The Sickhouse (2008) User Reviews

Mediocre at best

[Shattered_Wake · 4/10 · 7 April 2008]

We hear about it far too much in the horror genre: a poorly made film with an interesting premise.

Had this shied away from the punk-teen angle (like that of Bava's 'Demons') and headed for straight horror (maybe on the level of 'El Orfanato'), it could've had the chance to be a rather good film. Instead, poor writing, bad direction, seemingly bored actors, and silly camera tricks in exchange for real scares, we're left with yet another forgettable haunted-house picture.

I'd say pass it up and wait for 'The Orphanage' on DVD. Or, if you can't wait, check out 'The Devil's Backbone.'

-AP3-

And I didn't even know Hugh Laurie was ill!

[charlytully · 4/10 · 9 February 2009]

Don't get the pun in my summary? Then this cheap British horror flick might be for you. If you do not want spoilers, you may read some of the positive comments a few stoners already have posted here. Otherwise:

*** ******** ************ SPOILERS ************* *********

Want something you can barely see, even when you use the undark special feature on your DVD remote? How about something that starts and finishes with unintelligible chanting by kids' ghosts? Want to see an archaeologist who's been poking around in an abandoned building "for months," but still has no idea of its floor plan? Wanna see this same chick hear her boss say the site has been quarantined and slated for immediate demolition due to an infestation of rats and plague germs (not all that unusual in many world cities), prompting her to cut through miles of police tape in the dead of night for a few more minutes of snooping? How about a security guard who gets knocked out early on, but pops up running like Jack Bauer at the last minute? Or four random hoods jabbering incomprehensible Brit slang implausibly locking themselves into this same abandoned building with "Lara Croft." And how often can you see a caper featuring three studs tooling around in a stolen car in the city center with a chick NINE MONTHS PREGNANT? Or getting into constant deadly fist fights with each other to claim credit for her pregnancy? With the expectant gal suddenly responding to her heebie-jeebies by tearing off ALL her clothes and hopping into a cement vat of cold water in front of these guys, where she soon "delivers" about five gallons of slugs? Or everyone ignoring a collage of eight-foot ghosts and decaying child ghosties (and if the characters cannot see these apparitions, why bother to show them to us?)? And most telling of all, if you appreciate a filmmaker who shows you a clock stuck on 11:59 (p.m.) every ten minutes to remind you that nothing you're watching is REALLY happening, and has the audacity to think he can throw in 30 seconds of quick-cuts action just before closing credits to explain what ACTUALLY went on according to a script which must have had more scribbled afterthoughts than typed original entries, then SICK HOUSE probably is up your dark alley.

Okay, but why the title? Because "The Orphanage" was already taken?

[Anonymous_Maxine · 3/10 · 21 October 2008]

A few years ago I saw a movie called Madhouse that was pretty good. Not as good as another similar one called Session 9, but still a fairly entertaining horror thriller about a mental institution. I expected something of the same with The Sickhouse, but I suppose it is meant to describe an orphanage from the late 17th Century that had been infected with the Bubonic Plague. We get a brief history lesson at the beginning of the movie about how the Plague swept through London in 1665, killing 15% of the city's population in a single summer. An American archaeologist thinks she has uncovered an ancient black cult involving priests and the plague victims, but she is brushed off by a British colleague, who is indifferent to her interest despite frightening revelatory evidence that she has uncovered. Public health, she says, sometimes has to be put before archaeology.

Enter a car full of British punks, screaming through the streets in a stolen car and filming themselves using a stolen video camera. Before long, midnight strikes, they run over someone or something in the street and come skidding to a stop, and we cut back to Anna, the American archaeologist, who has somehow stumbled upon a buried 17th Century street.

This is where I got lost, and I stayed lost for pretty much the rest of the movie. We see clocks striking midnight a lot, so clearly something happens at midnight, but it's never really very clear what it is. And what is the deal with the buried street? I guess the Plague was so traumatic that that just paved over the old streets and built modern London on top of it? I have no idea.

