User reviews

The film is one of those very very slow burns. It's kind of one of those "is anything happening or is he/she just nuts?" Types...but once you realize what's going on it picks up slightly...still, I will say it is very slow all the way through...but it's acted well enough. Although it IS one of those "why not just leave way way way earlier!?" Types.

Also, the twist ending...didn't love it, I'll admit I didn't much see it coming, but that's only mainly because the twist didn't make a lot of sense ...it left me saying, "but why? What's the motive...?"

If you just want a chill horror film ...you'd likely like this, but don't expect tons of scares or violence.

I'm pretty sure this was made on a very low budget and if so, my compliments. This looked pretty good with a few very nice shots in terms of cinematography. Acting was pretty solid and good buildup of atmosphere. The story however was standard horror, apart from the twist at the end attempting to make this film stand out.

This movie is really boring to watch. The story is not too bad, so I am giving it a 3. Painfully boring. I made it through the movie, but will never get that time back again. Not worth watching.

Sorry but i have not written any review in years, and trust me i know what good Horrors are been watching them for 30+years now. Surely this movie is acted realistic, and also in real-life realistic can be boring rite? But this film besides being extremely slow you don't get any feelings for the actors. And after watching it for 50 minutes i had to skip frames and i wish i did that earlier, if you don't take me serious just go-ahead and be bored. I could not take this one positive comment so everyone else like you is going to give it a try, please don't ok. I did not waste 50min of my life like every reviewer says, it is just not good enough to enjoy. Better skip this one, sorry to the film makers cause i don't like to criticize. Your welcome fellow Horror-fans! (3,5 out of 10)

"3rd Night" is a movie that should have been better. It appears to have the material to be good. It's convincingly acted, and has a final scene that is effective and makes you wonder why the whole movie - or at least any other moment - couldn't have been that good.

For something like this, you need a filmmaker who holds you in the palm of their hand, like Ari Aster would. Instead, it fails so utterly at the level of pacing that any effectiveness is lost, and you wonder what the point is.

The movie, near as I can tell, is about a couple who move into a farmhouse and find themselves monitored by a mysterious and malevolent presence.

What's weird is... they don't seem that bothered by it. Obviously, in horror, people never act until it's too late: if they did, there'd be no movie. But here it's like they forget all about the threat of danger, so of course, so do we.

You wait for the movie to start engaging you, and when it doesn't, you wait for it to end.

Good acting, weird, nice twist ending. The way it is set up in chapters was a nice change from the typical thriller/horror movie.

So glad I disregarded the less-than-6 rating. This movie is a delight, and not only because the director's cat is in it AND is given a credit wherein he has a last name. There is so much more; for one thing I was actually ratcheted up, tense-wise (fear factor). I dreaded certain scenes, watching through my fingers. Best of all, the twists are as logical as they are unexpected. A good time was had by all. A couple move to an Australian orchard surrounded by natural bushland to escape the madness of modern life but are terrorized by the mysterious Watcher.