Boo (2005) User Reviews

Messy Ghost Story

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 9 July 2008]

The friends Emmett (Happy Mahaney), Freddy (Josh Holt), Marie (Nicole Rayburn), Kevin (Jilon Ghai) and his reluctant girlfriend Jessie (Trish Coren) decide to spend the Halloween night in an abandoned hospital. Meanwhile, the younger Allan (Michael Samluk ) meets the old friend of his father Arlo Ray Baines (Dig Wayne) and asks him to help to find his vanished sister Meg (Rachel Melvin) in the same spot. The two groups meet each other in the mental institution section on the haunted third floor and they find that they are trapped in the place. Jessie has visions from the past and discovers that the ghost of Jacob (M. Steven Felty), a former patient that raped a little girl and burned the hospital, is trying to escape possessing their bodies that melt down with his evil spirit.

"Boo" is a messy ghost story, with a confused screenplay and poor development of characters, especially Jessie. This lead character and her relationship with her mad mother are the key point of the story, but their stories are awfully disclosed. Further, the character Kevin acts like an annoying moron. The group using an old elevator that works in an abandoned building is ridiculous. However, I startled in some moments with the eerie atmosphere. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Hospital Maldito" ("Damned Hospital")

A cut above

[bugaboo-7 · 5/10 · 15 November 2005]

I hate using back-handed, "well it's better than the worst" compliments but, having seen my share of low budget horror movies of late, I must say that Boo! is certainly a cut above most of them.

It's well shot, creating an atmospheric and eerie feeling not generally found in the genre today. The effects are well done. The plot itself is solid and there are some clever laugh out loud moments.

On the downside, the pace drags at times and some of the dialog is weak in spots but not too much to be distracting. Also, there are a couple horror movie, "why the Hell are they doing that?" logic issues.

The biggest distraction came with some of the casting. Most of the actors are capable although not great, but I felt one of the main characters was weak. On the plus side, the villain is terrific. (Sorry about mixing my tenses)

Horror movies are a crap-shoot, usually more crap than anything else. But if you're looking for something better than most, I would recommend Boo! It's performance will make me keep an eye out for other Graveyard Filmworks productions.

BOO 'scare' tactics and bad acting, oh my!

[davitalvitch · 3/10 · 27 November 2005]

I was happy to rent "Boo" after reading that it was from the same producer as "Dog Soldiers," which I found wonderfully relentless. While "Dog Soldiers" is on my list of films to buy, I soon found "Boo" to be tedious. It is the sort of movie I began to watch in bits for it was becoming too aggravating to sit through in one stretch. While I appreciate horror films made on a small budget (and therefore, it can be assumed, made out of a passion for the genre and not a mere eye on box office returns), recent films, such as "Boo," rely on SUDDEN LOUD NOISES to elicit their scare moments. (It's the new 'screeching cat leaping out' gimmick.) This film made me jump once. However, when a film uses a LOUD NOISE or sudden ghost/killer reveal a second time, the impact is usually lessened, and when this happens a THIRD time, and then again, the 'scares' become predictable for the audience now knows the rhythm of the film, that whenever there's a quiet moment, there will be a JOLT, or whenever a character is about to move out of frame, the ghost/killer will be standing there. And really, what suspense can be given to a film when there is an overuse of a creepy little girl suddenly, without actually moving, advancing toward another character, accompanied by A LOUD SOUND. The squeaking, slowly moving wheelchair was much more effective for then a sense of dread was built, a 'What's going to happen?' apprehension. JOLTS just become numbing, and then boring.

I can forgive bad acting but there are certain true reactions to which we can all relate and when a character does not REACT the way that we would, that is when the amateurish performance becomes distracting. If my girlfriend/boyfriend or best friend is murdered, my reaction is horror and anger; in this film, there is shock (and one character gets very upset and weepy) but then everyone just seems to gloss over this and resumes looking for a way to escape the hospital. The murder then becomes a mere plot device, another 'reanimated dead' complication for our remaining cast to soon deal with.

Great use of a particular costume however, and it's always wonderful to see Dee Wallace Stone on screen.

I was scared by the horrible acting.

[MrTacchi · 2/10 · 24 May 2006]

I don't get to write much reviews on IMDb any longer, but this movie made me want to join the bad reviews people had been giving this film. It's unbelievable that it actually made such a high score! I'm really led to believe that the actors and the crew had been voting here.

