Reseñas de usuarios

I really wanted to love this movie. It promised all the Agatha Christie like elements I love. Secrets to be revealed. An eclectic group of very flawed characters in a confined setting. Class differences. A spooky mansion. Dark humor even.

But we quickly lurch into blandness and predictable plotting. It does not help that eight of the 12 characters are sent away at around the 20-minute mark after abruptly revealing their not very creative secrets. I had wanted to know more about each of them. After there abrupt departure some crosses and double crosses. And a series of flashbacks, one with very strange CGI, and a few bedroom scenes, one of which might be a bit of a surprise to some viewers.

The acting is community playhouse level. Madame Orlofsky, the psychic, (Triin Lellep) has an especially silly "Russian" accent and with the overacting reminded me of Natasha in the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon. The screenplay is full of plot holes, the directing pedestrian at best. There is not much in the way of visual interest in the sets. The characters are bland, not as villainous or "off" as they should have been.

Any positives? I understand that parts of this film may be a homage to the Hammer films of the 1950s and 1960s. Maybe. I've watched most of them, and this really too much of an inside joke for me to get.

The only mystery is why The Sixth Secret called a horror. I note a number of reviewers here use the term, as do some of the synopses on other sites. Odd. It's hardly horror. More mystery, sort of, and lame dark comedy.

One of the most wooden movies I have ever seen. The acting..., what acting, I think they were reading from cue card. The characters... there was no characters. The plot well, from the moment the supposedly spiritualist or psychic turned up you knew how it was going to end. There was no one you could like everyone was hateable. The western culture and art has degenerated so badly that there is no good anymore. Everyone lies everyone cheats and we pat ourselves on the back for being clever and we say we outsmarted another out of what was rightly theirs. And in every single movie there has to be a perversion, and this one is no exception. Don't bother. I think I will watch an Asian movie, maybe Chinese at least in those movies there is still some on worth cheering for!

It really annoys me when fake ratings and reviews are used to bolster a film the producers know is absolute trash.

This film is absolute trash from start right through the torturous 90 minutes it is on screen.

It does nothing to try and be anywhere accurate to the time the story is set in, the accents are just awful, and the acting more akin to a high school low rate drama class.

The 'story' (for what it's worth) is contrived and forced nonsense which tries to be some kind of murder mystery - it doesn't get anywhere close - which has no mystery whatsoever and such a poor attempt at humour it is ridiculous.

Don't waste your time on this - really - it's terrible.

Well we all know the answer to the question but here it is anyway. Who would rate this film anywhere north of a 5?

Gratingly awful delivery, jarring fake accents and 1st year drama school acting make watching this film actually the less preferable option to sitting in a room and having someone scrape their nails down a blackboard for 90 minutes.

The plot seems to have been written on a napkin and then padded out every 10 minutes with a subversive twist. You might not know, or care, what the twist is, but you know it's coming because there is nothing else on offer.

This film is neither a homage or parody to classic movies it attempts to mimic. You'll have more fun and mystery putting a bucket of poop in a dark room and walking about until you knock it over.

Oh my. My wife turned on this movie, and it first I was happy to see what I expected to be another movie very much like "Clue," of which I am a big fan. Very soon it became clear that this movie was at a different level. A much lower level. If I paid five dollars to see that at my local amateur theater, I would've been satisfied. But watching this, even at home for free, was painful. I'm not sure why anyone thought this collection of actors, dialogue, and plot had any chance at all of being a decent movie. The actors all seem sincere, and tried very hard, but the acting just doesn't come up to a professional level.

The Sixth Secret - the horror comedy by Estonian filmmaker Mart Sander - was a rather surprising cinematic experience. Horror movies haven't been that country's strong suit (at least to my knowledge), and that alone makes it worth a watch. It's even more interesting to realize that the film is a parody of old Hollywood films - but not in a negative sense. Rather, it's a nod to a certain type of filmmaking that is no longer in vogue but deserves a comeback. By placing the emphasis on the dialog (which must be followed closely, as it contains several details that play a significant role later on) and keeping the action in the background, it demands audience immersion and assumes that the viewer is familiar with the vintage atmosphere and its associated boundaries. The film offers a pleasantly intriguing and witty narrative, piling on various elements of crime and horror films of yesteryear. The ensemble cast is very international, and it can be difficult to understand their English at times, as one needs to quickly adjust to their accents. Nevertheless, the story is humorous and handsomely filmed.

Okay, for the first ten or fifteen minutes this looked promising. It looked like a bit of Agatha Christi parody fun or maybe an attempt to continue the genre of the classic "Clue". ONLY things in it's favor are the great costumes and sets. As soon as the "psychic" character makes her appearance, about twenty minutes in, it goes rapidly downhill into the toilet. Most of the cast were written out by the end of the first half hour! The acting was high school drama class level; wooden and cliched with laughably poor accents. Amazingly poor accents! The dialogue was agonizingly cornball but not in a funny way. Just bad. The so-called plot was.... zzzzz... completely ridiculous. Nothing interesting, mysterious or near suspenseful happened. We finally just turned it off as we were falling asleep out of boredom. We found an old Mystery Science Theater 3000 and had some belly-laughs. I suggest you skip this stinker and do the same.

At one point you realize that this is a film with no positive characters at all, they are all crooked, backstabbing bastards so the viewer actually has no-one to root for. And that's when it becomes fun, because it breaks the 'good guy versus bad guys' routine and the viewer can enjoy these crooked bastards screwing each-other in a bad way, with no bangs of conscience.

