Reviews

People reviewing this movie cite a limited budget as a low key excuse for its lapses. Maybe to them a small budget can excuse things like poor script, poor acting and poor direction but not to me.

Poor writing -- the minute we're introduced to key characters we also have to endure the annoying melodrama of their lives which we don't even care about because we don't know them yet! Totally unnecessary goes-nowhere filler, inspired zero emotional involvement and gave me an eye-rolling migraine.

Poor acting -- everyone except the physician.

Poor directing -- it's simple things, like in the diner scene. Two working men (fishermen) with physically demanding jobs both order a hot juicy hamburger with chips and proceed to sit there -- wooden-like -- as the scene continues for over 5 minutes (!) without ever touching their food! Distractingly unrealistic. Obviously the director said "don't eat" but I've never seen two supposedly hungry human beings order food only to ignore it when it arrives. A director is an observer of human nature and observing others (and noting what is interesting about them) is FREE. Being street smart is free. Respecting the power of how a film can communicate fear or joy is free.

There were no elaborate costume requirements, no CGI costs, no set design or prop expenses. So i guess all the money went only to the logistics of filming.

Before you direct, or write or act in a movie again please study how humans behave because nothing in this movie was relatable and relatability can turn a "low budget" film into a cult classic. Here are some that were flawlessly executed on a tight budget: Halloween (1978), The Evil Dead (1981) and The Blair Witch Project (1999). You don't need a big budget to tell a story in a compelling and engrossing way.

1 star for the location.

"do you want me to go over the fireplace?" "no, i'm a city girl but i know how to light a fire. . . . where's the uh the switch?"

I enjoyed this movie and i usually detest romcoms.

this is well written, well acted, well edited and well directed. it has its charming moments and of course a few formulaic ones but all-in-all the cast and writing are so strong it works. great filming too. the music was fitting and the perfect punctuation to some scenes, especially that 10-second tune played as she raises the creative distress flag on her snow-wrecked car antenna. hilarious.

zellweger portrays a believable decisive corporate leader and brings great comedic timing and delivery to the role. i really enjoyed her in this -- she's a very strong lead and her humorous reactions at times reminded me of diaz in The Holiday. despite her corporate trained demeanor you sense a warmer spirit underneath if only it could be thawed, like keaton in Baby Boom.

connick, jr. delivers as always and the easy chemistry between the two makes their interactions relatable and interesting not cringey.

there are laugh out loud moments and only a spare amount of the sentimental romance stuff. and for a union girl like me this movie put the human back in human resources.

a delight.

6.5/10

I think these kinds of movies are the hardest to make because they rely on mood, relatability and intelligence rather than action, melodrama or shock value.

the intimate filming style brings us on location and we almost feel the deep warmth of the desert sun. inside Lucky's world is a sane, compassionate and charming community with an authentic balance of strength and vulnerability.

so well directed. lean yet rich with detail. and edited to move at a nice pace: not too slow, not too fast. great cast too -- you could tell everyone was fully committed to this project.

and of course Harry was perfect.

8/10

Flawlessly directed -- Webber is a genius -- flawless cast, haunting poignant score, rich cinematography, wonderful staging. every scene flawlessly filmed, with many being designed to look like rich still life oil paintings themselves. opulent in every way. well paced, well edited, great set and setting. a huge undertaking. every single actor was perfectly cast and played their role flawlessly.

and that ending -- with the camera slowly panning out from the painting, starting at the earring. just so well thought out.

for me, a rare 10/10.

That plays its cards close to the vest. and a cast of all stars doesn't hurt.

This film is more than it appears at first. well done with a great cast that took this project seriously so it works. well directed/well edited. Kinnear with his usual disarming sincerity is perfect for the lead. but really the entire cast is great. well done.

a pleasant surprise and a definite recommend.

7/10

Poots's accent and acting are distractingly awful. ruined the film for me. wilson, douglas and aniston dependable as always but not enough to fix this mess.

all in all -- a nothing burger yawnfest that thinks slick dialogue and fast action will hide the vacuity, inanity and one unfortunate casting decision (a critical fumble). i saw it for free and still want my money back.

painful. 2/10

While everyone else seems rudderless and flip-floppy, David Brian is unbeatable as a driven businessman with a complex compassionate side but who also knows his boundaries. worth a watch just to see how he handles his role.

