The Cradle (2007) User Reviews

My Interpretation

[elissarh · 5/10 · 18 July 2008]

O.k., so here is what I think happened: He and his wife did have three miscarriages before they had this fourth baby. One night, the baby was running a fever but the roads were closed or bad due to weather and he promised his wife that as soon as the roads opened again, they would take the baby to the hospital, but for now they would have to take care of the baby themselves. Now - here is where I am not sure what happened, so I have come up with two possible scenarios:

scenario 1: the baby died from his sickness before they could get him to the hospital; the wife killed herself due to the grief (jumped into the river or whatever); the husband went insane from his grief and blamed himself for the baby's death. He went delusional and held on to the baby's corpse and imagined his wife's presence. He also imagined the wife's ghost because his subconscious was telling him that she wanted the baby with her in heaven or in death or something like that - i.e. his subconscious knew they were both dead and the wife's ghost was his delusional manifestation of that. He had to finally come out of his delusion when he gave the old woman the baby because the old woman could see the baby was dead and made him face it. The end of the movie is him realizing all of this and remembering what really happened.

scenario 2: basically the same as scenario 1 except for how the baby and wife died - so, instead of the baby dying of the illness and the wife from suicide, they instead decided to go to the hospital despite the weather because they were so ultra-sensitive about their baby's health because they had already lost three as stillbirths. Their car veered off the road because of the bad weather and into the river and the baby and wife were killed; as in the first scenario, the husband became crazed and delusional, carried the baby back home and pretended it didn't happen.

As for the old woman and her baby sister being buried alive, I have no idea what that has to do with the story other than: 1) to give an opening to the discussion about the stillborn issue and bring that story-line forward and (2) to further the ghost story-line to throw us off the real story.

Anybody have any thoughts on my interpretations?

Barely constitutes a horror film

[slayrrr666 · 3/10 · 24 August 2008]

"The Cradle" is one of the hardest films ever to call a horror film.

**SPOILERS**

Moving into a new house, newlyweds Frank, (Lukas Haas) and his wife Julie Brooksfield, (Emily Hampshire) fix it up for their baby, only for their marital issues to get in the way. Even though none of the neighbors offer up any help, they decide to deal with it on their own. The more they try to help each other deal with the baby, the more they have problems dealing with it, and once he starts to complain that something is after their child, she blames it on him and ignores it. Getting help from Helen, (Amanda Smith) who tells him that there's the ghost of the previous resident who now is haunting the estate, and they decide to fight back and stop the ghost from destroying the family.

The Good News: There is hardly anything in this one worthwhile. The main plot-line about the baby being in jeopardy does have some solid credence to it, as it's a pretty frightening idea that is really well-played and actually works. From the motions on the hidden camera to the dreams and hallucinations and the constant agonizing over what's happening, there's a lot to this and it's one of the best things about the film. That's also boosted by one of the only worthwhile scenes in the film, where supernatural forces are shown moving the baby across the table with only the garments on the table beside it indicating the move. It's creepy, disturbing and actually well-done, which indicates that something weird is happening and after the child, scoring well with several points. These, though, are all that make this one interesting.

The Bad News: There's not a whole lot to this one, since there's really big, damaging flaws to this one. The main one is that this one is just ungodly boring. Nothing at all happens in here except for a several brief moments, but the rest of the film, literally nothing happens. The majority of time is spent with the guy and the baby, not exactly thrilling beyond the one moment where something actually happens, but that's about it. There's a ton of talk about something, but it's done in such a manner that it's nothing that matters or not. It doesn't matter what happens, whether or not that the film decides to make them seem so important, yet they're the main focus of the story for the first fifty minutes of it's running time, and that is something that is a major mistake. The lack of action also makes the later segments seem that much more dull, as running around screaming at anything that moves doesn't do much to inspire fear. That may well be the whole problem with the film, nothing in here actually does anything to inspire fear. That's the major, overall problem with this one, that no one outside of parents will find this one frightening, scary or even entertaining. It's dull, lifeless and uses tactics that will only get a jolt from those in that situation, and not much of anything else in here will work in here. These here are the film's overall flaws.

