I too saw the Sacramento Film Festival showing. I really, really WANTED to like this movie. I didn't. It was disjointed and at times illogical. The elements are there, but it definitely needs more editing. A lot more editing. I think it is telling that in at least one of the cast lists online one of the main actor's photo(Carlos Alazraqui) is represented by a cartoon monkey, which doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement. Oddly, Carlos' character was portrayed the most interestingly. I also thought Megan Ward, who played the primary protagonist, did a good job. Lou Diamond Phillips wasn't up to par, but, again, that could be an issue with editing. Or not.
15 Reviews
Oh the religious overtones...
stormiepsy2 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I don't do a lot of reviews but this one is more of a warning to horror fans than anything. I love all kinds of horror and have since I was a child. But haunting and possession have always been my favorites. So I try to never pass up on those. This movie started out OK and I didn't even mind the occasional religious nod. Hell, lots of really good horror movies do it. But they don't OVERdo it. The story was going along fine even if it was slow in spots. The acting was decent. Not Academy Award decent, but decent all the same. Most of the cinematography was alright. There were parts that were unnecessary like the 4 different shots of the main character shutting a door and nothing climatic happens. Or some of the slow motion shots. There was absolutely no purpose for any of that. And then the religion starts up again. Only people of faith can be saved from the wrath of the board. If you have no faith and you smudged your blood on it even accidentally you have to give up your soul to it like those before you (this type of stuff was repeated numerously by several different characters). This movie should have been touted as religious propaganda then a horror film. The only reason why I gave it a 4 instead of a 1 is because:
1) they had a guy in it with actual real tattoos that weren't stickers and he wasn't portrayed as a convict, gangster, drug addict, street thug, satanist or a biker which is almost unheard of.
2) Pam Grier is in it and I love that lady
3) Lou Diamond Phillips is in it and even tho he doesn't have the best track record when it comes to blockbuster movies at least he's consistent and
4) I liked the Papa Roach song at the end. And I'm not even a big fan of Papa Roach.
5) the ending was pretty cool and true to the genre, FINALLY!
Oh,and the male nurse was kind of funny. If it wasn't for those things this movie would have earned a much lower score from me.
1) they had a guy in it with actual real tattoos that weren't stickers and he wasn't portrayed as a convict, gangster, drug addict, street thug, satanist or a biker which is almost unheard of.
2) Pam Grier is in it and I love that lady
3) Lou Diamond Phillips is in it and even tho he doesn't have the best track record when it comes to blockbuster movies at least he's consistent and
4) I liked the Papa Roach song at the end. And I'm not even a big fan of Papa Roach.
5) the ending was pretty cool and true to the genre, FINALLY!
Oh,and the male nurse was kind of funny. If it wasn't for those things this movie would have earned a much lower score from me.
Too muddled and too much of everything
Catharina_Sweden11 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The problems with this movie are three:
1. It is too muddled. It is impossible to know what is real, what is a dream, what is a hallucination, what is a flashback etc.. The attempts to do it more interesting by turning the camera around and taking shots from "interesting" angles also just made it more confusing. The ending was strange and unsatisfying.
2. There is simply too much of everything. Ghosts, demons, snakes, an Ouija board, a portal to another world, the magic circle, the doll, the old lady, the medium... yes even the Devil himself. Did I forget something..? One gets used to it, tires, and stops reacting by shock/surprise very early on. It is much better to chose only one or a couple of those ingredients, and concentrate on that.
3. There is too much blood and gore and mutilated bodies here. This does not make the movie more scary in any positive sense - but only unpleasant.
The only thing that redeems this movie a little are the very good actors - considering what they had to work with!
1. It is too muddled. It is impossible to know what is real, what is a dream, what is a hallucination, what is a flashback etc.. The attempts to do it more interesting by turning the camera around and taking shots from "interesting" angles also just made it more confusing. The ending was strange and unsatisfying.
2. There is simply too much of everything. Ghosts, demons, snakes, an Ouija board, a portal to another world, the magic circle, the doll, the old lady, the medium... yes even the Devil himself. Did I forget something..? One gets used to it, tires, and stops reacting by shock/surprise very early on. It is much better to chose only one or a couple of those ingredients, and concentrate on that.
