Riflessi di paura

These days, at over $10 per movie ticket, the question I most ask when I go to these review boards is...was it worth it? The answer to that question depends upon how effectively the movie brings its genre across to the audience...the interesting plots, the action sequences, the drama. Yes, perhaps I've seen the movie's take on these things before, but to me the movie's worth is defined by the movies own merits, not necessarily the merits of what preceded it...

We have I think all seen variants of what Mirrors is about, yet I still recommend it. I found it to be atmospheric and suspenseful (with some gore, one effect in particular will probably make your jaw twitch for the remainder of the movie), although the suspense wears off once certain things are revealed about 3/4 of the way through the movie. The atmosphere remains intact however, and the ending of the movie delivers an unexpected twist that brings the movie full circle. While I'm not likely to see it a second time, I found a single viewing to be a worthy investment of my time and my $10.50....

Another over-the-top American horror movie based on an Asian horror movie. Kiefer is alright but the other actors are pretty bad and the dialog is quite poor. Only the first third of "Mirrors" is any good. It's downhill after that as Kiefer tries to unravel the mystery of the mirrors. Instead of genuine creepiness, things jump out at every moment. And then there's the over-the-top finale which is unnecessary and awful.

I like the idea of abandoned places as the setting in horror movies. I watched the horror film "Session 9" after this and it was quite a bit better. The director knew what the director of "Mirrors" didn't know. Setting is crucially important in horror movies. "Mirrors" used the abandoned department store in its first third and then abandoned it for more scares outside. The film should have taken advantage of this setting and used it more. The film does backtrack to the abandoned store at the end of the film, but by then all mystery and suspense is gone from the place.

Maybe it's because I only heard bad things about this film. Practically every review said "disappointing," "skip it," etc.

So I got the DVD not really knowing what to think. I really liked Haute Tension and I like Kiefer Sutherland. Though the trailer made this look like Jack Bauer and Kim stop a mirror terrorist attack.

But once the opening credits started (with that great pre-credit scene), I was hooked.

Never once was I bored, and there were quite a few times I jumped out of my seat.

Maybe others figured out what the plot was all about, but it took me by surprise.

I found the film eerie, suspenseful, scary and well directed and acted.

And that house! not since Event Horizon have I see a production design so impressive! It was like another actor in the film. The people behind that work deserves an Academy Award, in my opinion.

I also loved the ending. Very un-Hollywood and while in retrospect it probably didn't make a lot of sense, somehow it 'felt' right to me.

All in all, I found this a refreshing take on a horror film... and considering the villain was a piece of glass, It think everyone did a great job.

Not sure why others didn't like it as much as I did, but all I can say I found it a very satisfying experience, and will probably watch it again one day.

As a remake of a Korean film of 2003 this film tells the tale of a guy that picks up a job as a night-watchman in what is left over of a burned down department store. What starts as a somewhat dull somewhat creepy job quickly turns into a living nightmare.

There have been at least a dozen horror films where the evil lived on the other side of the mirror - nothing new here. Most of them share the same build up as this one: get to know the victim(s), get to know the evil(s), see them getting maimed/slaughtered/eaten one by one - nothing new here. In effect, this film is like nothing new all over and it would be a standard run of the mill one if it weren't for the fact that most of the settings used are worked out pretty nicely and that the ending isn't the normal sloppy one.

I haven't seen the original but I am interested into seeing it now that I have seen this one. It might be even better.

7 out of 10 mirrors on the wall

A man and his family are terrorised by a supernatural force that is using mirrors as a way access their home.

I welcome Kiefer Sutherland with open arms as he's in the land of TV far too often. Although he seems to lack the great range of his father Donald, he is a great underrated actor. Mirrors gives Kiefer plenty to play with, but as with so many Asian horror remakes that have been spat-out recently and while Mirrors is one of the better re-workings, the story twist is something we've seen too many times.

No stranger to remakes director Alexandre Aja (The Hills Have Eyes re-do and 2010's Piranha 3-D) takes the viewer though paint by numbers stuff as Ben Carson (Kiefer), a former undercover detective, is forced to take a night time security job at a department store that was gutted by a fire. However, there is an evil lurking in the mirrors, an entity he must stop to save his family.

Lately, I wish all the PC's in the world were stolen so I wouldn't have to see another dodgy effect detract from an actor's performance. While some effects are modest it's the bad CGI that spoils some moments of scariness. When practical effects are used there's one moment that would stop you ever looking into a mirror and taking a bath again.

Jason Flemyng shows up for a brief moment but seems to take his pay cheque and disappear as fast as some of the eerie atmosphere. Between Paula Patton and Amy Smarts (almost a cameo appearance) the acting is above average right down to the child actors who are at no time annoying.

Overall, Kiefer leaves his mark and it may not be the most original horror but at times it is certainly is creepy, not since Poltergeist and Poltergeist 3 have mirrors been so chilling.