Why the hell is this rated 5.6/10

I think this movie was weird in an uninteresting way. Not my cup of tea. I'm from Norway and I'm more into non-American low-budget movies. The latest movie of this genre I liked was "Villmark" (2003). 4/10

Agreed, 5.6 is quite a low score for such an intriguing horror movie. It's a 7 in my book.

Boycott movies that involve real animal violence! (and their directors too)

I remember renting this from the video store when I was a teenager on a Friday night when my parents were gone. I watched it by myself and it scared me really, really bad, and I'd seen A LOT of horror films at that point (all the classics and everything in between).

I don't know what exactly makes it such an unnerving film because it recycles a lot of elements from other supernatural horror stories, but the slow-burn pacing and the atmosphere is chill-inducing on so many levels. Visually, it's absolutely terrifying. Good acting too from a reputable cast.

The plot, as I said, recycles some things (and is at times reminiscent of H.P. Lovecraft stories, as others have mentioned), but you never can quite tell for sure how it's going to all end up or what exactly is going on— kind of like a bad nightmare.

I had forgotten about it until I watched part of it on demand a couple of weeks ago, and I was still freaked out by it. I liked it so much that I ordered the DVD on Amazon that week (doesn't seem to be sold in stores really anymore) and actually have it playing as I type this.

Definitely underrated, and a victim of poor marketing— the DVD cover makes it look like a really bad B-horror movie, but it's actually a quality production and is a lot scarier than most people would probably expect it to be. I definitely consider it one of the better horror movies of the 2000s.

This movie deserves a 5 or 6. I agree about jump scares being a cheap tactic that rely on unrealistic sound blasting you in the face. It seems an almost necessary evil in film today. There were two main jumps in this movie, and only one was successful on me. I knew the first one was coming, but it came sooner than expected which was nice. I enjoyed the startling but it didn't scare me, provide chills or hair standing on end. I liked that this was a period piece that creates a unique isolated atmosphere. I felt the acting was mainly poor, and in general, a cheap film with bad CGI($1.5 million budget?). I was never compelled to care for any of the characters. The story had everyone ignoring and not sharing very important information(ie. the human footprints that turn animal, voices/hallucinations or how the curse book and wicked creature were not examined further). I agree with the film student feel to it, although I have seen a lot worse. I liked how my sub woofer was pushing out "tension" that was felt but not noticably heard, however there was not a musical soundtrack at all. It would have benefit from a few more notes to create a rhythmic "Resident Evil" video game or "The Innkeepers" film atmosphere. I don't mean to be a drag, to each their own. I enjoy the horror genre and a lot of times a 5-6 rating is good enough for me to enjoy it.

[deleted]

OK, I just finished the movie, and I was watching it on MTV. Yes, MTV (LatinAmerica, but this is the only MTV we get here, besides MTV Live HD).
So, first of all, I don't know if MTV is involved in this movie or not. But a few posters had bring the MTV issue.

The movie was slow paced, it has a lot of plot holes, the first half it's very boring. With the original idea, and the ok FXs, this movie should have been way better. Poor screenwriting, poor direction, poor editing, and average acting. I liked the period of time they set the film in, and I did like the Fx's, but there's so many plot holes and it was so boring the first hour, that I agree with the actual rating (5.6).

Please excuse my terrible redaction, english is not my native language.

I like this film; I've seen worse films with higher scores and that just sucks. So I gave it a 7/10! :-)