The Final Verdict: With a ton of dullness, nothing really much interesting happening and a selected audience, this one is pretty much doomed to fail. Really only those who will find the premise intriguing or scary should give this one a watch, otherwise skip this one and give others a shot.

Rated R: Mild Violence, Language and children in danger

ummm.... what?

[dsetastoke · 3/10 · 20 August 2007]

I wish someone would have told me to disregard the box completely before seeing this movie. I was expecting something very different, and was therefore a little disappointed. Can someone please explain to me what the yellow liquid was that Frank (Lucas Haas) slipped in? Julie (Emily Hampshire) said it must have been bile, but I thought the baby and her were already supposed to be dead? And did she kill herself, or did she accidentally fall? And as for her arm (for the person who was wondering) I think that that is something she was supposed to have acquired during her fall, and she couldn't feel it because she was dead? Anyhow, I was completely puzzled, so good job Tim Brown? If you're a very smart person, and want to take on the job solving this weird movie, then go for it, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Puts the 'lull' in Lullabye!

[Special-K99 · 2/10 · 6 August 2007]

This is a terribly S-L-O-W film, two thirds of the way in and very little had happened. There's a nice air of mystery about the film, it's terribly dark and has the usual scary jumps which all add to the overall effect but ultimately the story just seemed to drag, it was so mind numbingly slow. The acting was unremarkable and the dialogue was extremely quiet. No need for a cradle, Lukas Haas' dreadfully monotone voice was enough to send me to sleep. I can't recall the number of times in this film he called out his wife's name "Julie!". (I'd answer this question myself but that would mean watching the film over again and once was enough). An extremely slow film that lacked any thrill whatsoever. Cradles may rock - alas, this movie doesn't!!

The Cradle: Really, really, really bad

[Platypuschow · 2/10 · 10 February 2018]

I saw a review, a 1/10 review with the tagline "I had to stop watching". Now I hate that crap, I'm a firm believer of if you don't watch a movie all the way through then you have no right to judge it.

I stand by that, but often I feel the desire to walk away. This is such a film, but I did finish it.

It tells the story of a young couple and their newborn baby moving into a new home that's heavily isolated. The pair have to contend with a possible supernatural force and her suffering from postnatal depression.

Starring Lukas Haas this is a mercilessly boring movie which shouldn't be considered a horror but more of a thriller, that isn't exactly thrilling.

Excessively dark, mundane beyond belief and a terrible plot all come together to make The Cradle.

The Good:

Nope

The Bad:

SO boring

Weirdly dark all the time

Terrible plot

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

The creators may well have seen Evil Dead

The Cradle gives the word slow a new meaning.

[Ismaninb · 1/10 · 13 July 2008]

Somebody wrote that he for 60% used the FF-button. 60% is not much. One can easily skip 75% without missing what the makers call the story. Anyone who dares to write that Sergio Leone is slow should see this one non-stop twice.

First spoiler: A very typical scene is the first visit of Frank to Helen. He walks, walks, walks around, walks a little more, says "Hello!", walks more, says "Hello!" again and finally after hears "Go away." Second spoiler: the first 15 minutes we see a ferry-boat crossing a river, Frank, Julie and Sam arriving and looking at the house and finally going inside unpacking a few things.

This movie greatly would have benefited from condensing to 30 minutes at the max.

Jebus - waisted almost 2 hours I could have spent learning the 10 major Albanian cities...

[lauge_perto · 2/10 · 9 November 2007]

Disregard the above comment. This movie offers nothing in terms of "challenging your mind" or "building up for a climax". You are MUCH better served with just watching some other "slow build up movie" like Dark Water or Hide and Seek that actually has plots, actors and scenes with content. All this movie offers, is a long and boring documentary of how not to take care of your baby if it's dead. And btw, what is up with the subtitle: "where evil is born"?? It definitely isn't in this movie... 1 gets one default star for being a movie, and another one for actually ending.

Also, it needed someone eating a baby...

