10 Days in a Madhouse

I have watched many independent or B-movies. I have found that no matter how much money is at the disposal of the film makers, if they do not start out with a well written, well thought out screenplay....the film is doomed, no matter if every other department excels. The story here is interesting and unique and full of opportunities to deliver an outstanding cinematic experience but the screenplay fails to provide that important foundation. I did not like the voice over commentary of the female lead. She was speaking as if the experience was already over, as if she was reading parts of the article that she was to write after having been there. It would of been much more powerful, had they used the commentary to express her feelings about what she was going thru, as we witnessed it. Since in reality, just the visual performances were insufficient. And That's pretty hard to mess up, since the story/circumstances were placed in a great setting and full of experiences that would of made an audience very invested/involved and come to care deeply about the characters. Yet, it just failed to deliver that. Visually or verbally. The acting, was below average to amateurish. I didn't notice the score, and the editing was well done. The camera work sufficient. The plot a little slow and simple. The setting was good, the costumes (although not sure if accurate for period) seemed appropriate, and I did appreciate the manner of speech used as I understand it would be historically accurate. Problem with that accuracy tho, is that it only added to the detraction I already felt and kept me from really connecting with the characters. Bottom line, it all felt "aloof" to me. A great opportunity to share a part of history, that just dramatically missed the mark. Im hopeful that someone comes up with a well written screenplay based on this remarkable story and tries retelling this story again. This movie is OKAY. It wasn't a miserable and total fail...but I wouldn't recommend it unless you have nothing else to do, or you are particularly easy to entertain.

I've read the reviews written before writing my own, and I'm astonished by the low ratings and the reasons for that.

I didn't know the story, didn't know (anything about) Nellie Bly. But the movie showed all it had to.

The movie might not be of the best quality, you might expect more given all the digital techniques these days. But I kind of appreciate it, because it accentuates the time these things actually did happen.

I've seen reviews which said that Christopher Lambert seemed to be there mostly to give the movie 1 known actor, and that Caroline Barry did not such a great job at playing faking a mental illness. I don't agree on both statements.

Lambert hadn't the main role, he simply had the role of the main physician. He showed a man who, I think honestly, tried to figure out how to help his patients, but got terribly confused about what's right and wrong in how to realize that. Which has been sort of "good practice" for a pretty long time in medicine...

Barry played the main role, a woman who acts being mentally ill, in a time people hardly understood what mentally ill meant. Today's psychiatrist en psychologist would definitely not fall for the show she put on. We won't either. But back than? Don't forget, it's incredibly hard to fake a mental illness with our current knowledge, back than she could very well succeed with what Barry showed us on screen. Mainly because that was what a lot of men those days would expect from a mentally ill woman.

It is precisely that, what makes this movie a very catchy story that won't let go of you until the end. As a viewer I felt the unease, the emotions, the pressure, like it was choking me.

The story telling was just off. Like a singer that is off pitch. It's almost as if the film was done by 2 different production company's. One with money and a budget and one that was a film school project. I wanted to like this film I really did. But the acting was so 2 dimensional it was hard to watch. The sound editing must have been done with a cassette recorder. Every ding, bang, knock was picked up and used in the sound track.

Much of the acting was so sub-par it's astounding this ever made it to post-production. Christopher Lambert, the only actor of note in the film, is actually among the worst offenders; quite an achievement in this lot. Staggering terrible.

Wonderful storyline, but woefully underwhelming from an acting and screenplay/dialogue standpoint. Watching the "actors" converse in this movie was painful at times and reminds one of a film school project more than a serious picture. I've always trusted IMDb to be a good judge of films to watch. My personal experience has been that movies rated 6 or higher are typically very good movies so long as the content is to your tastes. That has changed for me over the past year or so though. I will take future IMDb ratings with a grain of salt.