Anna is a huge problem in the movie. She claims to have this huge historical knowledge (and also does that intolerable thing late in the movie where everyone is fearful for their lives and she is frantically giving history lessons), but is astonishingly clueless about how to handle the Plague. At one point, one of the characters is supposedly infected with the plague, so they put him in a wire cage and then Anna suggests that they all go wash their hands.

Wow, all those primitive Londoners had to do was wash their hands! Think of all the lives that could have been saved!

The movie soon leaves any story behind and descends into a shabby special effects display that reminded me of old Nightmare on Elm Street movies. And if the special effects weren't bad enough, they also throw in the "I don't think any of this is real" thing, so none of it matters anyway.

The story, rather than having much of anything to do with a mental institution OR the plague, is about an orphanage in which a series of terrible thing happened to five of the orphans. Surprise, there are five characters in the movie and, as Anna explains, history "seems to be repeating itself."

No reason is given but none is needed. This is standard, 9th grade creative writing. Now we have the catalyst that introduces "death's design" which was kicked to death with three Final Destinations and provides a weak drive for the rest of the movie.

There is a romantic moment at the very end of the film that is spectacularly out of place and dissolves immediately any character development that might have come before, and like much of the rest of the movie, it ends with a small child whispering some utter nonsense to us. We are told that the plague doctor will live on forever, "and you being a malignant host, an infant herald of doom."

What?!?

Well, let me give you a little chronology. The Sixth Sense - 9-year-old boy sees dead people. Ghost Town - annoyed British dentist sees dead people. The Sickhouse - American archaeologist sees dead British people. That would be really interesting if the movies were released in that order...

Terrible Story, Screenplay and Camera Work

[claudio_carvalho · 2/10 · 15 November 2012]

In London, the archaeologist Anna Ash (Gina Philips) is informed by her Professor Joan Holland (Romla Walker) that the excavation site at the Sixteenth Century Ludgate Orphanage, where she is researching the Cult of the Black Priest during the Great Plague, will be demolished on the next morning to contain the contamination since it has been found the Y.pestis in the digging. The stubborn Anna breaks in the building at midnight expecting to find any substantial evidence that could stop the demolition.

Meanwhile, four drugged punks hit and run with a stolen car and they hide inside the building. They are haunted and attacked by a ghost and one of them, Clive (Jack Bailey), is wounded. When Anna stumbles with the hoodlums, she realizes that Clive is contaminated and needs help. But soon they find that they are trapped in the building.

"The Sick House" is a movie with terrible story, screenplay and camera work. The plot is stupid and unoriginal, and it is hard to believe that an intelligent woman would prioritize her research and break in a contaminated place without weaning protective clothing and mask.

The camera is awful and to compensate the low-budget, there are many closes and the camera is shaken expecting to give the sensation of chaos, but it never works. The messy and senseless conclusion is also awful, trying to give a dreadful twist to the plot. The only things that seems to work is the false promotion of this movie through many fake reviews. Last but not the least, the Brazilian title is perfect for this film ("The Great Plague"). My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "A Grande Praga" {"The Great Plague")

Avoid like the plague.

[BA_Harrison · 2/10 · 20 October 2009]

Plague doctors, the physicians who treated the sick during the Great Plague of London, wore wide-brimmed black hats, long black overcoats and primitive gas masks in the shape of a bird's beak; in short, they looked bloody freaky.

Horror newcomer Curtis Radclyffe attempts to capitalise on the unsettling nature of these bizarre historical figures by making them the antagonists in his film The Sick House, but fails to realise that having a cool looking killer just isn't enough on its own: a coherent plot, decent acting, competent editing and considered direction doesn't go amiss either.

After a thoroughly confusing pre-credits sequence featuring a whispering child, Radclyffe's film begins proper with the discovery of a sealed chamber beneath a 17th century hospital. Archaeologist Anna (Gina Philips) is keen to find out what is on the inside, but when the site is declared to be a bio-hazard, she is prevented from continuing her dig. So what does this supposedly intelligent scientist do next? Why, break in, of course—a stroke of genius which not only results in an outbreak of the plague, but also the resurrection of a murderous plague doctor. Meanwhile, a car full of joy-riders seek refuge in the hospital after their fun results in a fatal accident. Guess who's going to wish they'd not broken their ASBOs...