3. There is too much blood and gore and mutilated bodies here. This does not make the movie more scary in any positive sense - but only unpleasant.
The only thing that redeems this movie a little are the very good actors - considering what they had to work with!
Horrible Movie!!! Beware!!
jenn_knappster18 April 2010
I saw this film last night at the Sacramento Film Festival and it is, by far, the worst fill-length film I have ever seen. This is not an exaggeration. I've seen some bad movies and this tops them all. It's not even all the blood that makes it horrible...it's the entire story. It's filled with cliché plot lines and has so many loose ends that you're left wondering what the director was thinking. The word at the festival is that he has a prequel and sequel to film, but I really hope he doesn't. They're only bound to be worse than this one and I don't want to see them.
I know some people who read the original script and was told post-film what the original ending had been. The original ending would have been far superior and would have made actual sense to the overall story, but no. The director decided on an ending that was hideous, unnecessary and sick. In fact, I would label this entire film as unworthy of anyone's time and/or money.
I will say that the only bright spot in this film is Ellen Dow. She's always awesome.
I know some people who read the original script and was told post-film what the original ending had been. The original ending would have been far superior and would have made actual sense to the overall story, but no. The director decided on an ending that was hideous, unnecessary and sick. In fact, I would label this entire film as unworthy of anyone's time and/or money.
I will say that the only bright spot in this film is Ellen Dow. She's always awesome.
Bad attempt at Psychological Thriller
just_acting_up19 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I also saw this film's screening at the Sacramento Film Festival and agree that it is about one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Besides some decent cinematography and nice locations, the film was a complete let-down. A majority of the acting was pathetic, and to think that director McKinney is coaching aspiring film actors at a studio in Sacramento is ridiculous. The plot line was far too simple, and the dialog left so much to be desired. The pace of the film and editing was way too slow at times, the thrilling moments seemed predictable. The only shock was at the very end, and then the film just leaves you hanging, not understanding the purpose at all.
McKinney spends so much time hitting the audience over the head with religious overtones, but then you don't really understand to what purpose. A main character, Natalie Shaw, wonderfully played by Ellen Dow, accidentally unleashes this evil as a child. But she has apparently lived a full and decent life if she is over 90 years old at the end of the film! We see her with rosary beads in her retirement home, so she must have achieved some personal faith and belief in God during her lifetime. But when she attempts to destroy the evil "spirit board" the devil sucks her into hell? So... if the lesson of the film is... "have faith or the devil is going to get you" then she still ends up being sucked to hell, so where's the reasoning? Looks like a whole lot of money was spent on actors and visual effects on a real dud of a script and no direction. There is no dialog about why the mother doesn't want her baby baptized (apparently an important trait about why her character has no faith.) She screams and kicks uncontrollably while doctors are trying to help her save her baby... how unrealistic! The most annoying thing is everyone keeps going back into this house that is possessed, and the spiritual guide (a decent cameo by Pam Grier) tells them to get out, several people have already died... would you go back in? Also, in McKinney's bio he claims to have directed "over 60 films" but when you look at his IMDb credits, there's not much there. He's given the film festival's legend award? What a joke!
McKinney spends so much time hitting the audience over the head with religious overtones, but then you don't really understand to what purpose. A main character, Natalie Shaw, wonderfully played by Ellen Dow, accidentally unleashes this evil as a child. But she has apparently lived a full and decent life if she is over 90 years old at the end of the film! We see her with rosary beads in her retirement home, so she must have achieved some personal faith and belief in God during her lifetime. But when she attempts to destroy the evil "spirit board" the devil sucks her into hell? So... if the lesson of the film is... "have faith or the devil is going to get you" then she still ends up being sucked to hell, so where's the reasoning? Looks like a whole lot of money was spent on actors and visual effects on a real dud of a script and no direction. There is no dialog about why the mother doesn't want her baby baptized (apparently an important trait about why her character has no faith.) She screams and kicks uncontrollably while doctors are trying to help her save her baby... how unrealistic! The most annoying thing is everyone keeps going back into this house that is possessed, and the spiritual guide (a decent cameo by Pam Grier) tells them to get out, several people have already died... would you go back in? Also, in McKinney's bio he claims to have directed "over 60 films" but when you look at his IMDb credits, there's not much there. He's given the film festival's legend award? What a joke!