I had to stop watching

[quraji · 1/10 · 23 June 2008]

First, let me say that I didn't watch the whole movie, so my opinion could be skewed, but I doubt it. That said, I'm posting this just to warn certain people not to waste their time. Despite seeing plenty of bad movies, I've never had to stop watching one before The Cradle. I watched about a third of the movie before I couldn't stand the absolute tedium, and had to shut it off, concerned with my mental health.

I tried to watch this movie a while ago, and don't remember any real plot, and the sad thing is, it's really not because I've forgotten it. It just didn't exist, or at least not until halfway into the movie..

I've given this movie the lowest score possible, as unlike normal bad movies, you can't even make fun of it and give it pity points for being a good laugh.

If you do choose to endure this film, you're in for long, dull scenes of dreary dialog and lifeless actors shuffling around as though they've been drugged. Good luck.

Okay movie

[K-burg · 6/10 · 10 September 2007]

First off, I really didn't have the trouble understanding this movie that other reviewers seemed to have. Everyone's got films that they just don't get, so I'll assume that's the case here.

The story's about a man who loses his mind out of stress and grief. I'd feel sorry for him, but he's too much of an idiot. Here's a tip, fellas. If your wife has severe post-partum depression, take her to a hospital. Do not, under any circumstances, move her to a dreary and isolated house in the middle of hazardous woods with a nutcase for a neighbor. (For the reviewer who insisted that this isn't how women with post-partum depression act, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I'm a physician who has worked with a wide variety of psychiatric patients, and the film portrays classic post-partum depression. There's a spectrum of post-partum mood disorders, and what you're describing sounds more like the very common post-partum blues.) Also, do not repeatedly leave her alone with the baby for hours when she has demonstrated that she cannot care for him. If a doctor tells you that everything will happen naturally in time, that moving to the middle of nowhere is okay, and that your wife apparently has no need of medications, get a new doctor.

When the tragically inevitable happens, the main character can't cope. Seeking the advice of a crazy neighbor lady, presumably for lack of anyone sane nearby, he discovers a quite chilling and interesting ghost story. Sadly, the movie is not about the ghost story. Eventually he resolves the parallel realities in his head and we can assume he does something akin to moving on with life. The ending implies that maybe if he hadn't moved his family to this particular cursed and haunted land, the outcome would have been different, but this is the only nod we get towards the side plot being involved in the main story at all.

Overall, the filmmakers are lying to us, and unlike in a decent twist-ending movie like Sixth Sense, they had to introduce unnecessary action, characters, and plot points in order to fool the audience. The movie does not tie itself together well and leaves the viewer unsatisfied in a bad way. The concept and the atmosphere were good, but the film did not live up to its potential because the filmmakers decided that a twist ending was more important than telling a good story.

Snoozefest!!!!!!!

[MistressKitty · 11 August 2007]

Okay,I have seen many,many bad horror movies and many boring ones,but this one is the most boring one ever!

First off,the plot sounded good,but once it was put to film,it lost all interest.

Typical dark lighting,which I hate that they use so much today in movies. What happened to content making a movie dark and creepy instead of using dark light to give the illusion of something sinister? Second,bad acting.

I actually hated the girl in this,don't even know who she is,don't care.

She had a really hard part(note sarcasm here)she stayed in the bed basically the whole movie.

I understand completely about postpartum depression,had it twice,and neither time did I lie in bed 24/7,ignore my child and become some hateful bitty.

The main guy,didn't like him either,I mean he had a hard role also,(more sarcasm)go next door to the strange lady who clearly doesn't want him around,go check on baby,go check on miserable wife,walk around a dark house and dark yard and start all over again the next day.

I have no idea how this movie ended,can imagine since the plot was so thin a 5 year could have written it and don't care how it ended.