Having introduced his raft of thoroughly selfish characters, and established them within a fairly creepy locale, Radclyffe then proceeds to belie his novice status as both a writer and director by boring the pants off his audience with a solid hour and a half of people wandering aimlessly through dark corridors, whilst the shadowy plague doctor randomly appears and disappears in the shadows.

Fluorescent lights flicker on and off to add a little extra ambiance (or in my case, to irritate me even further), none of the supernatural events that occur are ever adequately explained, gimmicky editing and post production trickery makes everything extremely hard to follow, and the whole thing finishes as confusingly as it began, with a child once again whispering some nonsense that might possibly have made some sense had I not given up caring long before.

Weak script badly directed and edited to death

[d-praved · 2/10 · 12 March 2009]

The film is a complete mess. The premise might be sort of interesting, but the already everything but clever script that has written "novices at work!" on every single page additionally gets messed up by a directing that gives a new quality to the word "confusing". And if that wasn't enough, it seems the material was edited by someone on LSD, otherwise there's no explanation for this... hmmm... montage. Putting the footage into a shredder would have shown better results. My regards to the actors who tried hard to put some life into this.

Producers listen up: little money is no excuse for bad craftsmanship!!!!

What happened to integrity and talent.

[StudioLAX · 2/10 · 31 March 2008]

Despite knowing that the film industry will always sacrifice originality (and therefore risk) to make money it still amazes and annoys me that rubbish like this gets made. Can't a producer realise that making an interesting and vaguely original film will likely make more money through positive word of mouth than a bland, boring, seen it all before piece of cable movie sh!t like Sick House. This film was average, listless, un-engaging, dark and unintelligible, with a pointless and unnecessarily confusing twist ending. I'm desperately trying to think of something positive to say about this film and all I can come up with the cinematography and general look of the film was quite interesting, well that is at the few points in the film where it was possible to actually make out what was happening. Another positive point was Gina Philips who turned in a creditable performance.

Disjointed, needs more back-story and less cut-and-jump

[badwrench13 · 2/10 · 8 September 2008]

I was hopeful when I read the description on Netflix. Haunted hospital or asylum just creeps me out. Too bad the premise has never been done well. This film is no exception. There has to be one that is better than The Sickhouse, Session 9, the remake of House on Haunted Hill, the Attic Expeditions, etc. because they all sucked for myriad reasons. At least "Haunted" had some actually scary moments, not just psychological mishmash and gruesome imagery.

It was too jumpy. Right in the middle of the tension-filled hall-stalk or door-open, the scene cuts and jumps to a map for a few moments and then back to the scene, where nothing happens.

The plague doctor ghost villain was certainly scary in appearance, and his plague-victim ghost minions as well, but more back story was needed to set the mood and really explain things. They were just there and a freaky cult was mentioned. They should have gone more into it. That was actually intriguing and had major scare potential. Instead we get the same stalking villain-and-minions, teenage chavs getting offed (well, that was pretty good) in bizarre ways, and an undeveloped connection between several plague doctor cult killers.

Of course, it had the obligatory sole-survivor-as-reborn-villain-for-sequel setup, too, which just pisses me off. DONE TO DEATH.

The SickHouse is BRILLIANT! 10/10

[BasildonReeves · 10/10 · 5 April 2008]

I bought this movie because I love some kinds of horror (not teen/slasher/SAW garbage) and this kind of appealed because of the image of that freaky weird Plague Doctor. The style and colors and the way it was shot was amazing, kinda down and dirty and quick, but beware unless you keep your eyes open you'll miss the details. I don't know what some of the others are complaining about because I could see everything great on my TV but I do agree that maybe on cheaper TV's the details may not show.