The main problem in this film is the acting : is so outstandingly bad that it gets annoying. I didn't even care for the stupid plot, because the lines were so fake and unrealistic that I couldn't focus on the story at all. I think the director should have dubbed the movie all over, maybe that would've helped a little. The actors lacked any kind of emotion expressions whatsoever. Some may blame the low budget here, but I don't think that's a excuse for such a bad execution. For example, in one scene, a moronic blonde dude is watching his best friend turning into a monster, right in front of his eyes , and instead of being shock or held disbelief, he starts screaming(calmly and not-that-convinced) to the one guy that is trying to shoot the monster "don't kill my friend, he is my best friend" ; and when the monster finally gets shot, the moronic blonde dude starts complaining "you shot my best friend, I'm gonna call the cops" but the cops don't take his call rightaway, so he decides to break the cellphone, his one and only way to communicate outside (they were locked inside the haunted house)... Really, a painful movie to see.

What a load of boo-s**t.

[fedor8 · 12 August 2007]

It lasted 90 minutes, yet it lasted a century. I've rarely been this bored with a movie, and I've seen many dullards...

Idiotic dialogue, amateur acting, even bad scene transitions are the hallmarks of this writer/director. The plot is basically this: dumb teens go into haunted building, they walk around and see a ghost. Then they talk. Then they walk around again - and talk. A ghost appears. Talk. Walk. Ghost. Talk. Walk. Ghost. You get the picture. More than an hour of the movie is THIS and nothing else. If someone were to tell me to try and memorize the order of events in this piece of crap it would be a feat. Not that this implies the movie was eventful because it wasn't, at least not in a good way.

In particular the guy playing the jock was very unconvincing. Although, in his defense, his character was given an I.Q. of 12 and a half, which is too low even for a blonde jock in a dumb teen horror film.

Yes, and there were logic problems. What else...

Insufferable...schlock of the worst kind...a stupid waste of time...

[Doylenf · 2/10 · 27 August 2006]

SCHLOCK would have been a better title for this absurd excursion into a poor excuse for a fright flick.

Nothing redeems it. Not the story, the sub-par acting from a mostly teen cast, the witless dialog, the tired old explanation for all the goings on, and the complete lack of logic.

Whenever things get dull, another fright scene with someone gurgling on blood or turning into a gooey monster of decomposing flesh, is supposed to provide the kind of shock appeal to target a young audience.

Let's hope the kids today are a bit more discriminating in their taste for horror. This one is below the mark all the way.

The only redeeming feature is the sleazy look of the abandoned hospital grounds. Enough to make your skin crawl, disgustingly dirty, rundown and evil looking.

But the story and the characters are an insult to anyone's intelligence, poorly acted and directed to make this a complete waste of time. A writer like Stephen King could have done something with the basic idea--but it's too late now.

Made me want to kill myself in the face.

[myrothe · 1/10 · 24 October 2006]

Well, Sci Fi channel was "treating" viewers to an all day long horror fest. BOO was the only one I diddnt recognize so I decided to give it a shot. Man was that a mistake.

This movie was so amateur on so many levels where do I start?

First off this movie was not even remotely frightening. You would actually be amazed at exactly how many times this movie manages to not scare you. The special effects are third rate. Which actually brings me to another point, in a HORROR movie exactly how do you manage to get the color of blood wrong? I mean isn't that the very FIRST thing you get right? Give me a bottle of corn syrup and red food coloring and I promise I could make more realistic blood in 10 seconds.

There are exactly 2 kinds of blood in this film. Jello like (yes jello like, chunky, shiny, and see through), and syrupy and off color, almost orange...like buffalo wing sauce. Frightening indeed!

Next is the acting, or an odd lack thereof. I mean seriously this was cue card reading caliber. No chemistry, no delivery. There have been infomercials and video game voice recording with more authenticity. Not to mention how miscast some of the parts were (like the long haired meterosexual wimpy pretty boy cop? HUH???).

Finally the special effects. Lemme break em down. The most impressive was possibly the skinless dog. Mildly cool (yet done with mediocre puppetteering. I mean I believe its head was the only thing that moved.) Ghosts which were merely actors with 5 dollar white face paint (seriously), and finally the weak exploding corpses. You see when any baddie is shot, even with a small 22 handgun they merely explode in a very low budget 70's movie way (to apparently save some cash with their 100 dollar special effects budget. I mean even the girl who gets shot in the heads head wound is apparently just a red painted on dot. My god, I could buy a gunshot wound makeup pack for like 3 dollars.

