Sick Boy (2012) User Reviews

What a monumental waste of time.

[Thrill_KillZ · 3/10 · 28 July 2012]

First off, the only thing about this film that didn't stick out negatively is the cinematography. That said it's all about this ditsy girl who takes a babysitting job as a favor for her friend, it was high paying so she took it. She is told the kid is sick & never to go downstairs for any reason, of course the dumb girl doesn't listen & seventy minutes later it culminates to a lousy unsatisfactory ending.

The lead actress in this should win an award, an award for annoying pathetically poor acting. I stuck around for the entire run time but only because I wanted to see her die horribly. The plot could have been printed on a fortune cookie. Don't pay for this! It has nothing good to offer. It's just another 3/10 film that will leave you saying oh man I should have known better. Well at least that was my feeling.

Not THAT bad...give it a chance

[MissOceanB · 4/10 · 2 November 2012]

Sick Boy has a low rating, yes, so I went into it thinking it will be awful. However, in the end it wasn't too bad but I wouldn't watch it again (once you've seen it, you've seen it - nothing to "go through" or re- evaluate). The acting of the lead is sub-par and really annoying at times especially near the end, the movie starts verrry slowly and her boyfriend is a bit of an idiot...but if you can look past that, the story itself (although it's been done before and you'll see why) is solid and suspenseful. I particularly liked the look of the sick boy, skin color, eyes, as you see in the trailer. There are moments you will be thinking "WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?" when it comes to the lead actor's decisions, but in the end it wasn't too bad. Obviously very low-budget but budget doesn't always mean BAD film.

So the acting isn't always great, but the story is...

[bergeron70 · 5/10 · 25 February 2013]

I know this has a bad rating, but I enjoyed the build of suspense and the fact that we got to know the characters a bit better. It was, on the whole, predictable but how many movies of this genre aren't?

If you give this one a chance and allow yourself to be drawn into the world of the characters (their arguments and issues ARE believable) you might actually find yourself enjoying it. I actually cared about Lucy's well being by the end and thing that the woman who played this part was a reasonably good actor. I found the boyfriend annoying and wondered why she didn't just dump him at one point, but I suppose that aspect of the dynamic and relationship are believable as well.

It is what it is and as an 83 minute distraction, you could do worse.

My IQ shrunk to zero after this junk

[pulstromb · 1/10 · 29 July 2012]

As a matter of fact, I don't even know where to start... Everything is chaotic, nothing seems to be logical, which is the "less" problem. The acting is so individually terrible, I thought first, it must be a joke or just my eyes played some sort of tricky games, but no! And they call themselves "actors". No one in this film played decent or at least somewhere like average. My brain was irreparably damaged after this and I only suggest "Sick boy" to those people, who are enough crazy and agile. There was a moment in some of the conversations, when I tried to find out, which "actor" was worse and there was my laugh breaking the dumb silence... maybe it was a side effect, I don't really care.

Nothing overly impressive here...

[paul_haakonsen · 4/10 · 4 August 2012]

Having read the reviews of this movie, I wasn't overly thrilled to sit down and watch it, but still decided to give it the benefit of the doubt; as I am of the creed that what others might not like, I might like, and vice versa.

I will say that "Sick Boy" is quite slow in moving ahead, it takes way over half of the movie before it starts to get up in gear, and even then it is nothing overly impressive.

The story is about Lucy (played by Skye McCole Bartusiak) who is hired by Helen Gordan (played by Debbie Rochon, who actually put on the most impressive performance of all the people in the movie) to basically stay in her home while she is working at night, to make sure nothing happens to her sick son who is downstairs. The son is very ill with some unknown disease. Lucy is told not to go downstairs no matter what, but of course her curiosity gets the better of her and she ventures down the stairs...

"Sick Boy" tried really hard to build up suspense, but it didn't really amount to anything, because there was no particular thrilling climaxes to anything it was trying to do. The movie was rather predictable.

I will say that it was actually something that could pass for a good introduction for a continuation of a zombie outbreak, but as a stand-alone movie, it wasn't all that impressive.

There was a little bit of gore in the movie, but hardly enough to even arouse the interest of most gore-hounds. And what was up with the red, glowing eyes of those infected with the sickness that came from South America? That was just downright stupid and made the movie come off as a super lame low budget movie.

One thing puzzled me, why did the police officer just started to blast away at the child once he entered the house? Shouldn't he give some warning at least? And he had no morale issues with shooting a child? No remorse, no emotion, it was just like a drone shooting at target practice. That scene was really lame.