The acting all round was superb and I liked the way I was switching between hating these guys and loving them - it kinda seemed that the actors at time were parodying actors from other bad horror flicks but because of the way the story ran I felt the writers and the director were deliberately doing this, like messing with our minds. I nearly missed some clues to do with mysterious fox but as i thought on it they all came together with the amazing pay-off which I ain't going to spoil for you. Wow, creepy! It really does make sense with the story but emotionally too.

Some of the other comments here are just plain dumb. I think these critics have just watched so much s*** that they can't tell good from bad anyhow and just because this movie uses and re-invents all the clichés that loser horror fans dig doesn't mean the film blows. It's smart cos it re-uses and recycles everything and I haven't seen a movie like it. I think movie people who aren't horror fans actually would see this as a really scary fresh movie.

SO I SAY GOOD LUCK TO IT and congrats to all those involved. BRILLIANT! 10/10

Not Horrible

[Runtingz · 6/10 · 26 June 2008]

Well, this was not horrible to say the least. I have seen many movies that are even worse. For a low budget movie it was actually pretty thrilling. It gave you some spooks and jumps. Overall the storyline was a good idea, yet somewhat got lost along the way. The acting was OK. Some of the graphics and stunts were pretty gruesome and cool in a way. The dialog was quick and understandable and kept you enthralled throughout the film. Although, the ending was quite a disappointment and rather abrupt, the movie was overall good. Nothing compared to the old time horror flicks, but still good. Is it worth your money? Maybe... if you're looking for a slightly cheesy horror flick. Otherwise, just watch it online.

Now where do I start with this little gem?

[bilbo-1635 · 10/10 · 21 October 2009]

First of all I think that the entire cast did a damn good job; they were all extremely well scripted and developed and everyone had their little part of the story to them, which you don't find in many movies these days. This movie, to me, is more psychological than anything which I totally love being that I'm all about mind games in my horror movies. The Plague Doctor himself is so creepy he gives you chills just looking at and I think he was nicely developed, and equally creepy and convincing. The story didn't have too many snags and although it kind of had moments where your totally lost it bundles itself in a nice little black bow at the end and sets up an interesting and twisted ending.

Another thing I want to note is that this is the first time I can remember that I've seen a naked pregnant girl in a mainstream film, which I thought was daring, considering that there's a lot of people that would go against it, and the boldness of that alone set me in high spirits for this movie. In all I'd have to say that The Sickhouse is a nice little jaunt into the depths of sinister spirituality and never lets up on the suspense and terror. If you're into ghost stories you'll be very happy with this film, I was thoroughly impressed, and that says a lot being that there's not enough good horror being made these days. Check this flick out, you got blood, guts, twists and turns and a pregnant girl giving birth to what looks like a million leaches! You gotta love it! In a time where most horror is cliché this movie sets itself in a different mode and pace than most which is very comforting. I'd definitely suggest you all watch this movie, just be sure to put on the subtitles, the kids have strong English accents... yeah as in London England. This movie is definitely highly recommended! Jayson Champion.

Good Overall

[sucrern · 6/10 · 26 March 2008]

This movie reminded me a lot of Jacob's Ladder. It was a little slow at times. The acting was pretty decent. The special effects were good. There was a nice use of glitched effects. The costumes could have been better. I assume this was a low-budget movie. They did good with what they had to work with. The bathtub scene was probably my favorite. I would say this is worth watching. The movie was a nice surprise in that it was a lot better than I expected it to be from the previous ratings it had received on this site. I had not heard of the director prior to this movie. I think he did a good job. A lot of low budget horror films lack in good acting and special effects, but this guy really pulled it off in my opinion.

Damn good attempt, maybe not worthy of a feature length, but a good attempt...

[geckopowerman · 8/10 · 19 January 2011]

Why an 8 rating? The film is far from perfect, the story was interesting, not fully realised. Acting was great (in my opinion) overall. Effects were very good. Quick summary, i am interested in the future of the cast and crew, they didn't quite nail it in this film, but they got close, very close! So why a rating of 8? The premise of the story was great, it did get a bit lost as we progress through the film, great potential, very good try overall.

