Disregard the 1's and the 10's. This is not a great movie, but it certainly is not a wretched one, either.
Paintings depicting the Seven Deadly Sins possess the owners and cause them to do horrendous acts relating to the sins. It is not a new premise, but it is done in an interesting manner.
There are many good things about the film. The location is good (I am sick of movies set in southern California). The plot has some interesting aspects. The acting was okay. (Reviewers who say this has horrible acting have never seen truly bad acting.) There is much gore, some nudity, and even a sense of humor. When Dorian Wilde wields a sharp knife, he says he got if from his friend, Jack. We know him better as the Ripper, we are told. Wilde is about to divulge the identity of Jack the Ripper (which is unknown and debated to this day), when he thinks better of it and says he will save that story for another time.
The only two things which annoyed me was the name of the evil artist and the behavior of the heroine. First, the name of the artist, Dorian Wilde, tries too hard to be clever. It is a mixture of the title character of The Picture of Dorian Gray (about a painting with strange qualities) and the last name of the author of that work, Oscar Wilde. I suppose it is better than horror movie makers who name their characters after famous horror film directors; I have seen too many characters with names like Raimi, Romero, Hooper, Carpenter, etc.
Second, the heroine suspects the family she is visiting is behaving strangely because of the paintings. She goes to the art gallery which sold the paintings and meets a priest who evidently knows something about the paintings. So far she seems bright and observant. Once the priest begins to explain the history of the paintings, however, she thinks he is crazy and runs out. Why did she even bother suspecting anything and begin investigating, then?
It does not end with the typical low-budget "everyone dies and evil triumphs" (though there is a little of that), so the ending was different, too.
I liked it.
Paintings depicting the Seven Deadly Sins possess the owners and cause them to do horrendous acts relating to the sins. It is not a new premise, but it is done in an interesting manner.
There are many good things about the film. The location is good (I am sick of movies set in southern California). The plot has some interesting aspects. The acting was okay. (Reviewers who say this has horrible acting have never seen truly bad acting.) There is much gore, some nudity, and even a sense of humor. When Dorian Wilde wields a sharp knife, he says he got if from his friend, Jack. We know him better as the Ripper, we are told. Wilde is about to divulge the identity of Jack the Ripper (which is unknown and debated to this day), when he thinks better of it and says he will save that story for another time.
The only two things which annoyed me was the name of the evil artist and the behavior of the heroine. First, the name of the artist, Dorian Wilde, tries too hard to be clever. It is a mixture of the title character of The Picture of Dorian Gray (about a painting with strange qualities) and the last name of the author of that work, Oscar Wilde. I suppose it is better than horror movie makers who name their characters after famous horror film directors; I have seen too many characters with names like Raimi, Romero, Hooper, Carpenter, etc.
Second, the heroine suspects the family she is visiting is behaving strangely because of the paintings. She goes to the art gallery which sold the paintings and meets a priest who evidently knows something about the paintings. So far she seems bright and observant. Once the priest begins to explain the history of the paintings, however, she thinks he is crazy and runs out. Why did she even bother suspecting anything and begin investigating, then?
It does not end with the typical low-budget "everyone dies and evil triumphs" (though there is a little of that), so the ending was different, too.
I liked it.