Why? 2021

Art & Craft

In terms of art and craft, critics highlight amateur execution, low‑budget cinematography, and unrefined editing. Multiple reviewers mention fake blood, a film‑school feel, and a generic visual style that detracts from immersion. The direction is described as unfocused, with a lack of cohesive visual storytelling. Overall, the technical aspects contribute minimally to the film’s effectiveness.

Character & Emotion

When evaluating character and emotion, the acting is consistently criticized as flat or terrible, with a few isolated mentions of solid performances. Character motivations remain unclear, and chemistry among the cast is described as weak. Although one reviewer notes competent acting in certain scenes, the dominant view is that performances hinder audience engagement.

Story & Flow

Story and flow receive the harshest assessment, with reviewers calling the plot incoherent, overly predictable, and devoid of original ideas. Unanswered questions, a linear “point‑to‑point” structure, and a cliched climax are repeatedly highlighted. The narrative fails to sustain tension or provide satisfying resolution, resulting in a largely unengaging experience.

Sensory Experience

Sensory experience is marred by an irritating score and overbearing sound design, according to several critics. While some praise the professionalism of violent scenes, the overall audio mix is described as disruptive. Visual effects, such as fake blood, are noted as low quality, limiting the film’s atmospheric impact.

Rewatch Factor

Rewatch factor is low, as most reviewers deem the film a waste of time and lacking replay value. A minority find it edge‑of‑seat for genre fans, but the prevailing sentiment is that repetitive viewings would not improve the experience. Consequently, lasting appeal remains limited.