Acting was superb, each and every character was well portrayed, thumbs up to the actors and i presume the director, for getting the performances he required.

Effects were good, maybe too much of it though, there was a lot of camera movement in a lot of scenes, so i did not see the need for a lot of the special effects.

Camera, read above, a wee bit too much movement of the camera for my liking, it was almost like they were trying to portray it as an art film (where visuals give you a meaning(or many meanings), as opposed to straight dialogue with visuals). Still, interesting visuals, but a wee bit over the top for my liking.

Editing. Hmmm, tricky one! I liked it, but not in the sense of watching the film, very interesting ideas in the editing, but once again, it seems as if the Editor/Director wanted to convey chaos, way too much? There was way too many cuts/shots jumping around really. Great for a shorter film, i guess, but a feature length, probably not. Apart from dealing with lots of camera movements, then the editing was probably not bad overall, but yet very artistic editing.

Direction. Overall a good job, the actors played their roles very well, even in moments where the story seems to have fallen down (it does happen, sadly, near the end). Good work overall! Budget!!! IMDb states it was approx $2 million dollars to make this film! If that is the case, then i would drop the rating to a 5 at best. I honestly do not understand why it can cost that amount of money to make, what i view, as a low budget film, and a very good one at that! So in Summary, good acting, promising story, not really gory, not really scary, but the story and the characters kept me involved to watch the film, even to the extent of writing this review (so it did many things right!). Maybe the story did not warrant a full feature, maybe 1 hour running time or even a 30 min short would of being a wiser choice, it was a brave decision to make this into a feature length, and they nearly nailed it.

I look forward to other work from the cast and crew, and maybe, just one day, they will hit the nail on the head, and create the next big summer blockbuster! We all hope...

P.S. To the Director, i look forward to your comments on my little Werewolf short i am creating, its gonna be poor, but its a zero budget affair and will be on Youtube! We all start somewhere, right!? :)

Pleasantly Surprised

[brokensilent · 7/10 · 28 August 2008]

I rented this movie because I just like watching horror movies and this looked like it could be fun. I was expecting the usual spook tale, you know the kind that keeps you entertained while you're watching but you forget about before you've even returned it. This definitely exceeded my expectations. With the opening credits, I knew it was an artistically done film which is always appeals to me but sometimes, are so so out there, that they're just too bizarre to have fun with. This wasn't one of those. If you're paying attention, which you have to do, this film will be very enjoyable. For being a horror film, it actually had relatively little gore. The worse scene is the bathroom which had me squirming for more reasons than the blood. The filmography was interesting though at times, a bit distracting from the actual film. The storyline wasn't what I expected either, I figured it was the spirit of a ghoulish man who was knocking off one character after another in creative fashions. But it's not that, it's so much more. The writing was well done, you believe the characters and what they say, they grow on you and when they meet their demise you feel bad for most of them. The only one that didn't grow on me was the main character but I usually have very little sympathy for the people that start all the havoc so it was nothing against her acting or character. This is a story filled with possession, deadly curiosity, time manipulation, betrayal, creepy bird costumes, and an ending that is far from predictable. Be sure to pay attention to the little details in this movie and don't take anything for granted. Thoroughly enjoyed this film and was very surprised at how different this was from what I expected.

Did anyone actually WATCH this?

[tcrazyd · 8/10 · 2 June 2019]

I loved this movie. And I'm not a idiot, gee, if a 16th century orphanage is being torn down, of course the archologist wants to see what she can find before it is. That was very clear, she's a fanatic on gee.. history... so yeah, she'd sneak in before its gone! Who would worry about a 400 year old sickness in bones? As for the end, this is twisty one, and watching it may have actually helped those that seemed to have missed out on what the ending even was. I've watched this already twice, and have the dvd to watch again, its twisty, its spooky, and its more than just a 'sickness'. Its not perfect, but its in my favorites list! This is an awesome popcorn movie!

good movie but...

