This film falls under what I like to call "commercial horror", that being produced by a large, Hollywood studio for as wide an audience as possible. In that, I guess it's a success. Where it does not succeed is providing the horror-savvy viewer with anything new or interesting.
This film and it's director/writers borrow from other films in the genre (the Sixth Sense, the Shining, the Others, Poltergeist) but any seasoned fan should be able to guess where and when the scares are coming.
The first half creates a decent tone but the tired, horror clichés tend to skirt away any real tension and the overuse of sudden, jarring musical/audio cues jolts the viewer more than any of the imagery. It's as if they didn't think the movie itself was doing a well enough job of conveying the frights so they decide to hammer you over the head with loud noise to indicate that THIS PART IS SUPPOSED TO BE SCARY!! GET IT???!!!
The cast seem to be more horror stereotypes or caricatures rather than real people we can identify with and even Patrick Wilson, who is usually very solid, gets a little cartoonish towards the end. Things start to come off the rails in the third act as the film struggles to find its identity, especially when it can't decide who is really the villain: rip-off Darth Maul/goat man or the rip-off 'Woman in black'.
If you are a horror newbie, you might enjoy this but for the 'smart mark' viewer, you've seen this before and executed better in other films.
Is anyone else really tired of unresolved, open endings that allude to an obvious sequel? I know it's about trying to milk the marks for all you can, but I think it leads to lazy writing, and this film is proof.
This film and it's director/writers borrow from other films in the genre (the Sixth Sense, the Shining, the Others, Poltergeist) but any seasoned fan should be able to guess where and when the scares are coming.
The first half creates a decent tone but the tired, horror clichés tend to skirt away any real tension and the overuse of sudden, jarring musical/audio cues jolts the viewer more than any of the imagery. It's as if they didn't think the movie itself was doing a well enough job of conveying the frights so they decide to hammer you over the head with loud noise to indicate that THIS PART IS SUPPOSED TO BE SCARY!! GET IT???!!!
The cast seem to be more horror stereotypes or caricatures rather than real people we can identify with and even Patrick Wilson, who is usually very solid, gets a little cartoonish towards the end. Things start to come off the rails in the third act as the film struggles to find its identity, especially when it can't decide who is really the villain: rip-off Darth Maul/goat man or the rip-off 'Woman in black'.
If you are a horror newbie, you might enjoy this but for the 'smart mark' viewer, you've seen this before and executed better in other films.
Is anyone else really tired of unresolved, open endings that allude to an obvious sequel? I know it's about trying to milk the marks for all you can, but I think it leads to lazy writing, and this film is proof.