6.5

The outdoor setting and the house were creepy. had a nice organic flow to it. actors were believable. probably could've used some tighter editing (mostly in the beginning) but i watched until the end and was not bored. wish it was a little more mind-bendy.

worth mentioning, the opening credits are uniquely and artistically presented.

give it a look.

5/10

This film is both minimal yet slick. it's very well edited, moves along at a nice pace, has an interesting plot, a great script and characters who are intelligent and believable -- and who make believable decisions. it held my attention from opening credits to closing credits.

the three main characters, particularly the lead, were flawlessly played. everyone involved in this film was fully committed to and believed in this work and that's what makes this production outstanding.

i am so tired of crappy movies using "low budget" as an excuse. don't pin sloppy lazy work on your financing when thinking is free. THIS is an example of how a low budget movie can still seem like a blockbuster.

i loved it.

7.5/10

Every actor did a great job. Caitlin Gerard has a way of clearly communicating her thoughts with the subtlest of looks which is powerful and refreshing.

gorgeous haunting setting, well filmed, great score, wonderful mood film with one standout truly creepy moment that i did not see coming. very interesting how the story unfolds. the costume and set designs were beautifully rich and historically accurate.

i watched this film then watched it again 24 hours later because for me good movies are that rare.

7.5/10

Reviewers who praise this mention its small budget. well you don't need any budget to have a brain and you don't need much of a budget to write an intelligent script, film with some style (other than point and shoot) or develop a plot.

this "movie" has none of these. and that house isn't creepy it's just ugly. like 1960s ugly and doesn't fit at all with the characters. nothing remotely scary and anyone who describes this as "terrifying" has only seen Hallmark rom-com movies.

dull (in every sense) and derivative. lastly the main actor is extremely weak. other characters do things that make no sense. all in all really bad.

hard pass. 2/10

Very well done. moody, believable, and some surprises. good direction, nicely paced, very strong cast. 6/10

This film starts out strong (creepy, interesting), begins to struggle-and-flail in the middle, and totally tanks in the end. we have two seemingly intelligent people who are so disconnected from their lives, each other and their jobs as parents that they are completely unaware of the degree of danger to their family by staying in that home (despite seeing evidence all around and in their children's behavior), and fail to protect them.

i mean they can't even properly light their home despite the menace that surrounds them lol. they were literally in the dark. (i took the poor lighting as the film maker's lazy attempt at "forcing the mood" of a chilling horror movie but in fact it was just frustratingly odd and distractingly annoying.)

the sloppy ending is a complete (and nonsensical) betrayal of the film's earlier promise and the strong rating on imdb is less a reflection of the film's "strength" and more an indication of how intellectually and cinematically deprived horror fans have become as a result of the dearth of truly scary horror films.

the acting is okay but for me the highlight of this movie are the non-diegetic needle-on-record and other muffled sound effects. those definitely added to the scary mood.

5/10

3 points for location and filming.

this lazy convoluted work was written by someone powerful's 20-year-old son. it jumps right over improbabilities and crashes headlong into absurdities. there should be a new category for dross like this: "insulting fantasy" because it doesn't just ask you to suspend your disbelief it asks you to completely disengage your entire brain. let's get stupid everyone -- do it for the scenery.

DM does her predictable (yawn) acting but her character would literally have to be upright-but-comatose to have followed this farce to the end.

so who will like this movie? gullible brain dead Lifetime channel enthusiasts. desperately hopeless romantics who question a-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y nothing.

neither scary nor compelling nor thrilling; just chronically boring. and witless.

and one final absurdity -- the artificially high score on imdb. so sad.