"Sick Boy" wasn't scary in any way, nor was it really thrilling. It was just less than adequate entertainment, and having seen it now, I can honestly say that this is not a movie that will be making a second trip back to my DVD player.

Interesting approach, but feels like a waste of time.

[bjjnedan · 2/10 · 29 July 2012]

First off, this movie is about this really stupid chick who babysits for a family that has some kid that is sick with an unknown disease. A sickness referred to as "the blue flu" because it turns the skin of those afflicted by it blue. And..., it causes them to turn psycho and eat human flesh.

So..., yeah this is a zombie movie. Not a very good one, but interesting, I guess. If you can suffer through the terrible acting from the cast who have the emotional range of a rock, a very stupid rock, then..., well..., then nothing. There's nothing about this movie that makes suffering through the first 20 minutes of it worth a damn. I can't think of anything good to say about this, other than the lead actress is pretty hot, but incredibly stupid. Seriously, she's almost stupid enough that I'd much rather watch her die horribly than to see her naked. And that's really bad cuz I love naked hot chicks. Anyways, from the very start, this movie is pretty much just plain bad. Like I touched on a bit earlier, the characters are completely devoid of emotion, since stupid is not an emotion. The music, or sound effects, whatever, seem to try to make certain scenes out to be thrilling or menacing, when there was absolutely nothing going on, at all. If you watch it and are able to endure the very stupid people acting poorly long enough to get to it, the scene where the stupid blonde is exploring the outside of the house is the main example I have for misplaced tension. The menacing sound effects made it seem like something was about to happen, yet this dumb b**** just stares blankly at the water for a minute. I've read reviews on other sites about how this is suppose to some kind of horror genius. This movie is genius like Jenna Jamison is a Grammy contender. This movie is just bad, I can't in good conscience recommend this movie to anybody. Even if you are a hardcore fanboy of the zombie genre, you really should pass on this because it really is a waste of time. I gave it a 2 for the sheer doableness of the lead retard, actress(either works).

Horrible Writing, No Depth

[mbvang02 · 1/10 · 30 July 2012]

The only pro of this movie is that it mislead far enough to watch the full movie.

The cons of the movie: 1. The writer intentionally wrote the main character as someone who doesn't follow any common sense. Albeit most horror movies consist of people not making logical decision, BUT EVERY DECISION SHE MADE WAS INTENTIONALLY NOT THE LOGICAL DECISION. Its obvious the writer/director thought to himself "what would a normal person do and I'll make her do the opposite." 2. There was no real explanation on why the child was sick besides some half-baked idea of a cold that made your skin blue. It doesn't tell us how only the kid got it, when the symptoms started, when he bit his dad, or how come no one in the US knew about it when tens of thousand of people were showing symptoms in South America. Essentially leaving out the BIGGEST PART OF THE STORY. Horror movies should be about what the horror is and NOT about making poor decision throughout your whole life.

3. The acting was inconsistent. There was parts where the main actress was convincing and at other times it felt like she was in an amateur acting class.

Conclusion: Save yourself the time and DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE. It's frustrating, not the good kind of frustrating either, the "WTF is this stuff" frustrating.

Decent enough premise, but....

[stephen_dines-79394 · 5/10 · 1 April 2022]

Ok, you got a "sick boy" locked in a downstairs bedroom but we don't know what is wrong with him. Well there' nothing wrong with that basic premise for a horror movie. The problem with this is the actions of the babysitter and later on both her and the boyfriend, What they did simply isn't believable which is a shame because they could have made this work. Some of the scenes once sick boy is let loose are a bit of fun so it's not as dead a loss as some make out.

Not Horror, just horrible!

[hillertdummer · 1/10 · 2 August 2012]

When I searched for this movie on IMDb, it had a rating of 9,2 (that was 2 weeks ago), it had some 15 votes and one review. Not very representative, I admit, but it made me curious and, as a real horror-fanatic, I was hoping for another original Zombie movie in the tradition of Zombieland, The Walking Dead or even Romero's Dawn of the Dead. The disappointment couldn't have been greater. Wow... that was the worst movie I've had to see in a looooong time - The Human Centipede is a masterpiece in comparison (and that was real trash!). Horrible acting, miserable story, just Don't WATCH IT! Oh, and I forgot to say: Shame on you, wishmaster_bs from Switzerland, your positive review (the first one, BTW) made me watch this SICK movie and waste 80 minutes of my precious time...

The sick boy wrote the script....

