plot is similar to grave encounters
i have not seen this i dont think i will due to extremley low ratings. Grave encounters has double the ratings with a similar storyline and i enjoyed it.
shareThat right there is your mistake and the mistake of everyone who makes the decision to watch or not to watch a movie based on the polling results of IMDb. The polling results for every movie on this site is not accurate. MANY movies have low ratings that PISS ON movies with double or tripple the ratings they have. I'd abolish the voting poll for all movies on this site as it's completely *beep* up so it is. Watch a movie, any movie, before coming to this site. Then and only then will you be able to give a slightly truer account of what you though than it would be like if you listened to what the poll results say for a movie on here.
"He injects the fuel of hate, the poison. And the fallen angel spreads his blackened wings."
i agree with you. its best for the viewer not to judge a movie by its cover so thats what the old saying goes.
shareIndeed, my friend. Judge for yourself, not by what others say on here. If you judge for yourself then you might actually find some decent or half decent movies out there that you would never have discovered by listening to the naysayers on here and elsewhere on this site.
"He injects the fuel of hate, the poison. And the fallen angel spreads his blackened wings."
I watched it because I usually like low-rated horror films, but this was honestly just poop with no comprehensive storyline at all. Something about a ghost and then a demon and then a portal to Hell? Lord knows.
I am living proof that coffee stunts your growth.
It's ten times more entertaining than Grave Encounters as that movie really is crap!. It's not worth one ounce of the hype that surrounds it. Episode 50 is worth more than it actually gets in terms of attention.
"If I want any lip from you. I'll rip it off your face"
[deleted]
True on the screwed-up rating system. EASY ways to fix that could be to either:
1. Allow no one with under, say ... 20 total comments to rate, or alternatively make the requirement a time period, say ... after 3 months time from joining.
OR
2. Only allow ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING members to rate, i.e. those who have been a member for at least 3 months AND have made at least 3 comments during that time. After that 3 month "probation", a member just needs to have made a comment during the past 30 days.
OR
3. Allow EVERYONE to rate, as now, but have a well-planned "weight" system. A "10" given to a movie by someone who signed up just the day before would factor VERY little into the total average score. But a person who has been here for 10 years & has made 500 comments + 100 ratings might have as much rating "weight" as 20 of those 1st-timers.
Any of these, along with several other possible systems, would be easy to implement by a script. And although still possible to find loop-holes, something like this would REALLY put a dent in the producers & directors who sign up multiple times simply to give their own new $75-budget, cellphone-cam movie a rating of 11 & a-half. (Sarcasm, chuckle-chuckle, don't have a cow)
But of course I'm pretty sure this type thing has been brought up multiple times & don't think it's ever been implemented, or at least not very efficiently. So don't hold your breath. You'll probably croak first.