Nice but overwhelming gothic scenery, stupid CGI ghost and quite nonsensical plot. Less is more is good rule of thumb when creating horror elements, original Ghostbusters (1984) librarian ghost is more believable and scary character than any ghosts in this movie simply because they did not overdo or show it unlike here with painstakingly rendered HD "ghosts", which were all over the place with their smoke and blood and muscle effects. Because when person dies they apparently change to a skeleton ghosts. Using more human apparition or mostly invisible ghost like figures would have worked much better because unknown is always scarier than something you can clearly see. Human like figure or face in dimply lit area beat down bloody skelly climbing through floor every time. Also, mansion was in many places wide open, rain and snow was pouring in (so most places temperature would have been below freezing temperatures within the house) and it was butterflies flapping all over the place during winter time, eh...? Also cellar mine was close to surface and had some mysterious locked liquid clay vats that served zero function in the story, same as the dog. Also box full of discriminating evidence was just lying there because why not. This movie was all over the place in a bad way.
3 people found this review helpful
The visuals alone can almost make up for the predictable and rather simplistic plot (nothing wrong with that aside from the abrupt conclusion.) I wish the maker would push it a bit harder into a specific genre. Going the erotic route might have been quite interesting. It is good as it is but also leaves much to be desired.
177 people found this review helpful
I watched this cause i love tom hiddleston after watching the film i kept watching it over and over again even if its scary its still amaizing i wish they would make a sequel to this, this is truly worth it more Also expect some jump scares 🤣😂😘