The first and only IMDb review I read for this movie said to go into it blindly, so I did without even reading the rest of the review. Going into it blindly is the best advice anyone could give. And if you read the rest of this review, don't worry I won't expose a thing. I won't even tell you what genre this film is (because as far as I can tell it isn't any genre).I'll be honest and say I hated the first 12 minutes because it seemed indulgent & pointless. Also I'm not really a fan of hand-held camera work. But luckily I have a tolerance/attention span of exactly 13 minutes because that's when a story began to develop. And ultimately I realized even those "pointless" 12 minutes had a point. It sets up a very subtle yet pervasive metaphor, the soul of the whole movie.Slowly, so slowly that you might not even notice (which I'm sure was the filmmakers' intent) the film starts to get under your skin. And although the only quantifiable storyline for the first 40 minutes is a girl and her dog, it's done so convincingly and, yes, suspensefully that I was hooked. And that, my friends, is all I will say about the plot because you shouldn't expect anything more.Now a few notes about technique... The directors did something very interesting by never taking the camera off the lead actress throughout the whole movie, not once. Also the camera would sometimes run long, continuous shots without cuts. While this method may sacrifice momentum and some viewer interest, it adds tremendous realism, almost like a documentary feel. And we begin to connect with the heroine even though she doesn't say much. And of course the difficulty in staging the rest of the action while always keeping her in the shot must've been no easy task. The final 22 minutes is a very impressive achievement, all done in one continuous take with a lot going on, and I mean a whole lot.People have called this film "experimental", but there's no experiment about it. This is a fully finished product with a great style, a novel approach, and certainly the most memorable ending I've seen in ages, ending on an image which I can't decide if it's chilling, hilarious or beautiful.

To lesser degrees, Entrance is much like critically acclaimed Michael Haneke's "Cache." It focuses on the verisimilitude of the medium without using shaky cam or other tricks. Rather than inundating with atmosphere and creepiness, he drains the audience with banality and normalcy. Defying the audience's expectations of a horror film helps to create a vacuum of uncertainty with a hard to place uneasiness.Where your typical stalk and slash film might rely on popcorn scares to pass the time between kills, Entrance leaves you with nothing. On the right viewer it creates a sense of unsettling voyeurism and begins to wear on the actual conscience. On the wrong audience, it instills boredom and anger for lack of gore/shock/scares/etc - sadly there has been a lot of the wrong audience watching this film after Stephen King praised it in Entertainment Weekly. Not to knock King's typical fans or the readers of Entertainment Weekly, but this is not a pop-horror piece. Its more art-house indie horror than anything.In recent years there has been a lot of interest in evolving the horror genre past its current state and in that regards Entrance may be ahead of its time. Fans of the ultra-slow-burn horror such as "Red White and Blue" or Ti West's "House of the Devil," should certainly have a profound appreciation for this film. Typical horror fans may only like the final twenty minutes when the pace finally picks up.I for one immensely enjoyed Entrance, but thoroughly understand how a vast majority of its viewers simply won't like it. I rated it lower than the very similar film Cache due to a few issues with the sound and simply because on a repeat viewing I didn't find all the cerebral stimulation that Cache offers.

While watching this movie I tried to figure out where the director or plot of this movie were going, then it dawned on me....there is no plot. The only conclusion I could rationally come to was the writer,director and producer had a little money (and I mean a little!)and some time on their hands so they figured they would try their hand at making a movie. Seriously I have seen a middle school project film that is "Oscar" quality in comparison to this. I believe it's a great thing that anyone with enough money to throw down on a digital camera can make a movie, but please don't be so pretentious that you consider this some sort of eye opening expose on the human condition. Even the title Entrance still has me puzzled, Entrance to what, some deep awakening that there are some people in this world that are "bad", I think I may have known this going in. Thanks for the effort.

I can't talk about this movie without talking about Ti West. He's a current, indie horror director who does "slow-burn" movies. He creates real, normal characters. He shows us their lives, but with a little menace in the background, almost imperceptible. Then there's a huge pay-off, which brings the movie to an end. Out of all his movies, "Trigger Man" best exemplifies this. "Entrance" takes this formula, and does it at least as well as Ti West. Build-up, character development, minutiae. Then it hits you at the end.Like "Trigger Man," half the comments on IMDb/netflix are from people who hated the movie. These people have no taste. They're dumb. Ignore them."Entrance" is insanely good.