmare" lacks involvement and commitment with the characters whereas, with Lynch, you pretty much feel like you're inside the protagonists' heads and you fear what they fear! The film often just exists of blurry and roughly edited images that make no sense or add nothing to the basic premise at all, but Bank uses them (as padding?) anyway. New characters and locations are introduced randomly and they simply disappear again without any form of coherence. Also, for being a new type of horror film, "Nightmare" doesn't contain much atmosphere, scary moments or even violent images. There's quite a lot of nudity (the non-artistic kind), the acting performances are acceptable and the use of uncanny music is very good. Worth a look if you're in an experimental mood once.

Unlikelyplace-1 It has taken me a little while to write about this film after I saw what I believe was it's East Coast Premier in Oct. at the Eerie Horror Fest (a new and remarkably well run film fest.) This is the first comment I've made on IMDb and feel this film is important for those who love surreal art, horror films, or the process of creating art -which leads right back into the surreal (secret deep, dark thoughts) anyways and now you're trapped in twisted, fun part of your imagination which is a neat place to be! The film is hard to describe because it deals with human impulses of sex, and drive for success, and violence and all sorts of dormant notions in the quiet places inside all of us - by taking us into an actual nightmare (how can you really describe a nightmare and get all the chilling feelings on IMDb?). It is a film that needs to be experienced.The acting is great - also it is a film about actors so again the nightmare cycle is already in full swing. Its a story of actualizing your dreams and creating expression - you see the tight interplay of ideas already? Smart, smart pop-psychological masterpiece. The horror aspects are brutal and disturbing (several times during the film I thought 'I'm imagining this whole thing...right?) A certain giddy sense of absurdity and feverish mania is also a strong part of what makes this movie (or film...or movie...or film) so great.Easily the best part about this film is that it feels like a dream...the sort of dream only hinted at by the title. It is strange, well crafted work that made me quite, quite satisfied.