Anyway nothing in this movie is compelling or even mildly frightening. I must admit I had to leave with 7 mins. left in the movie so maybe something spectacular and deeply frightening happened at that point but I doubt it. Terrible, and frankly boring movie. Use only for MST3K treatment.

Two hours of my life that I will never get back.

[SManning-3 · 1/10 · 14 May 2006]

After watching this movie I had to take a shower to feel as though I had washed the filth off. I was ashamed that in some way, the money that had been paid to rent this crap would somehow end up going back into the pockets of the people who wasted good money on making it. I would love to meet the person that READ this script and thought "wow... this is DYNAMITE!" Seriously - I should have stopped myself when I read the back of the DVD. Four college kids decide to spend Halloween in an abandoned insane asylum?! Closed down because of a fire that broke out on the third floor (obviously where they kept the craziest of the crazies) after which "mysterious" things began happening?! Are you kidding me with this crap?! I don't even know where to start. Maybe with the the unbelievably over-acted characters (complete with the token black cop, the slutty brunette, the nerd, the jock and the virtuous blonde) or perhaps the plot line that was more HOLES than it was PLOT, or right down to the WORST fake gore I think I have ever seen. Sure it had its moments - all films do - but I think I have seen episodes of Scooby Doo that made more sense, and quite frankly scared me more. This movie can be best summed up for me, by the WORST tag line I have ever heard. Token black cop: "Some buildings Don't have a thirteenth floor, well this one shouldn't have a third." What the hell sense does THAT make?? I rest my case. I would love to b***h-slap EVERYONE that was involved in making this piece of junk a reality, and ask could I please be refunded the $7 that I paid to rent it, even though in no way would that make up for the two hours of my life I'm not getting back OR the brain cells that I killed by watching it.

Uninteresting, convoluted, just don't care.

[gtc83 · 3/10 · 4 June 2006]

This film starts out with a parody of the beginning of Scream, which was really the wrong thing to do because it sets it up as some sort of comedy, thereby ruining any tension that might have been created right from the start. Then we get some cop that, we later learn, has some experience with this haunted mental institution that our group of kids will go to for a Halloween get-together. The trouble is that it ruins any sort of pacing the movie might have had. It's boring right from the beginning. The cop character is really unnecessary, and learning about his personality yadda yadda yadda just slows everything down. Then we meet out group of kids. We get to know them just a tiny little bit, but then it's off to the institution for Halloween festivities. Once there, we're subjected to every camera gimmick known to man in an attempt to create tension. For instance, someone will be in an elevator, the lights will go out, and we get a solid minute of this person frantically shining their flashlight around the elevator. Except it's done in such a way that it looks like they're in a warehouse, and the flashlight beam only illuminates a six inch circle on the wall. We catch a quick glimpse of someone standing in the shadows. Prepare yourself for about a thousand variations on this camera gimmickry, because it's the sole method used for creating "scares" throughout the movie.

The other problem is the characters. They're just not convincing, we don't really get to know them or like them or even give a damn if they live or die. The plot is also hopelessly convoluted, relying on NUMEROUS flashbacks / dream sequences to show us the history of the mental institution. There are several different ghosts, and over an agonizingly long period of time, we learn their back-stories. They occasionally take over a dead persons' body, and when they're shot we get what looks like a bowl full of pink pudding being splashed against a wall.

Overall, bad characters, bad story, hopeless reliance on camera effects to create "scares"; it's just a mess. It probably wouldn't have been bad if they would have gone the cheeseball route, tossed in a ton of T&A, simplified the plot, and given the characters some actual personality. Or they could have made it a serious scary movie, gotten rid of the camera gimmickry and replaced it with honest-to-goodness atmosphere, and given the characters some actual personality. Either of those might have worked, but this didn't. It seems film makers are utterly incapable of endowing their characters with any sort of personality these days. They won't make a good movie until they fix that problem.

I agree with the editor

[thekingofplain · 7/10 · 14 November 2005]

After reading the comments by the editor on this film, I must wholeheartedly agree. Boo is not a perfect film, nor the best I have ever seen, but it is FAR better than any direct to video horror film I have seen. This film made me jump out of my skin several times, and it was very creepy. Yes, the plot is silly. Yes, it doesn't make a lot of sense in parts, but this is a fine offering of a horror film... and maybe I'm a toad, but I like how this film didn't feel the need to have pointless nudity and sex - it just seems to be a higher caliber DTV horror film. Everyone has their opinion, and I'm sure there are some who disagree, but I have seen a lot of horror films and I cannot see how anyone could think this to be one of the worst ever made. It is a lot of fun, so give it a chance. By the way, the editing on this film was outstanding, so cheers to the other reviewer.