To sum it up since I have to write 10 lines for this mess of a film, bad acting

boring characters

typical setting

typical,tired story that anyone can figure out what is going to happen

too dark lighting to hide the fact that there is nothing remotely creepy going on

I only watched about 30 minutes of this drivel and I cant imagine anyone holding out to watch the whole movie.1/10

The Cradle Review

[lostinsnj · 4/10 · 6 August 2007]

If your looking for that flick that will have you sitting on the edge of your seat then this is your movie because you will be sitting on the edge scratching your head saying why did I waste my hard earned money on these not even a six pack could have help this one. Mr.Haas we have come to expect better from you. First the movie start out you really don't have a clue what going on I'm half way Thur the movie and still trying to figure out what going on. The cast walks around like they have taken bottle of sleeping pills the actors are like in a zombie state the whole movie hey your an actor show some acting ability. The plot was just awful and the acting, editing was bad. The only thing I did like was the way some camera scenes were shoot like in the beginning the show you from a low angle knocking on the door but entering while she enters camera pass Thur the wall. The only winner in this one is the Baby because by the time he is old enough to act in a real movie no one can blame him for being in this one. In my wrap up I say stay far away unless it's a late Sat night and you can't sleep and this is on USA network or some sort of free cable late night show.

Surprisingly Good and Definitely Worthwhile!

[atomic_age57 · 8/10 · 12 August 2007]

This film is a surprisingly effective and creepy little masterpiece that is a cut above its peers. Most horror films made on a shoestring budget and with a small cast such as this one are substandard, but it works in this case, creating an unsettling realistic feel. This is due in part to good actors who are able to really create three-dimensional characters, something generally not seen in low-budget horror film-making. This particular film almost felt as if it were made in the 1970s, as it conjured up memories of movies I saw as a child which I found terrifying. Once again it can be proved that the absence of gore in a horror film can actually make the movie MORE frightening and disturbing, and this one is an excellent example of that technique. I hope other horror filmmakers can take a cue from this director and bring back the REAL horror movie as we remember it.

alittle disappointing

[sweet_like_candy_12345 · 6/10 · 14 April 2008]

OK so after watching this movie and being completely clueless and confused about what really happened I came up with this..Everything you saw before frank finding Sam "dead" Then when frank leaned over and the baby started to breath that was franks imagination it never happened through out the rest of this movie the baby was actually dead but frank though he was alive..Now when you see Julie crying in the corner say that Sam stopped breathing and she ran but came back also was franks imagination when Julie ran after finding Sam dead in the cradle that is when she fell off the waterfall and died..Frank was hallucinated through the rest of the movie so he wouldn't have the deal with the grief of losing them both..you see when he drops his flashlight that it shines in Julie's face it was trying to show him that she's dead same with the stick in her arm and her face being bloody.now as for the ghost in the nursery that was Julie trying to show frank that the baby was dead. the dreams he was having of the baby dying in the washing machine and the stove were dreams that's it.. that crazy lady that lived next door her whole purpose of the movie was basically to show frank at the end that Sam was dead she said he was dead for days..i didn't really see why they brought up Helen's sister being buried alive i don't believe she was haunting them it had no relevance to the movie what so ever cause when frank is in the kitchen and there is a face in the window that face of Julie after she died...the ending shows when it all comes together and makes sense to frank that everything that happened in the last few days was part of his imagination and not real so in conclusion everything that happened after finding Sam unconscious in the cradle was all in franks head

Depressing - Here You Have It

[geminate7 · 3/10 · 2 January 2008]

If you have problems with depression or are a naturally depressed person - don't watch this movie.

If you are starting a family, don't watch this movie.

If you are hoping for a good or happy ending don't watch this movie.

The description for the movie is wrong, or you could say that there are actually three right descriptions - then it would be counted as one. Yes the movie is that 'messed up'.

There are three endings, you can try to separate them and choose one, or you can twist two or more together. It is best to mix them together, but for a single I do favor Frank as being completely insane from the start.

While it is intentionally bleak, I feel that more background music and a more intricate build-up would have made the movie better overall.

Low budget film that could have been better

[Mehki_Girl · 4/10 · 24 July 2020]

Okay after reading all the reviews and putting everybody's pieces together, here's what I think happened.

Mom did have postpartum depression. Sam got sick with a high fever and for whatever reason, maybe lack of money, or maybe because hubby felt guilty and afraid of what doctors would say or think they didn't take the baby to the doctor right away. And the baby died.

Mom went running off because she's nuts and she panicked and she ran right off the cliff and she died.

