Charlotte Wakes

Is bad acting subjective, I don't think so, but it seems that a lot of reviewers don't know what bad acting is, I've been watching movies for 40 years and I know bad acting when I see it, I read the reviews of this movie and I've come to the conclusion that a quite a bit of them are written by people with mental issues, having said all that this isn't that bad and is worth a watch, I gave it a 5 which makes it a fairly average, but not bad, like I said most of the reviews are by people with hang ups or they just don't know what they're talking about, sorry kinda went on a rant, but judgemental people shouldn't do reviews, they can't be objective.

Boris Karloff enters with a bang complete with voice timbre and deadly pauses! Then the film declines from there, and by the end you ask yourself why you watched such silliness.

Charlotte (Aisling Knight) takes a job as a cat sitter for a creepy wealthy couple and, immediately after they leave, she begins hearing strange noises coming from upstairs. Perhaps their dead son isn't so dead after all and still lives in the house?

Director Simon Richardson knows how to shoot a movie and build up a reasonable level of tension at times, but his screenwriting skills leave a lot of be desired. The story could be described as House of the Devil, but with a ton of unnecessary padding. Charlotte has a best friend character who could easily have been made for an extra slaying for the body count, but she ends up being pretty useless altogether except for one well done jump scare towards the middle of the film.

Thanks to this and other detours along the way, The Sitter feels endless at about 100 minutes and could benefit from a little editing. At least 10 or 15 minutes could be cut including a few visual interesting but pointless dream sequences that appear to exist only to remind you that you're watching a horror film.

If The Sitter wasn't so well produced, perhaps its story crimes would be forgivable, but it's so obvious that the production team put such great effort in making this as polished and visually pleasing as possible which makes you wonder why they didn't spend as much time on the script.

One of the worst films I've ever seen, if you can call it a "film". The acting is atrociousness and laughable and the dialogue even worse, the man at the start sounds like he usually works as a Frankenstein impersonator at parties and not as a paid actor.

The fact that they're allowed to put 5 star reviews on the DVD case (and more so someone actually gave it a 5 star review) is baffling. Also, there's an unusually high amount of nudity in this film, and the monster is very weird and the "scares" are disgusting if you've seen this.

1/10: Truly, truly a terrible film

The last 1/4 is SUCH HORRIBLE RIDICULOUSNESS that it only gets a 1 star. The other reviewers weren't wrong, but I have to say I actually liked most of the movie. It was somewhat original, the acting wasn't great, but it was nowhere near as bad as many B horror movies. The house and surrounding area was extremely creepy and it really had the makings of something good, until ii didn't. Don't bother with this one, it's sadly a waste of time.