Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

PlatinumRead Just so...so bad

Brooklynn There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

lincoln-maurice To get it out of the way: "Saw" has its similarities. A psychologically scarred protagonist who kidnaps a bunch of people. There is some reason for the people he selected. Could it be that Saw plagiarised this film in that respect? Possibly. The general synopsis is rather similar between the two. Despite this, the similarities end rather soon after that (though there are some semantic likenesses such as being chained to walls and such) when you have a poorly acted film and even more poorly written script (which Saw does not suffer the same fate). To add injury to this insult, the cinematography is as psychotic as the central character. In some cases, have frantic camera work can be a plot device or push the story, but in Den, it's simply another distracting feature prompting more glances to your watch than are generally considered acceptable in an hour and a half period.Where Saw uses clever writing and plot twists that are realistic, and yet elusive, Den fails on these points miserably. It's plot is overly contrived and once the film reaches its climax, it soon after meets an anticlimax too soon and after some biblical facts being splashed about the screen, which were poorly investigated, the film ends.The characters were the strength of the film. The characters were all unique enough to hoard in actors willing to play them, and earned actress Dana J. Ryan a best horror actress award in an independent vote. The problem with the characters is that the film in its tenure took its cast through a frightful experience that taught them nothing and ultimately almost everybody had blood on their hands. The other issue with the characters was that their depth wasn't explored. Facts were shown about the characters. The revelation to the Doctor that his wife's pet name was known to Milton was an unrealistic reaction. It wasn't one of surprise, though nor was it one of inquisition. It was almost spoken atonally and without any meaning.The greatest flaw of the film was the writing, however the actors surrounding the words given were not nearly strong enough to make a bad script good. They even failed at making a bad script bearable.If you're interested in seeing films that bear similarities to Saw, see its sequels first and foremost. They're the greatest films of their "new horror" genre. Second to these I'd suggest is House of 9 featuring Dennis Hopper. But do yourself a favour and avoid Den in favour of this.Even see a Uwe Boll film before this.

moviemaniacslash With Saw receiving so much attention, it is only fair to note this film came first and adds an additional layer of realism, depth, and artistry that may only be produced on the independent scene. I cannot believe that this film has not made it onto video store shelves, especially in light of the fact that Saw was such a hit. Where this film shines is in its cast. The performances rank up their with traditional Hollywood fair and help to elevate the film above its humble independent origins. The film builds steadily and creepily towards its satisfying climax. While it does surround itself in a bit of controversy, the ending will surely get you talking and thinking. Not bad from a horror film. Check it out, you'll be thinking about this one for days.

snowleopard **Since I wrote the following review in 2004, a storm of controversy, and potential lawsuit has emerged by the makers of DEN against the production company that made the film Saw, with accusations of plagiarism. If you have seen Saw, and liked it, it would be worth your while to try to seek this film out.**I had a chance to see this strong film and am a bit surprised it was never picked up for any distribution, and hasn't really been seen or heard of since.The story is rather simple: A strange, intimidating man kidnaps 4 people, and chains them in separate corners in a large church basement. From here, he proceeds to psychologically torment them with various secrets he knows about them, all from his twisted, demented mind.The characters are very strong, the writing strong, and the acting strong. If there are two things that work against this film, and likely why it didn't get distribution (as of yet): It's shot on DV, and at times has somewhat of a video look, and at times somewhat hollow sound. This shouldn't bother you, as the film is about characters and acting.The other (more likely) reason is that there are strong religion overtones, or anti-religion overtones. When Den screened at one festival for example, a few people actually got into an argument about it, then a fist fight broke out! This is a tough, well written and acted, original film, as independent as it gets. If it sounds like something you'll like, you shouldn't be disappointed and it's worth tracking down. I'm giving it a hard earned "7" out of 10.

Circus-Szalewski I had the good fortune to catch a screening of this DV-shot feature at the 2002 Hollywood Underground Film Festival (at which it was named Best Feature Length Drama). Though I'm not certain I'd agree with the IMDb genre-listing of DEN as a horror film (guess it depends on what horrifies you), it most certainly lives up to the classification of a drama and a thriller. And it is creepy.The script is marvelously intriguing from the opening montage to the often snide tone of the intelligent dialogue, to the final frame. While that may seem hyperbolic, it is a fitting appraisal of a work which contemporarily explores the timeless impact of basic human nature upon personal and societal morality... and still manages to be engaging and entertaining. Equally important is that Greg Arce's cast is up to the challenge of the material from which there is no easy escape. Imagine Jean Paul Sartre's NO EXIT meets TAXI DRIVER and you might start to get the idea.The cinematography ranges from arty to voyeuristic to "no-nonsense-two- people-in-the-frame", yet weaves together well -- never making the viewer feel like they've left one film and entered another. Even some of the simplest shots of the opening montage can be interpreted to something much richer upon repeated screenings. Without giving any spoilers, I will say that the action of one or two shots (well into the feature) happened so quickly and/or in dim lighting that it left me a bit confused until I was discussing the scenes later with a friend. The shots may look fine when viewed on a monitor and the apparent lighting problem may just have been due to the projection system at the festival.Though the sound is not Hollywood-perfect (some of the sound edits are problematic as a main setting was inside an echo-y theatre and the echo sustain doesn't survive a cut here or there), in a work that is so dependent upon the dialogue, audio is certainly adequate. In fact, it's pretty darned good when compared to many hand-held DV features which plague the viewer with that "single-mic/reality-show-flat-sound".At a time when DV and the home computer have brought a tidal wave of do-it- yourself filmmaking with bold to boring stories realized in laudable to laughable production values, DEN is a fine example of what is achievable from a true auteur... far above the indie DV features which look/sound/feel like they were shot at a community theater gathering.I eagerly await the chance to see DEN at another festival in the future and hope that Mr. Arce's next works are as thoroughly engaging. 8/10