Another

Is this a masterwork? No. Is it a steaming clod of crap? No again. MARK OF THE WITCH aka ANOTHER is best approached from the indie mindset. The fact that several reviewers have labeled or described the movie as a "giallo" is helpful, for it gives me a perspective from which to base my review, one that has particular implications. Giallos, generally speaking, place emphasis on style over narrative coherence, and this film is no exception. There's something about an 18-year old girl learning her birth mother is a witch who wants to take over her body as some sort of renewal ritual. She has lived with her aunt, an ex-nun who seems to have once been a witch herself. Said girl has a number of quasi-psychedelic hallucinations, punctuated by blackouts during which she does horrible things to the people in her life. It all culminates in a showdown between the girl's mother and aunt, with a bleak ending. Breakdowns in logic abound, like why and how a girl who's just turned 18 is allowed to work and dispense drugs at a pharmacy, and why the pharmacy, that appears to be no bigger than a good-sized walk-in closet, has a janitor. It doesn't matter, because details like these take a back seat to stylized visuals,lurid colors, oddball camera angles, weird imagery, and (normally) copious amounts of gore. This film has most of these things to burn (excepting the gore). Leading lady Rojas is strikingly gorgeous: slender and leggy, with huge dark eyes, she reminds me of the sexy European actresses that appeared in many a late 1960s/early 1970s giallo. If you can appreciate the visual style of the movie--which is what I believe the filmmaker was focusing on--then there's much to appreciate.

This is a film about a pretty young lady (Jordyn) who was told that her mother died when she was born. She has been brought up with her aunt, and has two friends (whose appearances in the film are as props for the horror rather than as part of any proper plot). Her aunt is a former nun who dies at the start of the film. Jordyn is haunted in various ways after her aunt dies.

I struggle to find any upside to this film. There is hardly any plot. The horror starts early on and carries on at almost the same pace throughout. A good horror film has changes of pace. If the horror is continuous, then you don't get that shock that makes you jump up in your seat. There's nothing very original here. Many of the scenes are reminiscent of other films in the horror genre. The attempt to include religion was very clumsy. In addition, ridiculing Christianity feels a bit old-fashioned now. We're not living in the 1960s any more.

I seen this one under the title Mark Of The Witch because marketers still need to ride the witch wave for sales. The film has a young lady celebrating her 18th birthday which begins to set in motion her true destiny of becoming Satan's sorcerer. Dreams and reality are soon blurred as her transition begins.

The effects were pretty bad but for a low budget I guess they tried. They were doing some kind of Matrix witchery when everything was slowed down and the witches were fighting each other. The acting wasn't bad for this flick The story was screwed up the way they conveyed it, even worse when we watch five minute intervals of slow motion scenes. Someone had a wonderful vision but I just didn't see it.

My other bitch about this witch is it ended after 69 minutes and then 10 minutes of credits. The credits were even done slow motion. Do not bother with this one.

Besides the crow motif, this film is nothing like the Omen films. It is at best, artistic soft porn - without much porn. The plot and the acting are atrocious. Don't waste your time. Antichrist - with William Defoe is a much better horror film.

Besides the crow motif, this film is nothing like the Omen films. It is at best, artistic soft porn - without much porn. The plot and the acting are atrocious. Don't waste your time. Antichrist - with William Defoe is a much better horror film.

Besides the crow motif, this film is nothing like the Omen films. It is at best, artistic soft porn - without much porn. The plot and the acting are atrocious. Don't waste your time. Antichrist - with William Defoe is a much better horror film.

This movie was dreadful. Everything about it was just embarrassing, from the half-baked premise to the sophomoric acting, it looked like a film trapped in the worst part of 80's films, but with a 2016 face lift. The worst offender is that 3/4 of the movie is filmed in slow-motion. You read that right, almost the entire movie literally moves at a snails pace, and why this directorial decision was made I will never understand. What I do understand is that the people responsible or this movie should never go near a computer or a camera ever again, and I will make sure that I NEVER partake in any of their subsequent festival of feces that they call "movies". This movie is as bad as you could possibly get, and just when you didn't think it could get any worse, it dives off a cliff to remind you that there is always worse. One of the most poorly realized films I have ever seen, it will be forgotten like the vomit covered garbage that it is.

Anyone giving this movie anything more than the two stars it deserves has no taste, or has worked in the film and does not want to admit that their involvement was in vain. Either way, shame on you for not seeing that being involved with this crap is a failure to humanity. You are what is wrong with cinema nowadays.