3/10

Sooo predictable, long lead time before "nothing" happens (lol), leaned heavily on the first movie (The Boy, which i loved) and desperately milked that film's mood and mystery bringing nothing of its own and added absolutely zero of merit or scares or surprises to the original. so why exactly was this made??

also points off for having a great setting and great actors (katie did her usual good job) and still failed stunningly. and that ending, boy, sure was absurd.

so this is who may like this movie: someone who has never seen a horror film. someone who has never seen a possessed doll film. someone who did not see The Boy.

3/10

One of my favorite movies. fresh, well written, well acted. intelligently funny too. flawless acting by Henry Rollins made his character believable and relatable. fully satisfying on every level. 8/10

Wow so many of the reviews that give this movie a high rating are so full of crap reasons it's hilarious. it's like "if we make it sound like you're just not hip/intelligent enough to get it you'll stop complaining about not getting it." but your fluffy analysis, bloated self-importance and "deeeep thoughts" will not save this flat flick. and i will tell you why.

first let me be clear --- i love moody movies that are thoughtful, metaphoric, slow paced, artistically filmed and do not rely on dialogue, noise or action to convey a perspective or carry a message. what those kinds of movies do rely on are gestures, music, expressions, emotions, setting and effective filming techniques.

this movie offers none of these. there was not one moment where i experienced even the slightest revelation about life and death or where i identified with the loss or alienation. not one moment where i was drawn in by an expression, transformed by the suffering, or inclined to feel anything from an authentic gesture of pain, despondency or distress. nothing surprised me, nothing destroyed me.

just cut-out figures with vacant movements imitating the most powerful of human events and emotions -- only to be standing so far from the nucleus of the experience as to render the impact mute and numb. it all seemed so irrelevant to me. just a complete lack of nuance --- around a very nuanced subject.

and while the ghost himself is cold and alienated, the film itself doesn't have to be cold and alienating. but i guess in that sense one could say it's a performative success. still, it fails to include us. it never considered me; never reached out to me. it fails to engage, to inspire compassion or to enable us to relate to anyone else in this film. but what could be more relatable than the fears around death, loss, and permanent endings??

in this way i found it NOT to be profound but to be profoundly self-absorbed; too head-up-its-a** to bother taking the time to bring us in to an experience, a feeling, a transformation. i literally couldn't have cared less about these people who seemed to be as clueless as we are about this whole affair. to me it felt like everyone phoned it in and walked off. turns out everyone is a ghost in this film; everyone is dead.

** a lil sidebar convo -- not a minor muddle but ghosts aren't poltergeists (those disruptive entities responsible for shaking things up). poltergeists are dangerous; ghosts rarely are. ghosts cannot interact with our environment because they're in another dimension. poltergeists are energy entities created IN our dimension and as such are able to feed off and act out the energy/intentions of the living (and, say, throw dishes) in a way ghosts cannot. poltergeists are the result of redirected intense emotional feelings and turmoil expressed/suppressed by the living beings in the home, usually those that are coming of age/entering puberty. ain't them hormones saints. **

but ohh those long shots, solemn stares and pompous reviews will save this hollow forgery of an "art film" that only inspires our ire because it offends our intelligence (and then implies we're stupid for being offended/duped --- "you just didn't get it, silly!") no, you just didn't deliver, silly!

to be sure, this is a film about a fatality all right. its own. 3/10

There are amateur movies that have a heart and a love (and a respect) for horror that make viewers take notice and appreciate the effort and then there are amateur movies that just don't give a fffff. this is the latter.

wooden g*d awful distractingly bad acting, so poorly written, and so not scary (or creepy, or eerie).

but the best, the best was filming a car scene in a stationary "car" (or cardboard box) on a set with projector screen moving scenery while the "actors" sit completely still like they're chatting at a table in a bar. there's no body movement at all -- no jostling no bouncing not even leaning lol. i mean if you can't even convince someone you're riding in a moving vehicle then you're probably not ready to convincingly deliver lines. and so we care nothing about these expressionless life-size cardboard cutouts who've cringingly flatlined.

what i don't get is how you can be motivated to make a film but then not care to make a good one.

honorable mention: that pumpkin patch of obviously fake pumpkins. wow. just wow.

all in all a glaringly lazy lack of effort (and, frankly, respect). 2/10