[Schuriken · 3/10 · 5 December 2012]

This is another nice horror poster movie as far as this whole thing goes. I feel cheated again cause I liked the poster and not the movie. Not only I didn't like it, I thought it had nothing new as almost all zombie movies.

A kid gets the zombie infection on an exotic family trip and transforms everybody to zombies back home. I think this is a movie that has to be remade with a bigger budget, properly and forgotten all together.

This movie reminded me of another, where the babysitter takes on the devil's kid...how hard is it to come up with these movie ideas anyways ?

Someone put this movie back on the babysitter horror film shelf and leave it there. With the other crap horror movies.

Don't they run test screenings anymore ? Didn't anyone watch the finished copy and say "just change the entire second part" ??

Very solid indie thriller...

[heritic1949 · 8/10 · 2 August 2012]

Note that this film falls under the genre of thriller and not horror, so if you are looking for blood and guts, T and A...look elsewhere.

If you like films that are all about building tension in the spirit of Hitchcock and are looking for a solid piece of indie cinema then you should check this out. The budget is listed as $50K, which means it was probably done for even less. So anyone interested in low budget filmmaking should also give this a view simply to see what is possible.

I'm giving it an 8/10, because 10 would mean it's perfect, and this film isn't perfect, but it's pretty darn good if your not just into the post Hostel "let's just hurt people for the fun of it" thing. It's got a similar setup as House of the Devil, but IMO this is a better film. Aside from Tom Noonan, the acting here is waaaaay better and the end is far less annoying. Plus that film was made for around $500K.

There is a lot to like here for horror fans...

[tajvida · 6/10 · 25 November 2012]

OK...I must admit that the movie's look and general feel are that of a 2nd year film school student's final exam project...Last time I saw camera work this shaky, it was Blair Witch, and they did it on purpose for effect...There was one scene where I literally felt like running to my medicine cabinet for some Dramamine...(Sea sickness was being induced.)

As far as the story goes, there is nothing really novel, but I thought the director built tension in a clever way, and the movie did hold my interest most of the time...Some of the interplay between the main character and her boyfriend did bog down with silly dialog, but not to the point of distraction. The family, (whose son she babysits) was appropriately creepy and cryptic, and making the mom a physician was a good plot device.

I think the big win here is the performance of Skye McCole Bartusiak as the flaky, but well-intentioned baby sitter. This was actually an excellent performance, and in a better-shot movie, I think she would be getting some well-deserved critical acclaim...She was passionate, believable, and struck the perfect balance between a slightly naive young woman finding her way through life, and a confident, kick-ass heroine. Suffice to say, I really thought she was terrific and would not hesitate to see her next project, based on her role in "Sick Boy."

I really liked the ending of this movie, unlike some folks who found it a weak spot.

A good DVD rental if the expectations are low, and the popcorn is hot!

Decent low-budget movie ends up going downhill

[linkevans · 5/10 · 30 July 2012]

So I thought id give this movie a chance seeing as I'm a BIG horror fan.

Starts off well, kind of similar pace to Babysitter Wanted / HOTD with the teenage girl at the big babysitters house. A few good moments and builds a little tension throughout (well until the final act where it all falls apart) an obvious storyline which contained no real padding other than clues that lead us nowhere.

The acting on all parts is done pretty well but falls short here and there and the Chris character is totally unlikeable. Why do you want to marry him Lucy? Lol anyway its short enough to be enjoyable despite the stupidity of the characters near the end and one moment of awful CGI.

There's also is no end twist? Pretty basic from start to end. Not sure why other people are saying so...

I preferred him in Trainspotting...

[natashabowiepinky · 4/10 · 5 October 2013]

Sick boy is a film all about the worst babysitter ever, cleverly hidden behind the cover of a killer zombie holocaust flick. This girl snoops all over the house, uses the swimming pool without permission, steals the family's wine and forgets to bolt the door as she leaves. And all this, in the first couple of days. Oh and I almost forgot... She has the most ATROCIOUS taste in gangsta rap. By the time the Walking Dead arrive, we're too disgusted by this worthless hussy to really care as innocents get their throats ripped out.

And what about those flesh eating monsters, anyway? One of them holds a conversation with the girl, but the rest of the time, they're mindless killing machines. A bit of consistency would be nice. And a little more action too... For the most part, the movie is taken up with the buffoonish antics of our budding au pair, as she disregards every rule her employers set for her and makes the worst possible decision in every situation. And yet, when the final zombie has had it's head blown in, she's the only survivor. So much for Karma.