Avoid this like the plague

[glynbury · 1/10 · 21 December 2006]

Unless you want to laugh hysterically at painful acting and a plot with more holes than your average slab of swiss cheese I suggest u steer well clear of this awful movie.

When it takes two or three seconds for the characters to jump or gasp at what should be a scary moment you know you're onto a loser. This should never have made it through the editing room.

I have coughed up scarier objects than what this film throws at you. By the end of the tedium I found myself utterly confused as to why I watched it to the end....perhaps I was hoping beyond hope that some spectacular ending would save it from my wrath....however, this was not to be....I can safely say this is by far the worst movie I have seen this year, maybe in the last 5 years.

A Solid Horror Movie that Deserves to be Seen on the Big Screen

[innerstuff · 9/10 · 24 October 2005]

This was a great movie. I usually go to a horror flick expecting to be played down to, but this was an intelligent, well shot film with quite a few handfuls of solid scares and laughs.

I found out later that the director had known about the hospital where he was going to shoot the film while he was writing the script. And it shows. As you walk through rusty hallways and dark, dank rooms with the characters, you feel transported directly into the action. Creepy. I'm a big fan of survival horror video games for the same reason. When you feel like you're there, the sense of dread and impending doom makes the experience that much more intense.

Good acting, intriguing story, surprisingly good production value, and a first-time direction by someone who obviously knows what he's doing.

The real tragedy of this is that Boo! was never wildly released before it came out on DVD. But that's why I'm spreading the word. If you want to have some fun and you want to be genuinely terrified, throw in Boo!, turn off the lights, and jack up that surround sound. You won't be disappointed.

I didn't think it was too bad.

[hate_mcangry · 7/10 · 17 November 2005]

The acting wasn't award winning but I've seen a lot worse, trust me. Just watch the movie "Feeding the Masses" now that's awful! Anyway, it's just your basic horror movie,it has a couple of scares that make you jump, and the special effects were not bad at all. Ya it kinda falls apart at the end, but I think the plot is much better than that terrible movie Dark Water..Bleeeaaachh! And yes it's the old plot of, " Don't go into the old abandoned haunted hospital!" If no one went in, it would be a movie about a bunch of teenagers finding their inner beauty. Of course we want them to go into the hospital and find something horrible and hopefully we see a bunch of gore induced murdering...at least I do. I won't say what they find, but let's just say it's not the cast from E.R.

If you want to watch a creepy movie, watch this one. Again, not bad for a low budget/unknown actor kind of movie.

Horrible!

[joeborawski · 1/10 · 17 July 2006]

I recently watched this movie up at my friends lake house and I must say that it is the worst movie that I have ever seen. To be quite frank, the budget for this movie must've been about 5$. It doesn't make sense and the acting is absolutely dreadful. The entire time I watched it I wanted to take it out and snap the DVD into pieces. I must ask, when people get shot in the head, do they really blow up into a million bits? I didn't think so, but according to this movie they do. They need to have made the title scarier so that people would stay away because this movie was a waste of my time, money, and brain cells. Do not rent this movie whatever you do.

Pretty bad.

[dalto · 16 June 2006]

This movie was a distinct disappointment. The filmmakers had access to a very creepy location but really did nothing with it in the end. The pacing of the movie is very slow and the utter lack of tension in scenes that require it is embarrassing. Add to that the high school drama level acting and you have another waste of money and film. The only good performance came from Dee Wallace Stone and her performance matched to the other "actors" only show how really bad they all are. I really wonder how much was spent on this film and how many shooting days they had? Whatever it was, they misspent it. The chief problem is the director/writer. For a writer of horror film articles, he has little grasp of what is scary and no grasp of film-making. The camera is constantly in the wrong place and his sense of pacing is like molasses. I suggest this one goes in the avoidance column.

Needed to go that extra half mile...as it stands, "Boo" is a fairly mediocre horror film

[willywants · 5/10 · 7 November 2005]

A group of teens decide to go party in an abandoned hospital on Halloween. Unfortunately for them, the place is haunted by some very nasty ghosts who don't want them to leave. "Boo" is a decent genre flick, but ultimately it disappoints. The performances are mediocre at best, the script is pedestrian and first-time scribe/director Anthony C. Ferrante (a former Fangoria writer) relies too heavily on predictable pop scares throughout most of the film (though to his credit the flashback sequences were very well-shot). There's nice gore content and the special effects are often very good (loved the skinned dog thing), unfortunately these are too sparse and insubstantial to give the film the push it needed. "Boo" is by no means a bad movie, it's simply too mediocre to deliver on it's initial promise. Could have been much, much worse though… 5.5/10.

