Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

midmovguy MrStichFilms latest feature film Unholy follows a very similar pattern most haunted house films do but executes it in a way where the audience are surprised at every turn. Directed by Anthony M. Winson Unholy starts with newlyweds Peter and Margaret Eastwood buying their first marital home, what the estate agent fails to mention however is that the house they're buying has a history. The film takes place in 1975 allowing Winson to ramp up the sense of dread, I think a lot of modern audiences appreciate horrors set in a period where there are no mobile phones, no internet and no easy way to safety. Successfully making the viewer believe in a period of time is a complicated component on even the most expensive of films so it's even more impressive to learn the film was made on a shoestring budget of £600. The crew include everything from clothes to cars to give the audience that extra bit of belief that what they are seeing is taking place in 1975. As I mentioned earlier Unholy does follow a paradigm nearly everyone is familiar with, a haunted house, a woman alone, a husband who doesn't believe her and the psychic who attempts to save the day. However, this could be seen to bolster Unholy in what it does best, scaring the audience. A lot of the early scares are set during the day and apparitions appear in the house unnoticed by the lone housewife, the immediate presence from the homes spectre is a refreshing change to the usual fare you would expect from the haunted house genre. Director Anthony M. Winson also on editing duty excels at just that, the editing is clear and concise and is evident that Winson has made a tight edit for the film with a short run time that doesn't overstay its welcome. Obviously one of his most important jobs as a director is getting performances out of his actors which he does to good effect, Kelly Goudie (Margaret Eastwood) is in nearly every scene of the film with her character carrying the film through three acts. Goudie does a great job in portraying the scared wife that no one believes representing the confusion, anger and fear that comes from her situation. Unholy comes to an end with an explosive finale that has to be seen to be believed, I was rather impressed a film of this size had effects that worked as well as they did. Ultimately Unholy works as a basic haunted house horror film, those seasoned veterans of the genre might not get as much kick out of it compared to someone who's fairly new and untainted by the structure in which it carries out. Whilst I enjoy films like Insidious and The Conjuring and are used to the tricks they normally pull I and a lot of horror fans out there will have watched Unholy with the curtains drawn, lights off, feet firmly off the floor, WANTING to be scared. 7/10

Dave Jessop OK, first the negatives - As others have said the acting is pretty awful at times (I realise it was a pretty inexperienced cast) - the female lead was ok but the male lead was very wooden and tried to enunciate every single word like he was on stage - bit of advice son, be the character and not just someone reciting a script - talk normally like a real person because it was all very forced - I like the 70s retro look but this sort of thing was done much better in When the Lights Went Out (2012) - a lot of the scenes seems to have been "borrowed" from other films like The Haunted and even Amityville so the whole thing never seemed original in the slightest.I realise the budget was small and that probably led to the "that'll do" approach like we see in so many low budget films - it really could have done with some scenes getting a few more takes - you have to wonder if it was purely down to budget or a weak director failing to get the best out of the actors.Now the good stuff - I liked the story - I also like the 70s feel with the decor and the props but the fashions weren't quite 1975 especially the black guy having his shirt untucked - that was very 90s - this could have been a solid 7/10 with better actors and bigger budget but just gets a 4/10 from me - I think over 50s would appreciate this more than a teen viewer purely for the 70s feel

Millhaven_Curse Totally agree that some of the acting is appalling. The policeman scene in particular early in the film is hilarious. I think I have seen more convincing policeman performances when they have been hired for stag weekends. Kelly Goudie playing 'Margaret' is mostly fine. Everyone else not very good but to be fair to them they aren't exactly helped by a clunky script and the special effects are mostly poor, especially in the seance scene in the build-up to the finale. Having said that, if it is true the film's entire budget is 600 quid, then pointing out the poor effects might be a tad harsh.Now there are some creepy scenes in the film but they are mostly when Goudie is in the house on her own.But watch out for the unfortunate but hysterical placing of a plant prop at the very end of the film which ruins any atmosphere the director might have hoped for.

vickiralph Awful film. If I had given my two teenage boys a camcorder and a sheet they'd have produced a better film than this. The worst thing was the acting, it was dreadful! So bad that it ruined every single scene. In was a relief when the character Norma was on the screen, albeit only for a short time, because at least she could act. The sound track was bad, the camera angles were bad. The sets were good, we had the same tiles in our old bathroom, so that's where the 1 out of 10 comes from!