Cebalord Very best movie i ever watch

WasAnnon Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

p-stepien Clive Barker has done it again. He has once again been part of the making of a crap as hell movie. Scary just how much his movies vary between great and downright awful.In essence this is a gutless story about an adventurous, but not-to-saintly monk chasing after two demonesses - succubi - who he unwittingly let escape. This of course entails following them through a time device, that magically takes him from 1815 to now. Equipped with a magic dagger he is out to rid the world of the scourge of lusty brain-suckers.Not really wanting to delve into the bad I'll treat this one quickly. Acting - terrible, it was actually the most scary thing in this whole movie, with the succubi especially terrifyingly bad actresses. Plot - with more holes than Swiss cheese. Dialogue - my 8-year old niece writes better and more realistic plays.And for some reason they made the demons of sex and lust - succubi - ugly, gross and covered with slime. Why anyone would want to pay to have sex with them (as per script) is beyond my comprehension... Succubi really should be captivatingly beautiful, even if evil.To add to insult I have no idea why Barker thought it would be cool to have two angels from Islamic eschatology to feature as depraved sex and brain thirsty slutresses? I'm not much into political correctness, but its almost like i.e. Iran making a horror movie, where Archangel Gabriel functions as a bloodsucking vampire, who gets of on killing young boys after copulating with them...Also... what the hell happened with the demon-baby after the finale? It just suddenly disappeared as if it was a non-issue... I was at least expecting it to jump out in the very last scene.On the plus side: Special effects are decent and quite gross (satisfactory for the genre). Other tech credits are fine, if nothing spectacular.

Sune Urth Well, first of the art design is polished and makes the entire film look like something that's trying to be really... unimportant. The guy playing Tomas Alcala (his name will not be mentioned here) is presenting a horrid lack of acting skills. (Look up, curse God quietly, look sad, make audience laugh with embarrassment) and his female sidekick is only vaguely better. It looks to me like the good Mr. Barker has actually forgotten that he needs to give instructions to the actors. They're looking completely left alone in this.The basic idea could be OK, if it wasn't for the weird plot holes. Halucinations that come from who knows where, the wheel of time that is an artifact left completely unexplained. I know it isn't fair to demand intelligent script writing from Mr. Barker, but it makes me mad every time. The worst part is really that it looks so cheap, sort of like a pilot for a stupid TV-show. And the phonographic idea for the succubi is just bad. That straw they use to drink from their victims looks ridiculous on a good day. Had I only had a feeling that there was something he was trying to say with this, but no, some ramblings about Christianity and sin, that can't really interest anyone.Only plus in this, and the reason why I rated it a 2 and not 1, is the opening scene:we open on a shot of Tomas Alcala lying in the grass. Zoom out till we think he's naked, but no, he wearing this diaper, arms outstretched like a Jesus in the grass. Then he takes a bite of an apple (oh no), and sees a young woman washing clothes in the river. She bends over, and then - then - you can actually, for quite a while, see her breasts. And they are pretty.

Goada Bogdan First of all I want to say that I've seen hundreds of movie,maybe thousands and this one, made me register to IMDb to vote (1-awful). I like SF and Horrot, but this one, I did not. The first part (1815)is OK, but from the time that the main character travels in time to (2000)till the end is very awfull. The special effects aren't that bad, but i think the storyline was rong and it didn't capture my attention. There are to big names attachet to this movie (Williams B. Davis, and Clive Barker) and I think if they knew how this movie turned up, they wouldn't participate to this movie. Being my first comment on a movie, I'l stop, but not before I'll say this:== NOT WORTH RENTING IT, LET ALONE BUY IT. ===

jcholguin With Clive Barker involved you knew that something usual was going to happen and by golly it did. Two female Succubi are released by a monk, Tomas Alcala. Tomas was told not to open a pandora's box but did not heed the advice. These two Succubi are drinkers from hell, alcohol no, human syrup, yes. Sticky fingers and sticky mucus make this feature very different from most Succubi flicks. Tomas is no saint, or is he? Only a person "pure of heart" or is that from another movie, can use a sacred dagger to rid the world of these devil twins. Special effects are wonderful and very graphic. You if love to see the universal battle between "good & evil" then this is the flick for you.