The awfulness of this sad film is overwhelming

[Karly89 · 1/10 · 2 August 2006]

Haha i found this movie hilarious, at first i was all prepared to be scared, like had a good tag line : Nobody gets off the 3rd floor, then Oh my god, it was just so awful, WORST ACTING EVER ! then they go off into spiels about living and death and how they juxtapose, common u've just seen some crazy ass crap and you wanna break out into theories of life and death in the universe ? and the main girl shes so 'knowledgeable' for some bloody reason, what was the significance of the necklace or her mother, there was none! This movie was just plain funny it was like a D grade movie and thats really bad. I wanna know who funded this piece of crap, i want names, i will go down there and kick his or her ass personally, anyone wanna join me ?

So bad ... there aren't even words... but I'll try.

[frellingdren · 2/10 · 1 November 2005]

I give this one 2 stars because there are some commendable special effects and the director (editor?) has a good feel of how to put the footage together to get a nice "jump" out of you. Also... the set (an abandoned hospital) is nicely done and quite spooky (if cliché).

However...

EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THIS MOVIE SUCKS.

I read someone on here say that the acting was good. Dear god in heaven. There is NO ONE ON THIS PLANET who would say that other than someone who worked on this movie. I couldn't BELIEVE how bad the acting was. What gets me... is when I see acting this bad... it makes me think that ANYONE OFF THE STREET could act better than these people... but then I think.... thats EXACTLY who these people are. Wannabes off the street who have NO BUSINESS ACTING. My god. It was so painful I stopped the disc 3 times over a course of 3 days. I simply couldn't get through it.

The writing is so bad... I just cant even think of words to describe it. Trite. Contrived. Boring. Uninspired. Unoriginal. I honestly... feel so drained of my life energy by this movie... I don't even want to talk about it anymore.

If you are a TRUE HORROR FAN. PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! Heed my warning and AVOID THIS DRIVEL. I wish I could think of something as bad as this to compare it to... but... this makes movies like... "The Unnamable" and "Street Trash" look like "Citizen Kane". Do yourself a favor... kill yourself instead. It will be less painful...regardless of the method you choose.

This movie gives crap a hole new meaning!

[arosland-1 · 1/10 · 16 January 2006]

Boo! is about a bunch of stupid kids celebrating Halloween in a haunted hospital. When they arrive at the hospital something is waiting at them at the 3ird floor and it ain't Casper the friendly ghost! I've seen a lot of cheesy movies on Sunday mornings before, but there should be a law against green lighting movies like this one. The acting is horrible, the story is terrible, the computer effects are awful and the director lacks everything a "director" stands for.... Oh, did I mentioned the acting? This is the worst piece of crap I've ever seen! If you wanna waist 1 1/2 hours on this be at least prepared.... Just for the record, when I was done watching this I threw the DVD away! And thats a true story!

Boo! Hiss!

[ultra_kid · 1/10 · 7 November 2006]

Boo was poor. Very poor. Picking it up on a few occasions in Blockbuster, tempted to rent it, I'd been put off by awful title and the fact I'd heard absolutely nothing about it (I'm not saying a film has to have smashed box office records for me to watch it, but I hadn't read even a snippet of information about it…anywhere). Nonetheless, I eventually relented after a recommendation from one of the guys who works in the store. However, my fears were realised the second the opening credits started. The reek of low budget was seeping into my lounge (I know a film doesn't have to be bad just because it's made on a shoestring). And so it continued…appalling acting, crap effects, insipid story. On the plus side, there was the odd scare, but these were drowned in all the other laughable attempts at horror. All said, I fell asleep just over an hour in and my wife filled me in on the outcome. One to avoid I'm afraid.

A few really good moments but overall disconnected.

[XpocalypseSurvival · 6/10 · 17 March 2021]

A group of friends trapped in an abandoned building is hardly original, but this movie actually had a deeper story that was pretty good and would have served as a fine framework for a horror flick.

