Sight

2008 "He's Not Just Seeing Things."
2.9| 1h25m| R| en| More Info
Released: 20 May 2008 Released
Producted By:
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Jeffrey leads a quiet existence. Living in constant fear of being labeled a psychopath, Jeffrey constructs a complex world of denial. He is haunted by the spirits of the vengeful dead, which he can see while no one else can. After meeting Dana, a beautiful young woman who shares his "sight", Jeffery finds comfort in knowing someone shares his affliction. But his comfort is short lived. Dana suddenly goes missing and Jeffrey is left alone to find the answers.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.
Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.
Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.
talkingpenguin3 There are many points in this movie that make no sense and/or confuse the viewer to no end (until the end). As it starts out, Jeffery meets "Dana" out of sheer coincidence and after first meeting and talking this woman gives him a fake alias "Dana" being the name of her aunt. Question, If you're going to mislead someone, would you give them the name of someone you know and could possibly point the person you're misleading back to you? Though it's planned by "Dana" she doesn't know that Jeffery killed her uncle till close to the end (obviously) but, why is the only evidence a Rosary? Also, why did she mislead Jeffery from the very start if she didn't know he killed her uncle till close to the end? Also, on Jeffery's quest for answers, if anyone has watched this film, I believe that he takes a cab back to his uncle's place and tells the cab driver to wait for him, he goes into his uncle's house, takes a shower but never goes back into the cab. I won't rag on this film due to low budget production, but I will rag on it due to the fact I had to turn on the subtitles just to understand what they were saying in the movie. Most of the time, the actor's volume in their voice was so low that I thought they were just mumbling to themselves.
paradoxbox-1 This movie was not worth watching. As other people have mentioned, the acting is absolutely awful. I'm sure a better cast could have been found by using rejects from film making school.The editing is irritating - quarter second views at different angles of the same object, combined with the irritating audio. The voices are too quiet to hear without turning the volume up, but annoying electronic sounds like phones and alarm clocks ringing practically blow out your speakers.The story does not make sense. One of the first scenes is completely bizarre. I watched this movie with friends who do not speak English. Despite the lack of dialogue in the beginning of the film we both could not figure out what was happening.I recommend not wasting your time with this film. I'm surprised any company even backed this production financially and decided to publish it.This movie is easily the worst I've ever seen.
froose I watched this movie to completion because I sat in utter disbelief at how awful it was... like watching an accident in slow motion. The acting, editing, sound editing, special effects... EVERYTHING was terrible. Every performance was underwhelming and for the most part seemed improvised. The absolute worst part, though, was the sound. There was clearly no post voice-over work done with the actors, so it relied on sound that was captured by the initial shoot. This left it mismatched with the sound effects/score which was WAY louder that the dialog forcing me to continually adjust the sound between conversation and 'action' sequences.I won't even get into how inane the story/writing was... there is really no point in discussing it seeing that the movie misses the mark on every other aspect of the production.Definitely skip this waste of time.
EEBrown-1 I think this movie was pretty good for a low budget Philly movie. It contained some basic elements as twists, who done its, and so forth. These elements keep you guessing, causes you to wonder and be confused, as well as makes you jump at times. There is an artistic use of lighting, as well as the volumes of voice. Then there was the purposeful absence of facial expression when called for. All the makings of a decent flick. Everyone wants to be a critic.The movie was good enough to be selected by one or more film festivals and get a distribution deal, which is a lot more than what some of you critics can boast about. So there.