Basically, a very lazy film with an unattractive, unappealing and most of all, unintelligent lead. Don't bother. 4/10

*spoiler* no breasts

[dive99 · 2/10 · 19 November 2012]

The only reason I sat through this crap was because it was so conventional I thought it was taking the pi** and would have some interesting twist or alternate direction.

Its like this film was literally made to pi** people off and disappoint them. I kept waiting and waiting, just KNOWING there had to be some reason as to why the protagonist (antagonising idiot) had to do one stupid thing after the other. IT DID NOT HAPPEN.

*spoiler* Oh god how I wish I could have seen the main character die. Slowly. Not once, but for every damn time she did not listen to advice, said or did something no normal human would and finally, every scene she was in.

I usually like horror movies

[lysanthiel · 2/10 · 19 August 2012]

but this is a total waste of your precious time. the best thing about it is that it's only round 1h 20m.

sometimes I watch movies just because the advertising picture looks nice - so this time.

the story is boring as hell and for the first about a 45 min just a teenage girl doing what teenage girls do best. minding other peoples business and not being responsible for their own actions.

the last half an hour is an endlessly recooked meal about a foreign disease first showing up in what looks like an ordinary suburb and then spreads making people into zombies feeding on humans.

the lead actress also performed better when she did 24 as a child than she does in this movie.

now if you like that kind of stuff and are already through all the other and better (still not all good) movies you can give it a try - otherwise I would say skip it or watch army of darkness once more for a bit of laughter on the way.

DON'T GO IN THE BASEMENT

[nogodnomasters · 3/10 · 9 August 2018]

This is a low budget film that has a lot of filler material. Lucy (Skye McCole Bartusiak) lands a job as a high priced babysitter because she can't act. She babysits for a child locked up in his room which she is forbidden to go near. The job pays well and Lucy is curious.

Most of the time building up to the last 17 minutes, when the film becomes interesting, is wasted. The film utilizes those cheap voice enhancers normally used for demonically possessed people. The whole scene of Lucy driving in a car listening to hip-hop was a waste. This would have been better as a 30 minute short feature.

The ending is interesting and the film drops clues, but unfortunately the movie wakes up too close to the end.

Parental Guide: F-bombs. No sex or nudity

Very low budget horror flick is about an hour and ten too long...

[Robert_duder · 4/10 · 22 January 2013]

One IMDb reviewer said that Sick Boy starts out well enough but then falls apart and that is very accurate. I don't mind low budget, though usually the problem is not with the budget but the lack of expertise behind the camera, either the script or the direction. Often times it will be one person who writes and directs and produces the low budget script and this is one of those. The issue with Sick Boy is not the production value but rather the fact that a 20 minute short story is stretched over a feature length film. So you begin to see all the flaws with the movie. The two lead performers seem okay at first but then as the movie progresses they seem to get worse and worse and more and more amateur until you don't really care and you just wanted it to be over. The concept of the film is intriguing and it is a great spin on the typical zombie flick if that's where they were going with it. The settings and special effects are minimal but some of the scenes that create tension are really well done. But you can only create tension for a brief amount of time. When you try to stretch that same tension over an hour and a half it falters.

Skye McCole Bartusiak plays the lead in the film. She is not an amateur and in fact has been acting in all kinds of projects for years. I flip flopped back and forth on her because sometimes I thought she was actually doing really well and then the next moment she felt over dramatic, and really campy in her portrayal. The constant scenes of her trying to "pass time" only makes the film drag even more. Similarly Marc Donato who plays her fiancé has had a lot of experience but he usually delivers his lines in this film very monotone and without any real charisma on screen. The two of them together are decent and even have good chemistry but the script holds them both back. Debbie Rochon probably gives the best performance in the film, although quite brief as the mother of the "sick boy." Her performance is intriguing and appropriately creepy.

Director and writer Tim Cunningham has worked in visual effects for years in some very successful films. I imagine he finally decided he could do this better and ventured out on his own. Again I re-iterate, decent story but should be a twilight zone episode not a full length feature film because it drags and drags until the final climax which is pretty well done and certainly all of the special effects go into that closing scene but its too late and you're very nearly bored by the time this happens. Unfortunately, this one is skippable completely. It will probably read well and I could even see a trailer drawing people in but you will be disappointed with the outcome. 4/10

Horrible Movie

[a0958824316 · 1/10 · 14 January 2013]

I never write a review until now... just because how horrible the story line is. The movies starts fine... however, it was obvious the main character Lucy did not understand English as the movie progress.... She did exactly everything others told her not to do, from start to finish. She never learns her lesson. The worst part is, even after the all the bad thing happened because of her, Lucy still did not learn her lesson… she just keep messing everyone up and made the situation even worst. This movie should not be called Sick Boy; it should be Sick Girl Lucy. Human race would have extinctthousands years ago if everyone was smart like her.

