Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

hasosch First, nobody can understand why this movie is rated so poorly. Not only is this the first real horrific movie since a very long time for me who am pretty hard-boiled with a decades long experience of horror starting with driving through dark rides (ghost trains) as a child. Second, the main actress Cheri Christian has a face that lets you hope she will be the leading actress in major pictures of the future. Third, this woman is that tremendously beautiful that I suggest the directors retire all those Cameron Diazes, Eva Mendezes, and how ever the names of these ephemeral bulb-lights are. Mrs. Christian is not a light, but a sun.However, "Dark remains" is also of considerable metaphysical importance. They idea that photographs shows creatures of the intermediary reign between reality and "imagination" that are not visible with one' own eyes is not new. But I have never seen in a movie before that those creatures are visible on the photographs only for certain people and only to certain times. This means that the photo is not just an iconic picture of reality (by which reality turns into a sign), but becomes an alternative form of reality which can change as the "real" reality can. Being a sign, the changing of the picture means that it influences the photographed objects, i.e. the sign behaves like an object. Now, in our usual world of perception, it is common that objects change signs. F.ex., if someone grows a bird, his photograph will show him with beard, not without, as it did before. But the opposite, the changing of objects by signs would imply that the photo with beard is first and only then the beard grows on the man. This is, very simply expressed, the case that happen with the photos taken by the main character in the prison, in this movie. This is new, and we must be thankful for everything new in horror movies which usually just repeat and reorder effects and features that are already well-known, mostly since the silent time.

BoulevardPark Acting was weak, but in a horror flick, I can live with that if the story is good. It wasn't. The initial event was an clumsy and obvious ploy to exploit most people's adoration of kids. OK, fine. Fast forward to the "place in the country" where they will recover emotionally. I like the revelation of the ghosts. OK, cool--this will be a supernatural kinda horror story, with rotting things partly in our world partly in...where ever. Then the action starts pulling like a three headed dog in a flurry of cats and birds--Is there an evil force trying to attack them directly? Is there an evil force trying to attack them INdirectly--make people do awful things they wouldn't really do? Oh, wait, no, maybe the whole REGION is some kind of psychic echo chamber where ambient discord can reverberate into murder? OK, hold on--maybe it's really just one little mentally tangled "Delbert"-style redneck boy who misses his Mommy and is on some kind of spree like a K-Tel Norman Bates knock off? Oh, yeah--extra points off: the only Black character seems to be the grandson of an "Our Gang" pullman porter. The actor plays it as straight as he can given the crummy dialogue, but the fact is, his purpose is "Y'all done betta get outa heah, Boss!" At least they wrote him smart enough to GTF outta there. The bit with the little girl being silenced and pulled away was definitely creepy, as was the chick in the shower. Those were just two of quite a few really delicious tidbits in this movie. The problem is that they are combined in disharmonious ways, like a bite of steak, a bite of chocolate and a bite of a Gummi bear. Each is great on it's own, but mixed up? Bleah! Such potential. Wasted.

innocuous After all the crap that Hollywood (and the Indies) have churned out, we finally get a movie that delivers some scary moments. There are some clichéd moments, but I'm not sure it's possible nowadays to make an entirely original movie. There's not much new here...it's just done well.Make sure and pay attention, as the "subtle" scares come quickly and often. This is not a movie to watch while you're eating pizza.There's one very well-written red herring in this movie and, unfortunately, one very poorly-cast role. Cheri Christian just doesn't make an effective Julie (the wife/mother). For one thing, she's totally unsympathetic. I know, I know...she's just gone through a traumatic experience. But the viewer never gets to know her as she "normally" is and the relationship between her and her husband is rather discomforting (in an unintentional way). I think that the director had meant for us to have some sympathy for her, but I never did.Finally, a thumbs-up for the ending, which is both disturbing and satisfying. It could easily have been cheapened with a sound effect at the beginning of the end credits, but the director wisely resisted.This is not a masterpiece by any means, but it IS a good, old-fashioned scary movie...something that's rather rare nowadays.

stefinipink Okay. Look- I've seen LOTS and I do mean LOTS of these types of films. You know, the ones where the DVD cover just look SO good and scaarrryyy that you just cant WAIT to see it? Well, I got GOT again. And I'm getting' pretty tired of it. But I digress. It's pretty simple. It sucked(I know, rather juvenile) but it did. AndI SO agree with the other poster that if we had to sit through the boring thing, why oh WHY did the lead actress have to be so unnattractive?Distractingly so if I may add. And the scowl she used convey unresolved pain/grief over the death of her daughter did little help. I mean, Jesus.. Oh, but the crawling-on-her-back-demon thingee was pretty neat...