It's a shame that SINISTER suffers from the same problems as INSIDIOUS, namely a Hollywood fixation with making the subtle explicit and making the barely-seen over-obvious and in your face. For the first half of the production, this is a highly effective and old-fashioned horror opus, filled with a growing sense of unease and punctuated by some of the creepiest moments I've recently witnessed in a movie, from Hollywood or elsewhere. Then, as if the scriptwriters realise they've written themselves into a corner, it all falls apart and becomes hackneyed, predictable and rather silly. It starts off great, though. Ethan Hawke, not the type of actor you usually see in this sort of movie, gives a decent portrayal of a writer drawn into some sinister events of the past, in the type of story much beloved by Stephen King. Hawke discovers some old home movies in the attic and in playing them discovers some genuinely frightening footage which had my hair standing on end. Accompanied by some ultra-frightening chanting on the soundtrack, these glimpses of what is essentially snuff movies are the horror highlights of the movie, and they certainly live up to the title. Sad, then, that as Hawke digs for explanations, the truth that dawns on him is as unbelievable as it is silly. By the time we get to the presence of actual ghosts (who look like kids dressed up in Halloween makeup), the realism that SINISTER once had has long dissipated and the ending, when it finally comes, is equally out of it. It's not as ridiculous as INSIDIOUS became, but it's still a disappointment given the excellent scenes in the first half. I would have much preferred for this to develop into a serial killer story, because it would have been much more frightening come the end. Oh, and Juliet Rylance's acting is terrible, too.

See other user reviews