Dad finds the baby's face covered up, which mom had covered and she had put the chain on top because she knew the baby was dead.

He tries to wake the baby and he can't and then he begins to hallucinate that the baby is alive. After that, he's hallucinating the entire time. Je's hallucinating that the baby is alive and he's hallucinating that his wife is alive.

There may have been a point when he did push or hit the wife and she fell up against the kitchen cabinet under the sink ( it's called in) and then he helped to soothe her hand, which have been injured, not by a burning pot.

I think his remembrances when he finally realized that his baby was dead may have been a little bit out of order.

He kept having nightmares because his subconscious realized that the baby was dead. He was also imagining that someone was haunting him, which was really his wife in his imagination, not in real life. But perhaps his wife's ghost come back (more like he insured this good coming back and wanting to jam the baby, but he was dusting to realize maybe it was warning or telling him something, but he wasn't yet ready to listen.

The entire story about stillborns was just to throw us off the track and it was very poorly done and it added nothing to the story. It was just really, really bad acting. if it was included to divertis it was a waste of time. And if it was included to give him a reason to believe someone was after his dead baby it was very, very poorly done in either case.

One of the slowest films ever made.

[poolandrews · 2/10 · 2 June 2010]

The Cradle starts as a young couple Frank (Lukas Haas) & Julie (Emily Hampshire) together with their young baby Sam move into an old house deep in some woods, Julie has postpartum psychosis in which she cannot even touch Sam or go near her so Frank has to act as two parents while he also learns that their neighbour, an old woman named Helen (Amanda Smith), is a little bit crazy & doesn't seem to like people. During the night Frank begins to think he hears strange noises & becomes convinced that the ghost of Helen's dead sister is haunting him & his family but the truth is even more terrifying & shocking...

This Canadian production was co-written & directed by Tim Brown & I have to say that I have been on a bad run of films lately, I have had to sit through some reals tinkers from Transmorphers (2007) to Stealth (2005) to Hell's Gate 11:11 (2004) which have all been terrible in their own way & The Cradle is right down there with them as it barely even constitutes a film since so little actually happens in it. The Cradle is one of the slowest most uneventful films I have ever seen, at one hour & forty seven minutes long it's amazing just how little happens. A guy, his wife & baby move to a new house, they move in, walk around a bit, talk a bit, a creepy neighbour turns up a few times before a so-called twists ending & that's your lot. The Cradle really will put most viewers to sleep & most of those that have managed to stay awake will have lost interest well before a twist ending which is confusing, badly edited & makes no real sense. Are we saying then that the ghost was a total coincidence & therefore the neighbour also was utterly irrelevant? Why are they even in the film? It just slows it down even more. There are only three people in the whole thing, the mother's rare condition is never really explored in any great detail & it's a mystery why Frank wanted to isolate himself & family considering the circumstances & what his wife was like. How he got the money for the house I don't know, he never seems to work & it never felt particularly real to me. I don't mind a bit of build-up, in fact you need to build the story & character's up for any sort of twist or event to have any impact but there's a limit before you just sit there praying something, just anything will happen.

The Cradle looks alright but there's not much atmosphere or tension, there certainly are no scares or traditional haunted house antics, in fact I barely remember any horror orientated sequences at all. The opening credits list both 'Special Effects by' & 'Special Make-up Effects by' but I struggled to remember any special effect of any description, I certainly can't understand why they get top billing in the opening credits. For get about any gore as there isn't any, at all. The Cradle takes ages to get to the point & even then it feels underwhelming & confusing, I am not sure if the makers knew what sort of film they wanted as it has bits of horror, bits of thriller & some dull drama all of which feel very bland.

Apparently filmed in Hamilton in Ontario in Canada this looks alright but nothing more. Lukas Haas has had a steady career & also appeared in the almost as slow moving ghost story Lady in White (1988) while none of the other cast members seem to have done anything else of note.

The Cradle is a terrible film that is part horror, part thriller, part drama & all bore, The Cradle is surely one of the slowest & most uneventful films ever made & there are much better ways you can spend an hour & fifty odd minutes.

A senseless, pointless movie for lifeless fans.

