Una madre viuda y sus hijas incorporan un nuevo truco para reforzar su negocio de estafas de espiritismo al invitar a una presencia maligna a su hogar, sin darse cuenta de lo peligroso que e... Leer todoUna madre viuda y sus hijas incorporan un nuevo truco para reforzar su negocio de estafas de espiritismo al invitar a una presencia maligna a su hogar, sin darse cuenta de lo peligroso que es.Una madre viuda y sus hijas incorporan un nuevo truco para reforzar su negocio de estafas de espiritismo al invitar a una presencia maligna a su hogar, sin darse cuenta de lo peligroso que es.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 2 premios ganados y 7 nominaciones en total
Opiniones destacadas
First off, the scenes were beautiful. It was like watching a warm sunset. In addition, the direction and camera angles really enhanced the suspense and intensity. The special effects were also top notch and at one point I was like, "Whaaaat? That is cool".
I was pretty captivated throughout, although it did have it's clunky moments but not too many of them and they quickly worked their way out of them.
The cast did a superb job with the young Lulu Wilson pretty much stealing the show. I'll most likely be seeing her again in my nightmares. Annalise Basso, Elizabeth Reaser and Henry Thomas also did an excellent job so I don't want to sell them short either.
Overall this was a pleasant surprise with moments of nail-biting suspense. Definitely worth the watch on a dark and quiet night. Oh, and one other reviewer mentioned not watching the preview. I didn't so that might have helped.
This is a film that shouldn't exist, should never have gotten theatrical distribution and definitely shouldn't have attracted the likes of Flanagan (okay, he probably did this to increase his clout in the industry, but still). He musters some great work here, following familiar supernatural clichés but bringing his own touch to the proceedings.
The setting is beautiful, the characters likable and not completely square. The atmosphere is given time to build, he luxuriates in teasing and messing with audience expectations (as a way of spiting this, and goosing the audience lulled into a slow burn placation, he includes an explosive scene wherein the actual demon is seen shoving his fist down the little girl's throat. It's both too much and a necessary jolt at the time, a conundrum if ever there was one and a small encapsulation of everything right and wrong within this film).
It's too bad some of the nice work done in the first 2/3rds of the film is undone by a clichéd, boring, exorcism-lite finale. None of it is very scary, and it all has the feel of fitting into the "Ouija" franchise package, whatever in God's name that could mean. Considering the stakes here, what Flanagan does is still impressive.
It's obvious that Mike Flannigan is on his way to becoming one of our true masters of horror, but this film seems more like a paycheck movie for him and it shows. He does the best he can with the tepid material, but ends up using the old "distorted faces/mouths with rolled back eyes" effect a few too many times and it quickly becomes tedious.
Like all of Flannigan's films, it's wonderfully well cast and beautifully put together. I just wish they'd spent a little bit more time with the script. You might be better off watching Flannigan's Hush, Absentia, Gerald's Game, Occulus, or The Haunting of Hill House.
At the end of the final act, I was thinking "high-fives all-around, good job guys" and was about to give this two thumbs up.
And then, inexplicably, in the last 5 minutes the filmmakers revert to cheesy B-horror cliches making for a jarring denoument that simply feels wrong.
WTF? Was that studio exec interference or just plain bad judgement? Nope. Because it's a prequel (to a movie I haven't seen yet), I guess it had to end with a bridge to the other movie. But it could have and should have been better, so the truth is, it's just bad writing. The last few minutes just don't match the tone or narrative arc of the first hour and a half, and it comes across feeling like a cheap add-on. Not a twist ("cool!"), or a surprise ("gotcha!") just lame ("seriously? Pffthtttt!") (That's the raspberry sound, BTW.)
This movie should have wrapped up nicely at 1:27:25. If it had: 8/10.
With the dopey last 4 and a half minutes added: 6/10.
PS - If you can, stop watching at 1:27:25 and just imagine a better CODA; e.g., Lana, the sensible one, getting on with her life as best she can, and the Ouija board washing up on some beach like in Jumanji.