Terrible.

[ShabaazM917 · 3/10 · 10 January 2015]

3/10. Simply terrible. I had to force myself to sit through this horrible attempt of a horror movie. The acting was terrible, there were parts that didn't make sense. Scenes of the movie which make you think, "I would not have done that" because they are so blatantly obvious as something not to do in a certain situation. The cinematography at times was awful with what looked like a shaking camera, i don't know maybe they did that for effect but some of the camera angles were just dreadful. Obviously, i didn't expect a blockbuster because of previous ratings from other reviewers but i decided to watch because i thought some reviewers downgrade some movies so much you wonder if that specific film was made on a £500 budget. Nonetheless, i sat through this low budget movie with some expectation at least because of the movie plot and was hugely disappointed with the climax to the end. The plot had potential and seemed like something every horror movie fan like me would love to get their teeth into and if it was made on a higher budget i doubt the movie would have been as bad as this. Would not recommend this movie to a friend, but if your new to horror movies... Don't let this movie change your mind about this genre, there are much better horror movies out there.

Not That Bad

[TRussellMorris · 8/10 · 9 September 2020]

Yeah a bit short, and needed a lot more filled out backstory, but then that's a good thing because it means you would have actually liked to "know more" about this ..."Blue Flu"...and I'll leave it a that. Acting wasn't spectacular but very acceptable from the mains. The movie did actually make me "nervous" at times, gave me a bit of anxiety at times as well (in other words it did do what it was suppose to do.) Frankly I, and actually a lot of IMDB users who are collectors, cinema nuts and casual movie lovers are quite tired of review bombs by these wanna be arm chair critics who fancy themselves legit (heck, most of us pay attention to "real" critic's opinions about as much as we do FLOOR LINT so why in the world so many IMDB users wanna act like they are those same things is a bit beyond me. Self Esteem problems maybe?..lol I don't know.

In the end, this was a a low budget , yet interesting story that was acceptably executed for weird horror fans. It did it's job in my case, It did creep me out, it did jump scare me, and it did cause me anxiety. It did the same thing to the 4 people who have borrowed it from me so far (Its kinda hard to find/buy so could be considered kind of a collector's item for movie buffs) and I'm quite satisfied to have it in my collection.

a well constructed short-story horror movie that gets straight to the point and delivers just what a horror film should.

[njs-55801 · 6/10 · 6 May 2015]

Sick Boy Sick Boy is a horror film slashed down to the bare bones of a small cast, a basic plot that drives you straight to the gore with no diversions and an ending that suggests the horror is only just beginning. It's a short-story movie that builds quickly around the performance of Skye McCole Bartusiak who performs with experience, a light touch and humour. Sick Boy is about as straightforward as a film can get but it's well constructed with good acting and though you roughly know what's coming throughout it's still satisfying to see how it plays out and who survives.

Sick Boy's central character is Lucy, played by Sky McCole Bartusiak, a wannabe writer who floats from job to job, much to the annoyance of her fiancé, Chris, Marc Donato. Her friend Alice asks her to take her place at a babysitting job while Alice pursues her career in showbiz. Lucy arrives at the plush but sterile house of Dr Helen Gordan, played by horror legend Debbie Rochon. Helen explains that her son Jeremy is sick, very sick.

One of the likable things about Sick Boy is its brevity. After 25 minutes the story is set, we know all we need to about the characters and there have been a few subtle warnings that all is not right; a news item about a South American flu strain, the look on Dr Gordan's face as she lets Lucy in, the camera hovering over the dark downstairs all clue us in without drawing attention to themselves. Events from later in the film also play through the opening credits, which seems a bit of a spoiler or maybe it's interesting trying to work out how the clips fit into what we learn as we go along.