[concsubstance · 2/10 · 27 July 2008]

The movie starts smoothly and thrilling and everything. But after half an hour through the movie, i realized that all all that was said in the movie was "Julie!". The movie gave a little bit of suspense, but the whole story doesn't make any sense, and the characters barely have a role in the whole situation. The whole movie is, (a baby is gone from the cradle--then he's back--then he's gone again--and then he's back....!!!!!) I was almost going to quit, but then i remembered that some bad movies have a nice ending. But when the movie ended, it made me even more disappointed. My sister was watching the movie with me, but she fell asleep half way through it. The events are so slow, they show you every single step the character is taking. Then you find out that all those steps lead to nothing. Haas trips every time in such a fake way, and his wife just sits there listening to her name every three minutes. I gave this movie the lowest rating i have ever given a movie, and i do NOT recommend anyone waisting his time watching this corny movie. Thank You

Pretty bad "Shining" ripoff !

[jocedeg · 3/10 · 28 February 2008]

Writer and wife buy a house in a remote place. Writer has writer's block. Weird things occur around the baby. Could all these strange happenings be the visions of a troubled mind ? This movie is a succession of "false alerts" where you think something bad is happening but, hey, not really. It was either a dream, hallucination or just a misleading semi-scare.

The tone shifts from mystery to occult, just to confuse you about what's really happening. Maybe there's a ghost involved, or maybe the old woman telling that horrific story about a born-dead baby is just nuts.

When you get to the end, you'll be offered a very unsatisfying quasi-explanation and you'll realize that this 90 minutes movie that feels like it's 180 minutes could have been done in a 60 minutes "Masters of Horror" format.

Unfortunately, the director's no "Master" and the horror's mostly absent.

Waste of time.

Very Slow Indeed

[mholt-9 · 2/10 · 8 September 2007]

I have to give kudos for some good camera work and shots just didn't feel horror and there were a few little creepies, just not scary at all. The Director should have never mentioned Kubrick's "The Shining" or Lyne's "Jacobs Ladder" for one in comparison to this, in the behind the scenes; Those are Masterpiece films by the way? The sound could have made this much more suspenseful and that was lacking. When actors were constantly looking for each other you hear faint movie sounds. I always look for a positive and the camera work was nice but boring would have served better in an epic type film? I am not certain if this is the very first film the Director has attempted? In any event I would watch this strictly to learn from this.

Not your typical horror movie...and that's a good thing!

[MelodySoul · 7/10 · 31 December 2008]

This movie was made on a low budget so I had low expectations but I was pleasantly surprised. It was very suspenseful and creepy without requiring special effects or gore. To everyone that is so confused over what happened, did you watch the ending? It explains it quite clearly. The only part that I found confusing was adding in the Helen story since it really had nothing to do with the outcome but I guess that was just to get your imagination going on another course, that part could have been done a little better. Regardless of it I still figured out the ending part way through. I thought that overall it was refreshingly different and I didn't find it slow moving at all, I enjoyed the suspenseful build up. The story was a little sloppy but overall enjoyable. I definitely felt influence from The Shining in it too which is one of my all time favorite movies.

very angry that i watched this

[cbfan1-1 · 1/10 · 12 July 2008]

this movie had great build-up...although a little far-fetched at times. i was generally interested in what was going on. but thats the problem i don't know what was going on. the movie just ended. it started this whole rerun thing at the end, showing you scenes from earlier in the movie...most times that part is to help the viewer fill in the gaps and ultimately figure out the movie. that didn't happen. it just confused me more. i assumed on my own that both the baby and mom had died and dad went crazy after wards. but i don't know how or why they died or when he went crazy. i wasn't feeling the old lady especially when her part had no meaning considering the ghost turned out to be mom. or was it? i don't know and don't care. don't watch this crap. oh my mom hated it too.

Low Budget but Good movie

[the_hjk · 8/10 · 14 August 2007]

I've just seen it and i'm reading the posted comments. OK, this is a slow action movie, but this is normal. We're not dealing here with big car exploding every five minutes, no funny jokes, and the first 20 minutes are action-less. But it helps to install a climax, and if you're in the mood, it works.