Ironically, one previous reviewer laments the degeneration of the western culture, where there is no room for the good. He probably misses the point that this flick is not advocating evil, because these villains all get what they deserve.

A nice little parody with good twists. Too wordy perhaps, but I guess it's an adaptation of a stage play, and there's nothing wrong with stage plays.

This movie reminded me of the old movie "Clue." It's a whodunit with twists and turns all wrapped in that classic film noir style. I really enjoyed it... up until about 3/4 of the way through.

Of course, for no reason other than reasons... we have to have gay representation as a major plot point. Ever since the "awards" committees deemed it necessary to include every social agenda possible before a movie is even considered eligible for nomination, it is getting harder and harder to find movies without this being pushed on the viewers. If you - like me - couldn't care less what goes on behind closed doors, but refuse to participate in anything that promotes these agendas, then you may want to think twice about this one.... but know that that alone is it's sole drawback.

The worst part is when they spend 15 minutes explaining part of the plot that had been explained by it happening, (I'm trying not to spoil the "movie") I fast forwarded through a lot of this movie it could have been 45 minutes long.

This movie isn't horrible and the actors clearly self funded this and for that they should be commended , but they should have workshopped the script longer ............

They really should have called it we only needed 5 secrets well 3 technically

Its almost the plot of the movie that Chevy chase writes in funny farm where his wife says , how many flashbacks do you need, I think there was even a flash sideways.

I saw the premiere at the festival in Estonia, where this film took the audience by storm and received the Audience Award. It's surely a fun film, reminiscent of vintage horror-comedies of the 1940s, only the horror is more horrifying and the comedy is more sexy. It's a very complicated story of revenge and inheritance and murders and ghosts, but now as I think of it some days later, it also has a very strong message that what you do, just might come back to haunt you.

Quite a clever comedy with some genuine chills. Keeps you guessing til the end and then wraps up nicely. Love the 1930s decor and the dark low key atmosphere. The flashbacks are hilarious.

Confined to one room mostly this felt like a filmed theatrical performance, but then the flashbacks are introduced with some interesting cinematic elements, such as the monlogue being synchronized to the flashback images, which seemed rather witty.

There's an LGBT twist which I don't want to disclose but which was quite surprising. Actually there are two twists. Nowadays LGBT subjects are being treated with such forced respect that it was quite refreshing to see some fun poked at this matter. I mean, there are good LGBT people in the world but there are also evil ones, right? I'm an LGBT person and I liked the way this subject was interwoven into the narrative, whereas too often it's just an added element of political correctness that has nothing to do with the story.

The story was very twisted and complicated and you really need to concentrate to keep up with the twists and turns of it. Nice actors and overall atmosphere. I think it was meant to be comedy first, because there are some hilarious moments, but also good jump scares.

This film seems to divide people in two groups. Some find it very amusing and witty, a sort of modernist revamping of Agatha Christie clichés. Others fail to enjoy it at all.

True, the movie appears somewhat theatrical and stilted, but that's the artistic choice of the creators, because it's above all a parody of vintage horror genre (there were a lot of seance and clairvoyant themed films in the 1940s). Some people might find the acting irritating because it's rather over the top, but the ensemble forms a coherent whole. There are a lot of accents but I guess that too is something that Old Hollywood had, importing all those European stars.

It's a tad too talkative and eager to explain all the plot twists (and there are many), but at least I didn't walk away thinking 'this was utterly improbable'. Moody camera work and darkly suggestive music help to create the atmosphere. A couple of fun jump scares.

Normally I would give this film something like 8, but I'm a bit surprised by the lower rating. This is indeed a gordon bleu and it seems a lot of low rates come from the hot dog munchers. The problem is that you would need to know your classic cinema to understand, let alone enjoy this flick, which parodies several films from yesteryears. If you only watch recent teenage action films, give this one a miss.

I am an Agatha Christie scholar, who has researched her work for years. Does that make me a better viewer? Not necessarily, but a more attentive one. Over the years I've come across several films that attempt to exploit Christie's name, either by using some of her characters (like the embarrassing recent series Hjerson) or parodying her plotlines.

This film is quite obviously inspired by Agatha Christie's literary output. It playfully combines elements from several of her novels and short stories, but then adds another turn of the screw, throws in a couple of red herrings and arrives not at one, but three astonishing great reveals, while all the time keeping the viewer's interest up.

I heartily recommend it to all Christie fans.

If one doesn't have the necessary background knowledge in film history, don't even bother. You won't understand a thing. This plays on the stereotypes of vintage crime-horror-thriller films, making fun of all the cliches available. If you know the rules, it becomes hilarious. Great fun.

I think I'm in love with the moustached villain, such a handsome chap, could easily play Clark Gable, only better actor! :) The others were good too and I enjoyed it very much.

This film is pretty much a huge avalanche of the best and worst clichés of vintage horror films, all on top of one another like a massive wedding cake. It begins with a London police officer kneeling to a dead body, saying 'A lion? In England?' I burst out laughing, because this is a direct reference to a 1960s British horror film The Beast in the Cellar, where a police investigator says in the first scene 'A leopard? In Lancashire?'

To start with, I thought it's a serious horror film, but from that moment it was a lot of educated tongue in cheek fun. In every scene there are references to old film, mostly British (Hammer and Amicus productions). Some actors seemed just so-so in the beginning, but as the story develops, one realizes that there was a lot of 'acting within the acting'. A great deal of snappy one-liners. Kind of Oscar Wilde meets Ed Wood. Don't take it at face value or you'll be disappointed.