What an embarrassment for Sacramento
stephendelp9921 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
No one looks forward to writing a scathing review of a movie. I think most would say that one always looks to be genuinely entertained when spending one's money on a ticket. Who WANTS to be disappointed going into a flick? No one. Which is the attitude I went in with when seeing this movie at the Crest Theatre in Sacramento last month. OH MY GOD. This ninety-some-odd-minute painful excuse of a film was, hands down, the worst movie I have ever viewed in my 30 years of watching movies. I do not mean this to be cruel to the filmmaker or the cast; I mean it literally. Absolute drivel from start to finish with some of the most melodramatic, cliché and predictable dialogue ever put to paper. I love a good horror flick as much as anyone, but there was nothing, not one single thing, in this movie that was scary or even admirable where horror film-making is concerned. Why? Because the filmmaker apparently decided to employ every and any "scary" device or trick or sound effect he'd ever heard or seen before in a horror movie and it therefore backfired as unrelenting silly moments of predictable cliché. By the way, what's with Pam Grier showing up at the house with this bizarre "slave accent", only to have that same silly accent disappear once they're all up in the attic? I took additional offense to this movie once I learned that the director is an acting coach in Sacramento. I repeat. OH MY GOD. Like Simon Cowell chewing out horrible singers when he learns that some of them are "singing teachers" back in their hometown, he should have this director standing before him; he'd have a field day with McKinney. The acting in The Invited is so bad - Lou Diamond Phillips being the worst of the lot - that the filmmaker might find it prudent to switch his credit to an Allen Smithee film. No joke. This movie could literally kill his business as an acting coach. Then again, would that be so bad? A famous director once said, "With such easy access nowadays to digital film-making cameras and editing tools, virtually anyone can be a filmmaker. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY NECESSARILY SHOULD. If The Invited is representative of the quality and caliber of film-making in the Sacramento region, then Sacramento film-making is indeed in deep s--t.
worst movie endorsed by trolls: beware
christosplvs6 July 2015
This is the worst movie ever. It is entertaining to laugh at, but in no other way is it watchable. Sorry. If you read good reviews, you are being trolled! Seriously, it's that bad. I think even the director is in on the joke.
The script is terrible, the special effects are unbelievable (not in a good way) and the acting could be better. However, it doesn't matter because it is one hot mess.
We had fun, but kinda wished we picked something else to watch. The plot, which was possible, was all over the place. It was predictable with only the most bizarre events blindsiding your senses. It could have been so much better.
Keep looking.
The script is terrible, the special effects are unbelievable (not in a good way) and the acting could be better. However, it doesn't matter because it is one hot mess.
We had fun, but kinda wished we picked something else to watch. The plot, which was possible, was all over the place. It was predictable with only the most bizarre events blindsiding your senses. It could have been so much better.
Keep looking.
Wrongly Labeled Horror/Thriller
blood-lust6669 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This film is labeled as a horror/thriller, and the audience could be easily fooled into thinking it is because of the Ouija board concept. Alas, The Invited is little more than a romantic love story between husband/wife wrapping itself around a convoluted horror plot. Along with the muddied plot and love aspect is an overwhelming use of religious subtext. This movie literally makes mention about how important faith is throughout and degrades the aesthetics characters as being the ruin of mankind.
So, just to get this straight, horror fans ARE NOT INTO romance or having a religious agenda shoved down their throat. That's why we watch horror-strictly to avoid said things.
As for the ending, it made absolutely no sense. It was a sad attempt at a twist. It didn't work. This is not a psychological thriller. Why did you bother?
Worst movie ever!!!
sherrikertzman20 February 2021
McKinney really showcased his talent!
