3

source: 3

Tortured horror movie made in 2017. They are women from the couple who are in love and were raped at a party before they met. The man is trying to catch this rapist and make him confess. It is a film that has been constantly tried to be played with the audience, but still failed to exceed the average. Questions such as whether the man actually did it, the person they held captive did it, whether the woman is lying or whether everything is a lie confuses the audience. Again, it's ridiculous that the victim escaped for a moment and looked for the key to open the outer door.

A tremendous work from Lou Simon. The plot zig-zags through to the very end. The opening is a distributor's dream, because it goes right into the action and story. Simple, with few locations and actors, "3: An Eye for an Eye" is very well cast. A deeply disturbing work, significant politically and socially. It is a rare treat to see. "3: An Eye for an Eye" goes to the far edges and give us pause to question gender roles, trauma, reality. A very daring and powerful movie.

I totally thought I had this movie figured out right from the top, but boy oh boy, was I wrong on that one!! "3: An Eye for an Eye" is a satisfyingly confusing, revenge fueled psychological thriller (with some pretty epic gore) that ends having answered all of my terrible questions and left me feeling gutted - as horror should! I really appreciate that it surprised me and made me take a step back from my own preconceived notions to really consider this nuanced story carefully. I'll be thinking about this one for days. Highly recommend!

Don't believe those highly ratings. I'm pretty sure they're paid or related to the movie maker. This is such a poorly acted, weak emotion, terrible special effects, pathetically scary, boring, and so predictable

A psychologist (Mike Stanley) who helps PTSD patients is kidnapped by a vet (Todd Bruno) and his female friend (Aniela McGuinness). He is tied up in a basement and tortured into a rape confession. The psychologist is very credible and the woman making the accusations clearly has a faulty memory about everything. The viewer is kept in suspense until the end. This was an interesting psychological thriller, but one guy saying, "No I didn't" while another saying "Yes, you did" for much of the film doesn't make for entertainment unless it involves senators. Guide: F-word. Brief rape. partial nudity?

I'm usually pretty generous with my reviews. As long as I'm entertained I'm happy. But this movie was quite horrible. Only reason I gave it 2 stars was for about 5 minutes of suspense about 2/3 of the way through. It was poorly acted. At the end I was just really disappointed I wasted about 75 minutes of my life.

Contrary to many reviews, 3 is not a bad film. It is not a good film, but it is not bad. It should be classified as a very average independent horror, revenge & torture thriller with average production. One item of note, when reading reviews, is that many are written by comparing the reviewed film to other titles. This is a faulty means by which to review a film unless there are direct connections in the story, characters, actors or other facet. Any film can be compared to another, allowing for faults or faulty issues to be noted. Taken purely at face value, not comparing "3" to any other film, it is a purely average independent film. "3" is not a "cheesy horror B-flick," but a low(er) budget independent horror/thriller that is meant to be taken seriously. The cast is very limited (under 10 actors), and none are standouts compared to others. The acting is very average, but moderately convincing - meaning, while not A-level, the performances are not "over the top" or intentionally cheesy. The film is shot on professional equipment and the sound & foley are decent. The scenery and locations are natural and do not look hastily or "cheesily" constructed. Cinematography is average as well. There are a couple of nice choices in angle and flow, but largely average from start to finish. The story and writing are also average. "3" is in no way prophetic or anything new in the torture motif, but provides decent flow with the inclusion of small moments of psychologically impactful dialog and/or character explanation. On the whole, the movie would have been better with increased blood, gore, and violence, but that is a personal consideration. The finale, however, while nothing new, is enjoyable and provides for titular discovery. The best aspects of the film, which are still largely average, are the direction and effects. Of the two, neither rise much above average, but are at least convincing. While not considered a "gorefest," there are a couple of scenes that could have been extremely cheesy had it not been for the effects. Average to slightly above average indie effects provide for, at minimum, convincing incidents. In summation, "3" is just an average indie horror/thriller film. Watching it will not cause the viewer lifelong regret, but it also will not provide any lasting affect. There are, at once, plenty of better and worse films available to watch. Recommended for fans of revenge films with torture motifs. NOT recommended for viewers seeking ample blood and gore. While there are a couple examples of both blood and (light) gore, these are not the intent of the film. NOT recommended for viewers seeking ample nudity of either sexual persuasion.

Although the concept was far from an original one and had the danger of being very schlocky if executed wrongly, it was pretty intriguing at the same time and did have potential to be unsettling if handled correctly. Have an appreciation for films that balance horror, mystery and thriller. The cover looked creepy and grabs the attention. There was not an awful lot going for '3' otherwise but the potential was there. '3' is a long way from unsettling and leans more towards the schlocky side of things. Will say right now that to me there are far worse films out there, both of my recent viewings and ever, and there are films that wasted their potential far more and to a worse degree (most of them though had potential that was bigger than that in '3'). This is not being said with any malice or prejudice, nor with any intent of disliking '3', part of me was really wanting to like it and hope that '3' would exceed my mixed expectations. There is in '3' a spooky setting and moments of slick photography. Unfortunately that is pretty much it for the positives. Going on the many negatives, the characters have no dimension or development to make them remotely interesting. Nor do they have any traits in making them rootable, the motivations are only bare bones and at times random and nothing more and the way they behave irritates and lacks logic. This does affect the acting which never rises above mediocre and is at worst atrocious. The victim fares least badly because there was some effort but too many parts are either overplayed or anaemic, never believed or cared for his plight. Furthermore, '3' is directed with little enthusiasm and no tension and the script, especially the heavy emphasis on the back and forth, is needlessly repetitive, not interesting at all and very silly and stilted. Worst of all is the story, on top of dragging in pace and being contrived there is nothing remotely scary for the horror element to convince (not to mention the randomness of some of it, the gratuity of some of the content and there is a complete lack of creativity), it is sorely lacking in tension and suspense to be thrilling (the dragging pace killing it) and the mystery is really not much of one. Overall, very bad. 2/10 Bethany Cox

I'm leery of watching low budget films, because often the quality of the output stands out in some bad way or another. But this film gets a lot of mileage out of its budget and its cast. The victim, "It", is my favorite. Played by Mike Stanley, you feel real sympathy for the guy. The other main characters, "He" and "She" have the uncomfortable dialog, probably due to the real nature of their characters, and the actors, especially the one who plays "She" manage to make it work. And the reveals are not at all clumsily done. The story takes you down avenue after road of "I know where this is going", and then very deftly takes a turn, and it all seems natural to the story, right to the end. Grab some popcorn and queue this film up. It's a good evening in.