Cynthia Sarob I was disappointed and expected more. It covers the religious occult topic and adds some frights.Not very scary and low budget.The animation of the creature could have been better in 2016. Reminds me of a computer game animation.The good bit is the voice of Vanessa Redgrave.Storyline is good but it misses something.I stopped watching this after 50 mins because I got bored.The acting is OK but the setting appears to be quite limited but it has its moments to be fair.

scottmannen1 This movie has a very low rating, one that it does NOT deserve. As this movie is more of a suspense building religious horror film designed for people who are interested in watching an intelligent "Hitchcock style" film that will grind on your nerves and make you look twice in the shadows. I am afraid that many viewers were expecting a slasher style blood and guts jump-scare movie. Not so with this one. Ghosts, demons and dark iconology scare the viewer into a dark place. This is a good film, one that achieves its goal of installing terror and making you think about it afterwards. Bravo to the director on creating something unique in a genre overrun with splatter fest and cheap gore.Watch this one if you have a keen intelligence and want something different.

Diedelmon It's weird they labeled this as horror. Well, maybe the horror comes from the realization in the end - your mother killed herself over loneliness and your guilt haunted you so bad that you had to hallucinate supernatural things in order to come to terms with it (and many other things). It's a terrifying situation, but this is no horror flick. It would be better depicted as drama. And it deserved more time - Vanessa Redgrave deserved to shine and dazzle us on screen. Certain aspects of it were undeveloped (it had a chance of turning into a very good horror flick on the dad, but they simply ignored it) and some were overrated (the thing with statues? Doctor Who did it already. I spent the whole time warning myself not to blink and remembering David Tennant's monologue on the Weeping Angels). But I found it nice. It didn't bore me to death, it had a surprise in the end, the atmosphere was good to follow, the acting wasn't bad... It's one of those movies you jut think "it could do so much better", you know? But I can't say it was bad. It was decent entertainment after all.

hoytyhoyty When I had just finished watching this film, last night, I needed to punch the writer in the face. For real.Clive Barker called this film 'Unique'? Really? Well I guess it is a completely new way to disappoint an audience.This is a style of writing I classify as 'Eggs In One Basket' - you are completely pivoting the entire plot on one thing impressing your viewers. Fail that, and the entire thing fails. And it did.I can see what the author was trying to do, and this is what I mean by 'redeeming features' - so much implied stuff, forcing your imagination to do the scare. That was rather nice, and very creepy.But they got something wrong, oh so wrong:They gave expectations.Expectations that were never delivered upon. Up comes the final scene and ...I'm writing this the next day now, which I made myself do - I needed to calm down. As I say, I badly wanted to punch somebody, the author being the most logical choice.Now that I've gained some perspective, and got over the bitter, stinging disappointment the film ultimately delivers, I can see some merit in it.But not much.3/10, up from 1/10.Now don't do it again!