Meghan-Malia25 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I couldn't be more pleased with this movie. The Invited may not be everyone's cup of tea, but with any movie that is not watered down for the masses, it's going to flat out turn some people off. I can appreciate the bold choices Ryan made as a director, especially knowing the controversy a director faces when filming an independent film. There are countless hurdles to jump through and many don't even make it to completion. Lou Diamond Phillips gave a performance of a lifetime too. My only complaint is that I wish he had a bigger part. From an investor standpoint in terms of funding future projects, this movie is a perfect showcase of Ryan's talent and developed skills as an up and coming director. I wish him the best and look forward to seeing what he can do with a big budget!
Based on a true story ?
topdrive-7999524 September 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I guess this is okay as far as actors are concerned. The rest of it is horse shite. It said,"based on a true story". Okay. If that's case,who did they get the story from. This gals husband in the movie is dead at the beginning. Something tells me,he's not gonna be much help here. Here's the part that got me. You go through all this crap in the movie. This gal is going through hell. She gets towards end of movie. She wants be with her husband again. Boom. She's in her house and everything is a okay. Magic Jack is back from the dead. She don't wanna be in the house. Tells MagicJsck,let's go for a ride. They going down the road. Have a blow out. Jack pulls the car over. He gets the tire off. It gets away from him (yeah I know. A blown out flat tire rolls perfectly). The wife (8months pregnant I might add) . The wife almost gets hit by a F150. Stops in time. Car behind him didn't . Car hits F150. F150 is some how responsible for taking the wife's head,off her body. Headless corpse. Here's my question. If the wife is headless and dead,how the hell is she gonna tell what happened. A headless corpse,I wouldn't expect to carry on a conversation with. So how can you base this movie on a true story,if she can't tell her side.
HELLO. ANYONE THERE?
nogodnomasters10 May 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The story starts in 1920 with the formation of a nice looking hand made Ouija board. It then jumps to the present for a quick scene and then two years later which I understood to mean "present" also. Michelle (Megan Ward) is an atheist who writes children books with witches and dragons. Her husband Jack (Victor Browne) is an out of work actor and Christian. They argue a bit over their expected child's baptism as they move into their new home.
Now to no surprise, Michelle discovers said board in the attic. Jack wants her to toss it out, recalling a bad experience he and his Marine buddies had with one during Desert Storm. I tried to picture that scene and had to laugh, even if Michelle didn't. Anyway Michelle uses the board (the type that only needs one person) with a cast iron pointer (see top of DVD cover) and things begin to happen quiet rapidly.
When I saw the names "Lou Diamond Phillips" and "Pam Grier" I was thinking a 1 star cheese comedy, something that is normally reserved for Eric Roberts or Christian Slater. Pam had a minor role as "Zelda" a medium, apparently a tribute to Zelda Rubenstein ("Poltergeist"). Pam did a decent job, although I didn't know psychics needed to be invited into a home. I thought that was just vampires. LDP had a support role as the investigating officer and he was Jack's commander. They really didn't get a chance to make me laugh and hold my nose that much.
Now the first killing you can see coming from miles away. The anticipation, the foreboding music, and the timing made for a good scene. The film had its up and down moments for the first 2/3 of the film and I was enjoying it. Then the movie fell out of the window and off a cliff. The ending was like it had a faith based film writer come in and finish it off. Seriously, this is how you wanted to end the film?
I'm not sure what the woman in the lake on the DVD cover is about. I must have missed something. Walmart $9.96 US
Guide: No swearing or nudity. Implied preggo sex. Severed head. Blood. Not really gory. Not rated, but would most likely weigh in at about a PG-13.
Now to no surprise, Michelle discovers said board in the attic. Jack wants her to toss it out, recalling a bad experience he and his Marine buddies had with one during Desert Storm. I tried to picture that scene and had to laugh, even if Michelle didn't. Anyway Michelle uses the board (the type that only needs one person) with a cast iron pointer (see top of DVD cover) and things begin to happen quiet rapidly.