Perhaps it should not come as a surprise that "O of E" turned out so well. With the steady guidance of director Mike Flanagan (Hush, Oculus, Haunting of Hill House), one of the most consistent creators of scary stories in the business, we should expect high quality work. Once again, he delivers.
The story revolves around a recently widowed mother and her two daughters. At risk of losing their old, creepy and possibly haunted (definitely haunted) house, the mother resorts to work as a fake medium to make money, calling on her daughters to contribute to the ruse. Things get more exciting when the mother brings home a Ouija board, not knowing that sinister spirits would soon possess her younger daughter.
Then, as we witness the little girl's behavior grow increasingly strange, our goosebumps grow increasingly prevalent (because creepy little girls are a reliably freaky scary movie trope). The older sister soon suspects something, the little girl crawls on walls, and a priest shows up to help. That stuff is predictable and somewhat unoriginal. But this movie still works because of its splendid acting - the little girl, Doris (Lulu Wilson), is particularly impressive - and deft direction.
Mike Flanagan clearly knows how to run the show. He makes sure that "O of E" becomes a far cry from other horror movies of this ilk, which possess so little inventiveness in their direction.
With this film, we are treated to elegant camera movement, unnerving closeups, and evocative framing and angle choices that all appear purposeful and thought through. Instead of calling attention to an evil presence on screen with a hard cut, we simply see a shadowy figure crouching on the edge of the frame.
Flanagan also chooses to include limited jump scares and, mercifully, no fake jump scares. Fake jump scares are what I call those moments of building tension when the sound goes silent, then suddenly there's a blast of jarring noise that makes us jump out of our seats as the camera reveals a harmless friend character. It's a cheap manipulation, a dirty trick. We deserve better, and Flanagan gives us better.
Rather than turning to a loud and bombastic score to sell scares, Flanagan relies on the editing and our natural inclinations as viewers to feel scared. He trusts that when something scary that unexpectedly appears in front of us on screen, it will deliver chills.
"O of E" delivers a slow-building eerie viewing experience. There are no excessive bursts of violence. Nothing is over-the-top. It's a small-scale movie, but one that is nonetheless effective. I recommend it to any fans of possession movies, especially if you prefer ones devoid of gore.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe film was shot digitally, but director and editor Mike Flanagan, in order to add a retro feel to the film, added elements in post-production to give the appearance of a movie shot on film. Those include the 'cigarette burns', marks that appear every 20 minutes or so in the upper right corner of the frame, which were used to signal a change of reels for film projected.
- ErroresIn order to make the film appear more authentic for the time in which it is set (1967), cue marks, or "reel change" marks, are inserted at approximately every 20 minutes. However, the marks are oval when they should actually be circular, since this is a film presented in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio and not in a 2.39:1 aspect ratio. The only time the marks should be oval is if a film is projected with an anamorphic lens. On an anamorphic film print, the cue marks are circular, but the anamorphic lens makes the circle look like an oval when projected on a screen.
- Citas
Doris Zander: Wanna hear something cool?
Mikey: Sure.
Doris Zander: Do you know what it feels like to be strangled to death? First, you feel the pressure in your throat. Your eyes water, and you start to taste something very, very sour in your mouth. Then it's like someone lights a match right in the middle of your chest, and that fire grows. It fills your lungs, and your throat, and all the way behind your eyes. And finally, that fire turns to ice; like pins and needles of ice are sticking into your fingers, your toes, your arms. You see stars, then darkness. And the last thing you feel... is cold.
[Mikey looks confused and horrified]
Doris Zander: [smiles] Goodnight, Romeo.
- Créditos curiososThere is a post-credits scene with Lin Shaye.
- Bandas sonorasYou Gotta Move Me
Written by Dennis Michael Lacey
Performed by Mike Lacey
Courtesy of Crucial Music Corporation
Selecciones populares
- How long is Ouija: Origin of Evil?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitios oficiales
- Idiomas
- También se conoce como
- Ouija 2: el origen del mal
- Locaciones de filmación
- Clark Residences - 306 Loma Drive, Los Ángeles, California, Estados Unidos(the girl's school)
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 9,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 35,144,505
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 14,065,500
- 23 oct 2016
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 81,705,746
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 39 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.85 : 1