wtf did i just watch

Decided to try one of the October dvd horror pack pics since I watched one of the blu ray pics (lights out). This had some good points—the actress did a good job of portraying mental illness/possession (she was great at screaming) and I loved the buzzing fly scene. And the opening in Venice was nice to see. But everything else was just tedious. Maybe I’ll try it again at some point.

Acceptable "is she crazy or isn't she?" time-killer; 90's Cinemax vixen Shari Shattuck is a painter who's recently moved into the hills with her drunk writer husband in an attempt to save their marriage. That's something that usually doesn't pan out in real life, more or less the movies, and in this case Shattuck almost immediately starts hearing voices, seeing things, and meeting a steady stream of suspiciously chipper neighbors.

There's nothing really new on the table, however the movie keeps it to the one claustrophobic setting and Shattuck definitely gives it her all, and speaking of, Tony Todd and Kiko Ellsworth show up as cops and really make it a point to ACT act for the eight or so minutes they get. But hey, better than everybody phoning it in. This could definitely use a better title and that movie poster looks like a particularly shitty 2005 metalcore album cover, but you could do worse.

This seemed to have so much going for it: An opening in St Mark's Square, Venice; some interestingly shot in camera scenes; Tony Todd.

But then, inextricably, it all gets wasted. Whether through ineptitude or budgetary constraints is  unclear. But some how this is a right old mess. And worryingly possibly only the first in a series. Hire a new director for the follow-up - or better yet, mdon'tmake it at all!

I don't think these people know what schizophrenia is.
And boy, do they lay it on thick with the dumb drama that goes nowhere. Only to follow it with inconsistent hauntings and phenomena that don't connect.

Zero distinction between disease and possession, so we have no distinction between the two, making the schizophrenia aspect pointless.
Behavior here is... well, dumb. The side characters range from boring to laughable. There's no thought given to following rules - first the demons are in her house, but then they need to be invited in.

One or two decent effects, but nothing to save this mess.

Those elicit affairs, they'll get ya every time

(alt. review: I'll do anything for Bill Oberst Jr. and Tony Todd, but I won't do that)

This review may contain spoilers. I can handle the truth.

wtf did i just watch

Decided to try one of the October dvd horror pack pics since I watched one of the blu ray pics (lights out). This had some good points—the actress did a good job of portraying mental illness/possession (she was great at screaming) and I loved the buzzing fly scene. And the opening in Venice was nice to see. But everything else was just tedious. Maybe I’ll try it again at some point.

Wow was this dreadful. Im embarrassed to have to even waste any time reviewing it. I would point out that its vampires that need to be invited in, not demons but that would mean pretending that a plot hole is an issue in a film without a plot. Or any semblance of acting. It reminded me of the beginning of a porn where they are trying to set up the paper thin story line before they get to the sex. Except thats the entire film. Just a dreadfully acted set up to a sexless porn. And honestly can you imagine anything worse? Avoid like the plague.

Acceptable "is she crazy or isn't she?" time-killer; 90's Cinemax vixen Shari Shattuck is a painter who's recently moved into the hills with her drunk writer husband in an attempt to save their marriage. That's something that usually doesn't pan out in real life, more or less the movies, and in this case Shattuck almost immediately starts hearing voices, seeing things, and meeting a steady stream of suspiciously chipper neighbors.

There's nothing really new on the table, however the movie keeps it to the one claustrophobic setting and Shattuck definitely gives it her all, and speaking of, Tony Todd and Kiko Ellsworth show up as cops and really make it a point to ACT act for the eight or so minutes they get. But hey, better than everybody phoning it in. This could definitely use a better title and that movie poster looks like a particularly shitty 2005 metalcore album cover, but you could do worse.

Slow burn, low budget spooker with artist Shari Shattuck slowly going mad - or being menaced by evil - in a house. That's about all that happens. An empty chore.

"Hoewel ‘Scream at the Devil’ thematisch de nodige raakvlakken heeft met gedistingeerde horrorklassiekers als ‘The Exorcist en ‘Rosemary’s Baby’ (een scène lijkt zelfs nagenoeg gekopieerd uit het meesterwerk van Roman Polanski), komt de kijker die een suspenserijk gruwelepos van vergelijkbare kwaliteit verwacht bedrogen uit. Het is niet zo dat ‘Scream at the Devil’ totaal geen potentie heeft. Sommige surrealistische visioenen van hoofdpersoon Mirium zijn best aardig en angstwekkend, terwijl ook bepaalde schrikmomenten enig effect sorteren. Het geheel wordt echter grotendeels verstierd door het warrige en ondoordacht ogende script."

This seemed to have so much going for it: An opening in St Mark's Square, Venice; some interestingly shot in camera scenes; Tony Todd.

But then, inextricably, it all gets wasted. Whether through ineptitude or budgetary constraints is  unclear. But some how this is a right old mess. And worryingly possibly only the first in a series. Hire a new director for the follow-up - or better yet, mdon'tmake it at all!