Doesn't deserve the low rating it has on IMDB. I wonder if that's because of the ending.
I'll admit I didn't quite get it at first, and only had my eyes opened by a couple of informative reviews afterwards.
When she kills the couple, she isn't actually possessed by the demon. She kills them in order to entice the demon back to her. In her earlier moments of loneliness, the priest rejects her by not staying for her performance, Rose rejects her by not looking after her as the headmaster had asked, and so the devil takes control of her when she's at her most vulnerable (The devil inside her responds to Rose later on with "You had your chance!") Only this demon has shown her any kind of companionship, but breaks down at the end when she realises that even her crimes have failed to bring him back to her
Slow burn, you say? More like a fizzling damp squib. Aimless and directionless - a classic example of how an amateur director and poor script can reduce talented actors to cardboard cutouts of themselves.
The sound design and score were all over the place - also not surprising, considering that the director convinced the studio to hire his inexperienced musician brother over someone decent. Zero grasp of the contrasts between loudness and silence that work so well in the best horror flicks. It actually feels at times as though random sounds are being fired from an Introduction to Horror sample library every thirty seconds or so.
Some have said that there are many 'clues' throughout that make a second watch of the film a requirement. However, I can't imagine why I'd want to re-watch something with such little payoff and underwhelming characters just to 'get' the story (it's really not a difficult one to grasp the first time around, courtesy of the director's gratuitous use of flashbacks, and replayed scenes from different character POV's).
The only thing really going for this yawn of what feels like an extended student film is its relatively short running time...
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 3 of 3
Kenneth McMahon
Doesn't deserve the low rating it has on IMDB. I wonder if that's because of the ending.I'll admit I didn't quite get it at first, and only had my eyes opened by a couple of informative reviews afterwards.
vendetta
simple story with good atmosphere......markymarcm
Slow burn, you say? More like a fizzling damp squib. Aimless and directionless - a classic example of how an amateur director and poor script can reduce talented actors to cardboard cutouts of themselves.The sound design and score were all over the place - also not surprising, considering that the director convinced the studio to hire his inexperienced musician brother over someone decent. Zero grasp of the contrasts between loudness and silence that work so well in the best horror flicks. It actually feels at times as though random sounds are being fired from an Introduction to Horror sample library every thirty seconds or so.
Some have said that there are many 'clues' throughout that make a second watch of the film a requirement. However, I can't imagine why I'd want to re-watch something with such little payoff and underwhelming characters just to 'get' the story (it's really not a difficult one to grasp the first time around, courtesy of the director's gratuitous use of flashbacks, and replayed scenes from different character POV's).
The only thing really going for this yawn of what feels like an extended student film is its relatively short running time...