input: Let me start by saying I have never reviewed a movie on IMDb before; however, I am in the video biz myself. And coming from that perceptive; I can say, without a shadow of a doubt that this film is what a short should be. It has a very good story and another thing I love-(an even better twist ending). Opening was very well done, I loved video chosen for it and how it was edited.

I am not a fan of B&W but the way this film uses the effect it works. And with any film that is all that matters. The flow of the film works perfectly and editing was very well done. From a technical side of things (which is side I normally work on) everything is also very well done. There is no major tech. stuff to point out. Only minor one I have is that the end credits are a little bouncy. This is probably due to a rendering issue. Let me also say that I would have prefer to seen more of the love scene but I am guy (so you can chalk that up to a guy factor).

So overall I rate it a 9/10. It is worth the watch if you fan of Indies and/or short films.

ps. sorry for bad grammar or spelling.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: The film is pretty confusing and ludicrous. The plot is awful...but on the plus side the acting is pretty good, with a few good shouts and rants. Sharon stone is OK this time...not even half as good as the original mind you. The murders aren't as gory as the first one either, which is a shame. Its not the unpredictable mess everyone say it is though. The sex is pretty graphic at times while others it is clear it is fake (they are fully clothed). The script is weak most of the time, but the scenes with banter and arguments between Dr.Glass and Washburn are highlights. The plot twists a few times, but the ending is awful. The tension is always constant with a huge dollop of 'Oh my god!'. The chase sequences are brilliantly directed, and shots and camera angles are impressive and bring a bit of class to an otherwise, rush-felt film. Sharon stone is a bit old for this too. The bits where we see her breasts were, in the first one, delights. This time around, they are too horrid to describe. The films its self is rather average, but it is worth a go. Mainly because the film does deserve some good buzz...with the opening sequence being a highlight. Not to be critical, but if you liked the first one - leave this one. Don't ruin the run. You'll be glad you left this stone unturned.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I saw this film on television years ago, but here several years after, I wake up in the morning, and still remember her face.

This film is the most profoundly terrifying film I have seen.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Please note that I haven't seen the film since I discovered it in 2007, and my town is smaller and doesn't carry it. However, I really want to say something about it. I'm actually doing research for university on the title character Richard Maurice Bucke and would like to point out that the person they based the main character on was in reality completely different!!! Hollywood's ideas of people and artistic license granted, the real Dr. Bucke totally endorsed hysterectomies to cure insanity in women, and would never have practiced anything as liberal as represented in the film. I think it's laughable to see various film critics who write for legitimate newspapers who say this film has some historical basis! The only actual fact I can see is the friendship between Dr. Bucke and Walt Whitman. Please don't waste your time on a film with such a disregard to the horror that real women experienced at the hands of this doctor who has now been glorified by the film industry.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative