I think the creators were going for something cerebral but overshot. Obviously, if you made it through high school Language Arts, you can recognize Dante, so that sets the stage for a moderately educated audience. There's much confusion and the ending doesn't solve anything. I'm starting to think that was intentional. I think they decided to leave it to the audience to discuss and dissect over cigars and drinks. But, it misses the mark to make it satisfying to the masses.

While Virgil keeps assuring Sam he is NOT dead, the ending kind of leaves you with that impression. While some reviewers suggest maybe MAYBE after the camera clicks off, he comes to, that's really pushing it to forsee a scene not there. But, "going up," "going into the light," the whole good v. Evil theme throughout, and his clear flatline on the monitor lead to the conclusion that he's dead. I mean, I expected the little girl to move or something and her parents to get excited, but they just sat crying. Now, Virgil did urge him to hurry, so maybe he needed to get to the roof before his body died? But, when LILLITH said that Monica and the cop had chosen, by going downstairs, I guess, they were clearly pronounced dead. So, it led you to think down = dead, up = life. But if that were the case, why do you need "the light" and the flatline? And why would death = evil and life = good? I mean, yeah, death sucks, but I wouldn't equate dying to evil. I feel like they needed to make a choice here: is this about good verses evil or life verses death, because making it both makes it convoluted.

One reviewer wrote that if you die in "the game", you die in real life, but that wasn't my understanding. I'm pretty sure Virgil said if you die, you come back but more confused and lashing out at everyone, which explains the old coma patient and Carter. If you die in there meant you died in real life, then Carter would have been done after the cop shot him in the head.

The other thing that wouldn't make sense if going to the roof into the light meant dying is how the main character Sam is learning and bettering himself along the way. What would be the point in him learning to think about others if he were just going to die at the end? That part makes you think he's going to come back to his life a new man and ready to focus on his wife and baby and be a good husband and father.

Bottom line: if they'd just lost "the light" and let you hear a heart monitor register life during the credits, I think a lot of people would have been happier and given better reviews.

Well, this movie certainly was in a league of its own.

I had not heard about this 2023 thriller titled "Disquiet" from writer and director Michael Winnick prior to stumbling upon it by random chance. And seeing that the movie had Jonathan Rhys Meyers in the leading role, I figured that chances were that it might be a watchable enough movie.

However, I opted to scroll through some reviews of the movie prior to watching it, and those weren't painting the movie in a good light. Yet, I still opted to give "Disquiet" the benefit of the doubt. Though, I ended up turning off the movie with just about 20 minutes left to watch. But I have to admit that I was bored senseless by that point, and just couldn't take more of the torment that is "Disquiet".

Writer and director Michael Winnick put together a very, very bland script for the movie. And there wasn't much of anything that really made much of any coherent sense throughout the course of the movie. It felt, for the most parts, just like the writer and director made things up as the shooting of the movie progressed.

The acting performances in "Disquiet" were fair enough. Not Jonathan Rhys Meyers finest work by any means, but watchable nonetheless. There were three familiar faces on the cast list here for me, that being Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Lochlyn Munro and Garry Chalk.

Visually then "Disquiet" was an okay movie. The special effects were fair enough, but nothing that had me impressed or anything. But it was just lacking that particular ingredient to make it outstanding.

For a thriller then "Disquiet" was a rather strange one. I am sure that there is an audience out there for a movie such as "Disquiet", I just happened not to find much of any enjoyment in the movie.

My rating of "Disquiet" lands on a very generous three out of ten stars.

Disquiet is a pseudo intellectual film, in the same way that M. Night Shyamalan films are pseudo intellectual.

You can tell they were going for a The Sixth Sense type of model here.

Though, it doesn't quite work as well.

The whole thing is effectively the same film as Wristcutters: A Love Story, just with people in comas, instead of people who have committed suicide.

However...it's just not very entertaining.

You strain to keep track of everything, knowing a big revelation is on it's way.

But it just doesn't hit like it should.

They got something akin to A Field In England going on- with angels and demons in play, to give it a bit of nuance.

Alongside a sort of Wizard Of Oz angle, where those trapped in this world must "learn their lesson" in order to escape.

But most don't.

And if you die in the game...you die in real life.

To be fair...there's definitely something to the concept.

It's actually a pretty cool idea (which likely isn't far off from the "real life" state of things - think, like The Matrix).

However, the story- and execution of the idea behind it- need to be improved.

I chock up it's failure to impress, to it's pseudo intellectual nature.

As it's just outside of that sweet spot in the middle ground.

Not being intellectual enough to please the cinerati...and too complex for your average Netflix viewer.

Meaning that it's not likely to please anyone.

3 out of 10 (for trying).