It started off intriguing, suspenseful, and interesting, but then it started to become stale, repetitive, bland, with improbable circumstances, absence of logic, and riddled with plot and technical issues.

And after a slowly paced 100 minutes of an incredible performance by DaFoe - the only reason I kept watching, the ending is not worth the ink the convoluted lazy screenplay was written with. It's all filler with very little substance, and merits no rhyme or reason this film was even made. It just all fades away as a waste of DaFoe's talents, and my invested time to watch this nonsense with hopes of some sort of grand finale.

Classified as a psychological artsy-type thriller, there's been many films like this done before and much better. As the second only film directed, produced and (co-)written film by Vasilis Katsoupis, his work was impressive, especially his camera shots, close-ups and angle choices. He captured the very best of DaFoe's talents. But Katsoupis could only do so much with Ben Hopkins' screenplay. Had Hopkins put more structure to the story, better plot development, and given us a more concrete conclusion, this film could've easily been more compelling than contrived. Sadly the results as-is, are a huge disappointment and I can't recommend this at all. It's a very generous 5/10, all going to DaFoe and Katsoupis doing their best with the terrible script they had to work with.

Plenty of people have commented already, both positively and negatively. I'm in the positive camp. I'll try to help you figure out if this could be for you.

Art, life, human experience, ecology, our place in the world and in our minds. That, for me, is what this film is mostly about.

Arthouse, yes, but gorgeously so.

If you are a student of film or cinematography or photography this movie keeps serving up shots you wish you could create.

Dafoe's performance is brilliant - in a subtle and internal way.

If you thought Aranofsky's Mother was worth watching, this is for you (although completely dissimilar). If you have enjoyed Baraka, Samsara and the rest, this is probably for you.

In terms of plot, it is minimal and has no thrills to speak of.

I think it's important to say that there's nothing wrong with not liking the film, feeling bored by it, not wanting to see it. Those who will enjoy it are not above anyone else - those who are disinterested are not below anyone else.

I hope this has helped someone.

It's a heist-gone-wrong psychological drama set in modern times in New York City.

Nemo (Willem Dafoe) is part of a gang of art thieves. He is the one who breaks into the penthouse of a billionaire art collector who is away on business in Kazakhstan. Nemo successfully overrides the security system and finds three of the four Egon Schiele art pieces he seeks. However, when trying to leave, the security system malfunctions, locking all exterior exits and disrupting some mechanical functioning, including the phone/intercom system and the water supply to the kitchen and bathroom.

Nemo is trapped for some months. "Inside" follows his escalating efforts to escape, primarily through a hard-to-access skylight, and the impact of the entrapment on him physically and mentally. These include hallucinations about the man whose art he is stealing (Gene Bervoets) and a cleaner he calls Jasmine (Eliza Stuyck), whom he sees on a security monitor he can still access but not communicate through. Nemo makes occasional surprising discoveries and creates his own work of art as his frustration mounts.

"Inside" is not based in reality, as there are too many logical flaws. Instead, the viewer is meant to consider the deeper meanings of the cages we find ourselves in. Willem Dafoe does a fine job with an imperfect script, which is good, because he's in every scene, with other characters showing up only on a monitor or in his hallucinations. If you really like Dafoe's work, "Inside" is worth watching. On its own, it falls short.