I was teetering between 6 and 7 here, and settled on the latter because this IS a genuinely scary and disturbing film. We've definitely had a shortage of that lately in this genre - so it was nice to have some moments where, even at 39 years-old, I felt a little uneasy.
"Citadel" has many strengths and a few weaknesses. I'll touch on a bit of each while trying not to give too much away from what is a basic storyline. Now, it didn't have to be basic.
I think where the film misses is diving a bit further into the villains of this frightening tale. The back-story there is a bit vague to say the least, and the rest of the story doesn't do much to clear it up.
I'm sure that the budget constraints limited the production in certain ways, BUT I think all involved deserve more kudo's than criticism. After all, the intent with these types of films is to scare, and this is as "uncomfortable" as I've been watching a film in quite some time.
Think of a darker, scarier spin on Harry Brown. "Citadel" actually borrows quite a bit from "Harry Brown".
The film is extremely brooding - never really stepping into the light for more than a few seconds. I think it's definitely a strength. The film does have it's own sense of Style.
You have the feeling during this film that you are completely alone. There is no help coming, and you'll have to fend for yourself.
The film is without question under-rated at present on IMDb. I pulled up the rating on my phone after renting it from the redbox, and due to time, I nearly put-off watching it altogether. Glad I fit it in. I've seen 62 films from 2012 so far, and this is definitely in the top 20 for now. It's one of the better entries into the horror genre over the last few years, and could have been incredible if they would have just finished the film.
The ending needed a bit more carnage and revenge to put this over-the-top into the "true-gem-of-a-sleeper" category. They were so close... literally a few heads being axed-off and an explosion away from sheer low-budget glory, and a 9 ranking. Why do I get the feeling we'll see an American version of this that spends 10 times the money but has no sense of style or scare value?
The acting is way above average for this type of thing, and it's that acting and the mood that keeps it afloat. The lead and the priest are great. There are only 4 speaking roles in the whole film! 4! Rather than nit-pick the plot and the ending(which are easy targets) - let's step back and enjoy some of the strong characteristics of this film.
You might like this if you liked:Candyman(better), Winter's Bone(better),The Road(about even or ever-so-slightly better), Eden Lake(about even or ever-so slightly better), The People Under The Stairs(even), and The Brood(even).
If you want a sleeper horror film to rent - it's usually a dangerous proposition. That's one of the many reasons why I can recommend this one. Far from perfect, but boy this little low-budget Irish entry packs quite an uneasy punch.
67/100
"Citadel" has many strengths and a few weaknesses. I'll touch on a bit of each while trying not to give too much away from what is a basic storyline. Now, it didn't have to be basic.
I think where the film misses is diving a bit further into the villains of this frightening tale. The back-story there is a bit vague to say the least, and the rest of the story doesn't do much to clear it up.
I'm sure that the budget constraints limited the production in certain ways, BUT I think all involved deserve more kudo's than criticism. After all, the intent with these types of films is to scare, and this is as "uncomfortable" as I've been watching a film in quite some time.
Think of a darker, scarier spin on Harry Brown. "Citadel" actually borrows quite a bit from "Harry Brown".
The film is extremely brooding - never really stepping into the light for more than a few seconds. I think it's definitely a strength. The film does have it's own sense of Style.
You have the feeling during this film that you are completely alone. There is no help coming, and you'll have to fend for yourself.
The film is without question under-rated at present on IMDb. I pulled up the rating on my phone after renting it from the redbox, and due to time, I nearly put-off watching it altogether. Glad I fit it in. I've seen 62 films from 2012 so far, and this is definitely in the top 20 for now. It's one of the better entries into the horror genre over the last few years, and could have been incredible if they would have just finished the film.
The ending needed a bit more carnage and revenge to put this over-the-top into the "true-gem-of-a-sleeper" category. They were so close... literally a few heads being axed-off and an explosion away from sheer low-budget glory, and a 9 ranking. Why do I get the feeling we'll see an American version of this that spends 10 times the money but has no sense of style or scare value?
The acting is way above average for this type of thing, and it's that acting and the mood that keeps it afloat. The lead and the priest are great. There are only 4 speaking roles in the whole film! 4! Rather than nit-pick the plot and the ending(which are easy targets) - let's step back and enjoy some of the strong characteristics of this film.
You might like this if you liked:Candyman(better), Winter's Bone(better),The Road(about even or ever-so-slightly better), Eden Lake(about even or ever-so slightly better), The People Under The Stairs(even), and The Brood(even).
If you want a sleeper horror film to rent - it's usually a dangerous proposition. That's one of the many reasons why I can recommend this one. Far from perfect, but boy this little low-budget Irish entry packs quite an uneasy punch.
67/100