Harsh...
Usually the indie horror movies on IMDb show inflated budget numbers for reasons I don't understand. If the listed budget on this movie is accurate (or even inflated), then people are being far too hard on it.
If you're trying to compare this to a Hollywood-budget horror flick, you'll be sorely disappointed. But if you see the quality of low-budget independent horror movies, this is better than most.
Someone else made a post saying that this movie sucked because they looped the dialogue. Apparently, that poster doesn't realize that ADR is done on virtually every Hollywood movie out there. It wasn't poorly done here so I don't see what the complaint was.
The acting was bad. The dialogue and the delivery, particularly from the Hugh Jackman-wanna-be lead was...well, it took me out of the film frequently. But no better and no worse than any other horror film I've seen recently. The special effects left a lot to be desired--I don't know if this was due to the budget or a mediocre F/X guy (or both). I've seen much better things done on a lower budget than this, though.
The fight choreography was hilariously exaggerated and probably unintentionally so.
The thing I found most annoying was the editing. The camera work on this movie was excellent--and it goes to show what a competent cinematographer can bring to a movie. But I'm sad to see it butchered by such rookie editing.
Finally, what matters in a movie like this? You either need a riveting story or an overload of boobs and blood. This movie has neither.
It's not a film I would watch again, but I have to say I appreciate how it was shot. For a typical fan, that's probably not enough. For someone who tries to make movies, it contains some clear lessons on what to do (and what not to do).