When I saw the names "Lou Diamond Phillips" and "Pam Grier" I was thinking a 1 star cheese comedy, something that is normally reserved for Eric Roberts or Christian Slater. Pam had a minor role as "Zelda" a medium, apparently a tribute to Zelda Rubenstein ("Poltergeist"). Pam did a decent job, although I didn't know psychics needed to be invited into a home. I thought that was just vampires. LDP had a support role as the investigating officer and he was Jack's commander. They really didn't get a chance to make me laugh and hold my nose that much.
Now the first killing you can see coming from miles away. The anticipation, the foreboding music, and the timing made for a good scene. The film had its up and down moments for the first 2/3 of the film and I was enjoying it. Then the movie fell out of the window and off a cliff. The ending was like it had a faith based film writer come in and finish it off. Seriously, this is how you wanted to end the film?
I'm not sure what the woman in the lake on the DVD cover is about. I must have missed something. Walmart $9.96 US
Guide: No swearing or nudity. Implied preggo sex. Severed head. Blood. Not really gory. Not rated, but would most likely weigh in at about a PG-13.
Old school supernatural thriller
rapalabaffin12 June 2010
I saw the sneak screening of this at The Crest Theater in Sacramento during the Sac Int'l Film Fest. "The Invited is a true horror film in homage to Hitchcock and other old school thrillers. It had a captivating storyline as well as good heart pumping suspense. I screamed from the beginning of the movie to the very end! The special effects were amazing and the acting was honest. Ryan McKinney's vision of this story is so vivid that you will come away from it trembling and very paranoid. This film has a little of everything including romance and action.I can't wait to see it again in theaters! And yes, I will scream my little heart out.
Smart movie, well directed
Robalone-Lipps12 June 2010
This movie was made on a realtively small budget in a very much larger landscape of feature films, and was impressive to me because of the smartly written plot and how much was done with so little. I am a writter and tend to analyze movies from that standpoint. What I decided after watching this movie at the Crest Theatre--it was the marquee film for the Sacramento 2010 Film Festival--was that this dude Ryan McKinney is smart, very smart, and does not treat his audience as if they were any thing less. He lets your brain work out details rather than step-by-step going, "Ok audience, 1 + 1 equals 2, and 2 + 2 equals 4...." No, no, no, no, McKinney respects his audience and takes you on a journey (ride!) that kept me beguiled from start to end because I, frankly, did not know what was going to happen next.
And then, BAM!, came the ending. It was as if, on a clear blue day, a piano fell straight from the sky. It, if I can show my age and use an expression from back in the day, "Blew my Mind!"
And then, BAM!, came the ending. It was as if, on a clear blue day, a piano fell straight from the sky. It, if I can show my age and use an expression from back in the day, "Blew my Mind!"
The Ouija Strikes Again
mikebannacheck24 July 2015
The Ouija Board has always been a favorite theme in horror and within five minutes past the opening credits we witness a young girl crafting her own on an wooden circle to communicate with her dead brother. It is the year 1920 and the film begins in black and white at an old farmhouse, which happens to have a family cemetery out back. The girl anxiously goes to her brothers grave to test her device with horrible repercussions.
The movie forwards into the present with our protagonist Michelle, an author of children's fiction, and her husband Jack meeting a realtor at the same farmhouse. At that moment you can guess that she will find the Ouija board and unleash it's menace (especially if she uses it alone).
The best thing about the Invited was it steered clear from the possession motif notable in the Witchboard trilogy and most recently in Ouija. It does offer some scares and a few gruesome effects that make you forgive some cheap CGI effects deployed. The acting is believable and the character Michelle is like able enough to keep you watching what unfolds. Any horror fan should give it a go.
B+
Alan Bannacheck Minneapolis, MN
The movie forwards into the present with our protagonist Michelle, an author of children's fiction, and her husband Jack meeting a realtor at the same farmhouse. At that moment you can guess that she will find the Ouija board and unleash it's menace (especially if she uses it alone).
The best thing about the Invited was it steered clear from the possession motif notable in the Witchboard trilogy and most recently in Ouija. It does offer some scares and a few gruesome effects that make you forgive some cheap CGI effects deployed. The acting is believable and the character Michelle is like able enough to keep you watching what unfolds. Any horror fan should give it a go.
B+
Alan Bannacheck Minneapolis, MN
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
