BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

Kodie Bird True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Sameer Callahan It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Gar Conn I'm mostly impressed at what they did for $200,000, It's a very good film with a range of emotions. A creepy love story with enough scares to keep you engaged. Different enough to be worth your viewing time. Also, the dialogue was spoken strong enough, so I didn't need to use subtitles. I've seen too many movies forget about that.

znegative The Quiet Ones is (another) supernatural thriller based (very loosely) on 'real events'. The story centers around an eccentric professor who's life work is to try and extract and isolate a poltergeist, from a haunted/possessed person. In this case, the possessed is an attractive young woman. Unsurprisingly, the movie is a mixture of conventional film making and 'found-footage'. In the case of The Quiet Ones',our oddball professor (Jared Harris) and his team hire a young film-maker named Ian (Sam Claflin) to document the experiment. Things quickly spiral out of control, as it becomes apparent that the crew is dealing with a malevolent spirit rather than your run of the mill paranormal oddity.There's really absolutely nothing original about the film aside from a few cool CGI effects, but unlike many of it's other paranormal counterparts (like Insidious or Sinister), The Quiet Ones is thoroughly and surprisingly entertaining. This shocked me because I went into the movie thinking that it was going to suck big time, that I'd have to turn it off after 30 minutes of tom foolery, but I was pleasantly gripped and sucked into the story for all of it's duration. I guess part of what made it stand out from a movie like Sinister is that the story was told through a scientific lens, whereas in other flops like the aforementioned title, The Conjuring 2, and Sinister, the screen writers were simply asking the audience as well as the characters to believe too much. The example that comes to mind is the part in Insidious when the old woman who's some sort of psychic explains that both the son and the father are masters of 'Astral Projection', which Patrick Wilson accepts as a plausible and rational explanation far too soon. If someone came at me like that I'd hit them over the head with a baseball bat!In conclusion, while nothing really new, or particularly amazing, 'The Quiet Ones' is a decent enough paranormal/horror flick. If you enjoyed the Atticus Institute (which was slightly better IMO), you'll likely dig this one too.

adonis98-743-186503 The Quiet Ones is not something new or something that you never seen before and the ending proves that. But the 2 main characters make it interesting the acting isn't something special and the movie is boring for some minutes and the direction is also pretty meh. It's unoriginal and pretty horrible in terms of quality but it's a fun horror film and it even turns into a love story some time. Most of you won't enjoy it since it's something that you have seen like 50 times per year but if you're bored and you are looking for a dumb fun this one is pretty fun and at least better than most horror films that come everyday. I give it an 8.

Roman James Hoffman Set during the 1970s, charismatic Oxford professor Joseph Coupland (Jared Harris) enlists a couple of his students and a cameraman (Sam Claflin) in an experiment to prove his pet theory that supernatural powers exist but are a manifestation of psychological trauma. In order to do this they study a young woman by the name of Jane Harper who displays telekinetic abilities but attributes it to an evil entity called Evey. The group hole up in an abandoned house-cum-makeshift research lab and Professor Coupland's theory is put to the test as all manner of creepy incidents take place and relations between the group become strained.The problem with the movie is…it just isn't that scary. The reason? Well, to me it felt like in both its content and its execution it was trying to be too many things at once. In terms of content it felt like the movie was part possession movie/part haunted house/part occult thriller. In addition, the religious doubt subplot of the cameraman introduced at the beginning doesn't seem to go anywhere and I have no idea why it was set in the 1970s. In terms of style, this confusion comes out in the feeling that it was trying to straddle both traditional narrative conventions and found-footage. Additionally, the movie seems to be going down an English understated scare approach for most of the movie until we see a conspicuous special effect which, in context, just looks cheap. I get the feeling that, given Hammer's heritage (and the success of 'The Woman in Black' from 2012) the movie was written as a slow and subdued Gothic atmosphere soaked piece but execs worried it wouldn't cut it and decided to ramp it up in a few places.I don't mean to sound so damning, as I found it quite easy to watch and not unenjoyable. However, I constantly found my attention drawn to other things (characters' wardrobes, editing etc.) when the movie was trying to build suspense which is always a sign that something is fundamentally missing. Still, the movie does carry with it a certain base-line creepy atmosphere from the locations and the performances are solid. But I just can't help feeling that it was imagined as being something slightly different and which would have been much better.