Parts of this movie were really good (like an 8), but unfortunately much of it was also a 4. It just wasn't consistent. Some of the horror elements and effects, for example, were very creative and creepy, but many were also bland, like a body on a gurney under a sheet sitting up. *Yawn. The acting too ranged from pretty good to pretty not good.

Overall, while a good story, it was a bit disjoint, skipping around a lot and hard to follow. Too much of it felt like someone walking through a haunted house going from one scare station to another and not really connected well to the story. Also, the dude-popping-up-behind-you scenes are okay in a handful or less, but I think there was about 20 of those.

In totality this probably isn't a 6, but it does have those few moments that were really well crafted and worth a watch. If those moments could have been consistent throughout and there had been another round of editing, this could have been really good.

This film is TERRIBLE. And not in a good way.

[Steve_Scissorkick · 1/10 · 8 November 2005]

I cannot believe a single person found ANY merit in this total waste of time.

Seriously. The writing was unbearably awful - incoherent, muddled and just plain amateur. Really, I don't mean to go over the top here but aren't message boards supposed to be somewhat objective? The acting was no better than a high school performance and the plot line was so all over the place I could barely keep from laughing. "There's a service tunnel from an old funeral parlor to the mental hospital?!!!?" Are you kidding me? This would hilarious/genius if it was MEANT TO BE A JOKE. It only gets worse from there. Seriously. I promise. It wasn't even funny in that great Cabin Fever way. It was just terrible.

Head and shoulders above most Hollywood horrors....

[Nomislair · 9/10 · 14 November 2005]

I watched this last night after paying a fair bit to get this on import here in the UK on the strength of the trailer alone, and wasn't disappointed. This film has to be my favourite horror film of 2005 and p****s from a great height over the majority of Hollywood "horror" films of recent years despite its low budget. I consider myself to be a horror veteran and this film creeped me out even though it contains elements from films you will have already seen (House on haunted Hill springs to mind). The location is fantastic, I think one of the characters even comments on the fact that you don't need to do much to scare people given that location, and its true, the place is scary as hell. The cast do well considering they are not the most well known actors, and you don't notice the lack of a big budget except at one point. I won't spoil any of the elements of the film further and leave it to saying that this is what horror films should be like, atmospheric, creepy, characters who react in believable (well mostly) ways and deserved to get a full theatrical release. The makers of Ghost Ship should be made to watch this film, the makers of Resident Evil should be made to watch some of the scenes in the basement and shown what those films could have been like if they'd done them properly.

Very very good horror, recommended if you can pick it up

"Boo" Yourself

[boyinflares · 7/10 · 11 June 2006]

This movie is nowhere near as bad as people say it is, sure it is far from perfect, but there are some good moments, most of the actors try real hard, and for some this is their big screen debut, and the amazing Dee Wallace Stone has a small role in the film. Unfortunately, too small. The premise of the film is nothing new - a bunch of teenagers spend the evening in a haunted hospital, this time on Halloween. Naturally, something awful happened there several years ago, and the films heroine Jessie (played fairly decent by Trish Coren) has some psychic powers which give her clues as to what is going on.

The teens all have some depth to them and each have their own typical teenage problems going on. Nicole Rayburn is good as Marie the slutty girl, while Josh Holt as geeky Freddy and Jilon Ghai as Kevin the jock are both hotties. The authority figures in the film certainly follow typical horror convention of being bumbling and useless, Dig Wayne plays a former movie star turned cop, Arlo Ray Baines, while Michael Samluk is Allan, the son of Baines' former partner. Rachel Melun however is useless as Meg, Allan's sister whom he is looking for.

Dee Wallace Stone brings her usual class to this film that she brings to every other film she is in. Unfortunately she doesn't get a lot to do - being dead and all. The special effects are pretty good, the music is OK, but generally the film is not very scary, which is a problem that plagues a lot of "horror" these days. So overall, this is not a bad watch, I was going to give it a 6, but Dee Wallace Stone makes it worthy of a 7.

Waste of Money/Time

[fernandezpablo85 · 1/10 · 6 May 2006]

Horror movies need to scare people, this movie is so sh*tty it makes you laugh, and wish every character in it to die slowly and painfully (in the real life too). I don't see the point to put your name (for the director, producers, etc) in a piece of sh*t like this, I would be embarrassed, really its hard to understand why people study to roll this movies, I believe I could film something better (and scarier) with my friends in my backyard, even in daytime.

Avoid this, and if you do rent it and see this disaster, please come back and say that my commentary was useful, this way we can prevent viewers for spending their money on cr*p.