[EmmanKiddo · 6/10 · 16 March 2008]

This movie was good! GINA PHILIPS was phenomenal as always and the others did a great job too. So it means that the acting in this movie was very good, i think it was great. The atmosphere was very good too, i really like that orphanage and the creatures look very well too. The plot was very nice too, it was original and i like it, it reminds me a little of HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL but still original and kinda refreshing. The movie was slow at some parts but still entertaining and with nice creepy moments and with some good scenes of action/horror. But the movie was too dark in some parts that is hard to figure out whats happening in some scenes, but still good. And the ending was sooo damn confusing! Overall it was a good horror movie but with a very confusing ending. Worth watching, worth renting. i gave it a 6/10 it would be a little better if the ending wasn't that confusing or if the film were not that dark. But like i said it is good, at least thats my opinion. But i think GINA PHILIPS was the best thing in the film.

Excellent Story, Great Thrill, Awesome Suspense.

[waqasahmad2001 · 10/10 · 16 June 2016]

Seeing the business of this film, i am amazed how this film could not grab more money and audience?? I Really liked the plot of this movie right from the beginning. The lead cast had done splendid work with superb body language. All the time, it made us thinking for the next twist here and there. We could not help but watch this movie more than one time and of course with the same enthusiasm. I want to ask few things which i could not get clarity of as the end began approaching. For example, i am confused to know the time phenomenon when the clock stopped at 11.59. Were they all five actually had died at 12??. Was anna actually unconscious the moment she fell from the top floor and then she ran towards the main gate where she hit with the car of those teenagers?? Do those four teenagers really entered the orphanage or it was just all dream of anna??? What was the issue of that baby?

People Read Your History Please

[skooshie · 7/10 · 8 July 2008]

I won't say this is the best horror film I have ever watched but it is certainly not the worst either. Interesting story line about the plague doctors (who by the way wore masks shaped like bird beaks to keep plague at bay) and an unknown cult. In this day of conspiracies it is reasonable to think it could have happened. It had some really decent gore in it and is an OK way to spend a couple of hours. I must say Gina Phillips is making a career out of making horror films and most of them have been good enough to watch. Like this one. You have to keep an open mind with most horror films now days and this is definitely worth a quick look when you've got nothing else to watch. I bought in the 2 for $10 bin @ the local big name super store so at least I got my money's worth. And the ending was very interesting

Hell is repetition

[chrispbklyn · 6/10 · 22 March 2008]

This movie is about a haunted building, evil and trapped souls and possession. It takes place at night which is why it is so dark all the time. The camera work was bothersome at times because it was all over the place. The most gory scene was probably the one in the bath tub. The acting was well done. I like the way they used the building's floor plans to let you know where exactly the scenes are taking place in the building. I also liked the way you couldn't really tell if the person was possessed or not unless you really paid close attention or saw that tell tale sign. Overall I liked it. Sometimes hell is repetition. When someone tell you to stay out of a building till daytime......you better listen!

Not Bad But...

[ladymidath · 7/10 · 26 May 2022]

I really wanted to enjoy The Sickhouse, I like Alex Hassle, he was great in The Boys and Cowboy Bebop. Gina Phillips was wonderful as well as the rest of the cast. The story was good and held my interest. I liked the idea of using plague doctors and the setting was spooky enough. The problem was that the film was hard to see and the jerky cam was disorientating. The action was solid enough and there were a couple of really gory scenes that were very effective. I just really couldn't see the action properly. I think it needed to be clearer with less wobble cam and weird lighting.

Other than these issues, I found myself enjoying it. It's just a pity that there are so many negative reviews.

I have noticed that it's been compared to The Orphanage and The Devil's Backbone which are brilliant movies. The Sickhouse.is a good moviel, it just needs to be tidied up a little.

It's Okay..

[SpringheeledKat · 6/10 · 10 March 2012]

As a rule I tend to judge a film by watching it myself. Taking heed of reviews, I thought this one may be worth a go. The opening titles were correct for the middle ages, especially the bird-like masks which as said in the film were worn by plague doctors & beaks stuffed with herbs and spices to 'prevent' breathing in the disease.