Don't watch this movie if you're looking for distraction and fun. This movie will ask your brain a little more work than billboard movies actually do :)

And if you're open minded, watch it, the story is well built.

To anyone who has already seen it, i'm opening a thread on the movie board, where i'm explaining what i've understood.

Very Suspenseful but a misrepresentation of the description

[reeves2002 · 7/10 · 11 August 2007]

Once I saw the trailer I couldn't wait to see the DVD since it wasn't shown in theaters over here.It started out great with a creepy atmosphere,an awesome realistic storm,and great thrills but then got too confusing and eventually made no sense and became a total mess.The director says it's up to our own interpretation,but I liked the idea of what it was supposed to be about better.What I understood it to be about was a couple and their newborn son who move to an isolated house and are haunted by the spirit of a vengeful child that was buried alive and had died years earlier.This is what the description says on the DVD.Instead it was something else altogether.So what was the point in misleading us by the description! Everything was fine until Helen was introduced.Her character who was supposed to be a midwife was nothing but confusing and didn't have a lot of purpose. She mentions her husband was in the house but you don't see him. And then she talks about a sister who we also don't see and accuses her of being responsible for what weirdness is happening to Frank(played by Lukas Haas)and Julie(Emily Hampshire).It would have made more sense if it were her father that was the one that was frightening this weird old woman.I did not for the life of me understand her hatred and fear of babies!I mean throwing in a stupid line that her sister was murdering babies is pathetic! It had nothing to do with what was happening. That part of the plot was stupid and nearly ruined the movie for me.And what was with all the shots of Franks wife while we're supposed to think it was the sister of Helen.Maybe I missed something but it sure could have been explained better in the making of the film feature.And what was with Julie's bloody face and then bruised arm.She may have been one of the ghosts and their baby was stillborn,but then why was the baby even alive before he died.As far as I know if a baby is stillborn they are dead.This would explain why she wouldn't touch her own baby or didn't want to deal with him.Also in the trailer for this movie there is a part where Helen asks Frank if he has seen him.....,the stillborn! That would explain the plot a bit about a dead baby haunting him but it wasn't shown and for some stupid reason was cut out of the movie.What I got out of it was there were no ghosts just 2 insane people,a dead baby,and a wife but it's not clear if she is dead or alive or if it's just about a father trying to save his family from something.I expected more or maybe something different.This movie is confusing and full of holes but is very suspenseful! Lukas Haas is good in this movie and plays the part of a grieving father very well.I don't understand the negative comments about his portrayal.His character was likely in a zombie state because his baby son was stillborn and was trying to start over. This is the kind of suspense all horror movies should have.I liked the score and sound effects.The isolation and the leaves blowing in the wind was spooky and done well.I think the movie should have been called stillborn(like the working title)instead because it is a more appropriate title for this movie.

The worst movie ever made

[actor90 · 1/10 · 23 November 2008]

This is the worst movie ever to be put to film. Long, boring, the only thing terrifying about this movie was the two hours of my life I wasted watching it. The acting is sub par and annoying. The length of this movie coupled with the boring pace will have you on edge, but not in a good way, no, in a way that makes you wish you never heard of this film. I am the kind of person that loves all horror films, from the grade A top shelf, to the Z grade schlock. This movie is not a horror film, it is a psycho drama that starts bad and ends even worse. This movie has no redeeming qualities. If you value the horror film genre or movies in general stay away from this load of horse manure. I was a firm believer that all movies, even bad movies, have redeeming and enjoyable qualities....until I saw this movie.

Extremely Bad

[sfiver · 1/10 · 28 April 2009]

Really awful... Have enjoyed watching Mr. Haas grow from child star to mature actor. His normal 'underplaying' normally works fine. His superb work in "johns" should have earned him some mainstream acclaim... but Oscar did not focus.

Almost all of the previous reviews mirror my feelings regarding this film. Cinematography is excellent, but completely wasted on a poor script. I think I could have written it better.

I am watching the film as I write this - maybe 80 minutes in - and I will be switching channels now...

Sorry... but due warning this masterwork is a waste of time.