Gladys_Pym

OK. Good premise, good cast, good money. And then - a kind of slow, almost leisurely, but basically rather sad, car crash. Nobody cares about anybody. The parents are so self-obsessed I felt like putting a brick through the screen. It's a good attempt, well (enough) done, but there's really just no-one to like. At all. In the press (here in the UK) there have been a few pundits saying there will be fewer films but they'll cost more. This wasn't cheap, and has decent production values. It's the script, I suspect. If you're a BIG fan of a cast member, then go for it. Otherwise it's a stretch.

4 out of 10. Not awful, just a damp squib.

Interesting, isn't it, how some films divide opinion? I really liked this film. There's a decent back-story - in fact two decent back-stories, to be accurate. Good cast, with one or two established actors and a couple of decent new finds. There are a number of gripes about found footage - well, it's not a found footage film, it's actually a beautifully shot horror film, with a few bits of found footage, which imho fit very well to up the tension. I think one of the main 'difficulties', though not for me, is that that the director/writer Steve Stone hasn't fallen for the post-Saw generation of boy-pleasing gore films. This isn't a gore film. It's a horror film, and a really good one, at that. So if you are prepared to sit back, (if you can do that while spending much of the film on the edge of your seat), and watch a really fine film but with a low tits and gore count, then I recommend this film wholeheartedly.

Where on earth do you start with rubbish like this?

There are two reviews as I write this. Both are positive. That males them seriously biased.

The storyline talks about 'Indie horror mainstay' John Vincent. That means he's made three films in 15 years.

He's directed, edited, produced and written them. Oh, and written the music. And presumably done the sound and chosen the 'actors', because all of these tasks are done at around the same level. Really, REALLY badly.

There are long, and I do mean, long, unedited shots of, for example, a priest getting to work unlocking, walking around, taking books out of a cupboard, sitting down, opening the books, making VERY LARGE notes, and so on. Also an inordinately long and boring on foot chase.

All of the suspense, if we could call it that, is spoilt by a sound track which sounds like bad dubbing, but isn't. It just all sounds post production and no-one noticed that it was done in a basement with bad acoustics.

No stand out performances, the best, Michel Bugard, ruined by some really rubbish 'special' effects.

And, now I come to think of it, WHY? Why would vampires, (admittedly vampires dressed in sheets - nice touch), want to kill everyone? Don't they need blood to survive? Why slaughter lunch when you need lunch to stay alive?

To be fair, this may be answered later in the film. I could only manage 30 minutes. And I somewhat resent that.