That cover got me good. That art is really something. It really looks good with "hidden" demons and other things lurking in the shadows, this made the movie look intriguing. Unfortunately the movie did not look and feel the part once I started watching. But I thought, well another movie that hasn't aged well .... Until I looked on the cover of the DVD (after watching the movie) and realising this is only 11 years old! No excuse for that camera then.
I guess you could excuse the "acting" if you wanted to, but even movies with small budgets can do great things. And if it isn't from the acting department, at least something else has to be there, to elevate it above others. Nothing to find here though ... Maybe this was or can be seen as a stepping stone and the filmmakers went on and learned from this (though nothing in the filmography points to that), but as it is I'd tell you not to watch this/waste your time (the blood effects and not that redeeming to help too much with the rating either)
I guess you could excuse the "acting" if you wanted to, but even movies with small budgets can do great things. And if it isn't from the acting department, at least something else has to be there, to elevate it above others. Nothing to find here though ... Maybe this was or can be seen as a stepping stone and the filmmakers went on and learned from this (though nothing in the filmography points to that), but as it is I'd tell you not to watch this/waste your time (the blood effects and not that redeeming to help too much with the rating either)