The film begins with the typical headstrong protagonist despite warning wanting to investigate a newly discovered vault in an archaeological dig site (old London hospital) that could be potentially a bio-hazard & is advised to stay away. Of course she doesn't, at the same time we see a bunch of London teenagers on a jolly for their friends birthday driving erratically - cue crash. On deciding to peg it from police they hot-foot it into the same (closed down) hospital as the protagonist. They all meet up and chaos ensues.

Nothing particularly striking, entertaining for people who gravitate towards horror genre. A different plot from most, same clichés - judge it on your own merit.

Under-rated Film; Good acting and quite entertaining

[MissOceanB · 6/10 · 28 September 2012]

Horror fans can be finicky; I know this, I am one of them. But The Sick House deserves a higher review, in my humble opinion. Yes, there are "similar" films in this genre of Horror (the abandoned building/hospital/asylum), yet I was pleasantly surprised and it is not exactly as it appears to be in the "spoilers" or description. Yes, it is low-budget but the plot was interesting and the acting was BY FAR better than some other low-budget films of this particular branch of Horror. It is not an overly complex plot so you can enjoy it without having to figure everything out or "where IS this film going?". Enjoyable, mindless so you can enjoy it without trying to figure it out and definitely creepy at times. And it's not too long so if you DON'T enjoy it, at least you haven't wasted 2-3 hours!

All in all, an interesting film with good actors and a good ending!

Bloody and disorientating - like that's a bad thing!

[parry_na · 7/10 · 30 October 2020]

Sometimes, it's good to sit back and let a horror movie unfold before you. It needn't be the slickest written, it needn't contain hidden messages or agendas, and it needn't be bursting with CGI or a massive budget. 'The Sichouse' is stylish in its direction and increasingly manic in its storyline. The characters are put well and truly through the mill and the overall feeling is one of chaos and, as you would imagine, sickness.

Co-writer and director Curtis Radclyffe has meticulously (over?) edited the scenes here, drenching them in cold colours and bleeding out any warmth, the camera angles are frequently eccentric, ensuring viewers are never feeling reassured. The sense of chaos makes it virtually impossible to keep up with what is going on, but that is, I think, deliberate. Just as the characters are losing their minds, so we are invited to lose ours for the duration. Some won't enjoy that, but I found it an enjoyable stark experience. It's a bit of a dark trip. My score is 7 out of 10.

This comment is dedicated to user bilbo-1635, my greatest fan.

[fedor8 · 14 December 2011]

Wobbly hand-held camera filming in the dark. Just great. Thanks, movie.

In a sense, the fact that the camera wobbles doesn't matter much, coz the movie is shot mostly in the dark, with faint glimmers of light (usually just flashlights). Wobbling is pretty much invisible in the dark so as far as I was concerned the wobbling didn't bother me during the invisible scenes - which took up 80% of the movie btw.

Hundreds of cameramen and future cinematographers spend years learning how to work the camera, having a steady hand and an eye for lighting - but then one day they get their first movie job and what does the director tell them? "Please wobble as much as you can, and no, we won't have any lighting, just pitch-black darkness". Yeah, why let the viewers see the action? What do THEY matter?

This idiotic myth about the hand-held wobble giving movies more realism has got to stop. You want more realism? How about working on better scripts. Not that any kind of change in how the camera is operated would have saved this dull turkey. It's clichés galore, strictly fluff.

We have a heroine who is so daft that she actually goes into a building suspected of contamination, just so she can pick a few clues relating to some 17th-century plague-priests. The fact that this moron is played by Gina Philips is just about the only good thing about the movie, and she's the only reason I downloaded this crap in the first place.

Many modern movies suffer from an overuse of computers, which are recklessly abused when directors go into a colour-changing frenzy. TSH is basically all dark green. This dull flick would have actually profited from realistic, natural colours, not fake hues of computer-generated green, which just end up making it bland-looking and very stereotypical of this age.

The way the four London yobs enter the building is ludicrous. I didn't quite understand that. Did they actually think the building was a functioning hospital? Sure yobos are dumb, but surely not that dumb.