Wages of Sin

With all due respect to zootie's comments I actually found a bit more positive in this movie. Perhaps it's because I've come off a recent run of really bad ones so by comparison this seemed much better than it really was..who knows. But it wasn't like it was putting me to sleep or anything...and truthfully I found the performances of Ashlie Clark (very nice looking!) and Brandon Michael to be palatable...certainly a notch above the rest of the cast. I do agree with zootie's estimation of the photography and production values...far superior to a lot of the "financially challenged" (politically correct term for low budget) horror flicks I've seen. With 2 fairly attractive females in the cast I was somewhat surprised that this film didn't take the usual "let's toss in some gratuitous nudity so more people will watch it" but I'm actually glad they didn't. Yes, the story tends to stumble over itself and the ending lacks a payoff but on the other hand I admire what the filmmakers tried to achieve and how they went about it. I assure you that although is not a great film, it is better than a lot of the other crap being released that I've had the misfortune of seeing.

Normally I would watch a movie and pass it on, this is a rare occasion.

Upon watching this movie, I was a bit surprised with how bad the acting was, I mean, I could make a better movie with stuffed animals and a 1960s Bell and Howell camera. Holy crap this was a bad movie.

I did have nightmares from it but not in the ways one would think, it was so bad I got nightmares. So, if you're looking to waste 2 hours (it feels like an entire lifetime) and get scared because of how god awful it is, be my guest.

A young woman inherits a house from her biological family whom she does not remember. The family has a few dark secrets, and the spirits of the dead refuse to remain silent, particularly an overzealous preacher.

Ashlie Victoria Clark is a beautiful and capable actress, as other reviewers have pointed out. However, that doesn't prove to be enough to save this boring film with a weak script and average directing. This is the very definition of a forgettable film, and I've already begun to forget it a mere thirty minutes after watching it.

Clark tried her hand at acting a few more times and fell silent after that. I blame this film. She gave her all, but was derailed by appearing in a cruddy movie. Don't bother to watch it. It's available for cheap as a 4-pack, but the only good film in the pack is "Roman", so just buy that one by itself and you'll be fine.

This not scary. It has an awful story line. It has an awful ending. It is really bad. It has an awful ending do not see it. It is awful. It one of the worst horror movies I have seen. Do not waste your money do not see it.

I normally don’t comment, and leave movies be. As bad as some movies are, they at least deserve points for being done, for achieving existence.

Since no one else has commented, I thought it deserved some words (if only to warn other visitors). This movie does achieve existence, but it seems little more than an acting class project, and these students have a long way to go.

Acting is bad, and in the few instances when the story might actually go somewhere, the moment is spoiled by the actors’ reaction.

The story starts OK (a bit slow), and looked interesting enough (for when in the mood for a a young-adults thriller/supernatural/slasher), but from there it just goes everywhere. It jumps from psychosis to psychopath to zombie/possession, supernatural thriller, bible fanaticism, and ghost story without building up much suspense or sympathy for the characters, just a stream of scenes w/o enough coherence to tell a complete story (continuity gets worse over time, spoiling the dream/clairvoyant sequences all packed together).

Photography and production seemed adequate (professional enough) for most of the film, it just fails to tell a story, and gets lost in all the formulas and clichés it uses. Acting and production get progressively worse, and it falls apart at the end.