One of the reasons such concision is possible is the better than average acting. The story is told mainly through the eyes of Lucy and Sky McCole Bartusiak gives us Lucy's personality in the first few minutes. Unable to handle the sickening blood-drenched scene around her – her job at the dentist – Lucy goes home to whine to Chris, her unsympathetic boyfriend, well played by Marc Donato, who has to hold a steady job he hates so Lucy can keep quitting hers. She wants to be a writer but is incapable of writing anything. To watch Lucy get her laptop out, stare at the blank screen then do everything to avoid writing is funny. Sky McCole Bartusiak and Marc Donato have both been acting since childhood, Debbie Rochon is a long-time star of horror and exploitation movies and their experience lifts the film above the usual low budget badly acted horror flick. Debbie Rochon is especially watchable with her decadent eyes and cruel mouth.

Lucy soon realises something is wrong in the house. Jeremy's door is padlocked; Lucy catches a glimpse of him under the door and he's already in monster mode with blood-red eyes and black bile spilling from his mouth. At home she argues with Chris. The plot moves quickly but not hurriedly and the row with Chris provides a nice way to sum up events so far.

Part of the fun of watching films is knowing more than the characters do. It's been obvious for some time that Jeremy is a zombie, his dad turned into a zombie and Dr Gordan was keeping Jeremy locked away in the vain hope that she could cure him. Lucy and Chris clearly never watch horror films since they return to the house with no clear idea what to do beyond some vague idea of rescuing Jeremy. This launches the final fight between Lucy and Chris and the Gordan zombies, Dr Gordan having been zombified too. The extreme close-ups used throughout the film to emphasise the narrow perspectives of Lucy especially but all the characters are very effective here, these zombies are the roaring fast-moving variety and the fights are simple and well staged.

At the end only Lucy is left and in the final scene, at the hospital, a little science bit provides further explanation before we see that the undead are so-called for a reason: it only takes one bite to carry on.

Unintentionally comedic.

[annabellerachel-20563 · 2/10 · 15 September 2015]

What an awful, awful film. My friend and I watched it, and by the end we were in fits of laughter; sadly these outbursts were due to the abysmal nature of the film, not because it was intentionally funny.

The plot line is incredibly basic, and is as follows: •particularly stupid girl takes well-paid babysitting job •disobeys the owner of the house and goes downstairs •finds weird child making strange noises and looking like a zombie •calls boyfriend for backup •police arrive and try to kill the zombies •everyone goes to hospital

The acting leaves a lot to be desired; the parents of the 'sick' child do an okay job, in their relatively minor roles, but that can't be said for the main character, Lucy (the babysitter). She's a keen writer, and also training to be a dental nurse; this isn't plausible, for we see her trying and failing to write, and she consistently shows her lack of intelligence and disregard for other people. She takes it upon herself to start looking round the house, use the swimming pool, drink their wine, look at their family photos on their computer, and disobey the clear instructions to not go downstairs and interact with the child. By the end, I was cheering on the monsters who were trying to kill her.

Her boyfriend doesn't seem at all interested in her or her life, and shows very little emotion. And I don't blame him, she's very irritating, and not the sort of character you'd have sympathy for, or find to be relatable in any way. All in all, their detached relationship sums up the film quite well; unemotional, strange, unrealistic.

Many parts of the film lack logic, and it looks like it was done with a £50 budget, and filmed by someone with no concept of angles. There's little suspense in the entire film, no indefinite conclusion/cliffhanger, and makes for a very pointless watch, unless you're desperate for a minuscule jump scare, or a little bit of blood. Just awful.

Plot holes, bad pacing and cheap effects

[david-baril · 4/10 · 29 July 2012]

I like the premise and the naturalistic feel of this horror tale in mundane settings. There is a few good jump scares and some tension, the acting is uneven but mostly unoffensive, and on a superficial level it kind of works. That being said, every minute of that movie suffers from one or more of these flaws that gives it the feel of an amateur film: THE STORY is rife with loose ends. Some key points, like why the mother is hiring a stranger to actually monitor a baby monitor, the tantalizing rule of not going downstairs for a vaguely menacing reason, the not completely locking up the infected father, the allusion to the (never mentioned again or resolved in any way) demise of the previous sitter... It all only serves to move the plot in the desired direction but none of it makes much sense. THE Rhythm: the introduction takes forever to expose the simple situation of the protagonists and you could easily trim a good 20 minutes of retelling and unnecessary shots. I'm all for a deliberate slow pace, but the first driving sequence is a textbook example of how not to do it: repetitive and uninvolving. THE SPECIAL EFFECTS themselves vary from serviceable (the make-up and red eye effects) to dirt cheap: The CGI blood spurts and even the tracked-on head wound are stock footage I see (and sometimes use myself) in zero budget short films. All the tension of THE ENDING is undermined not only by the flash forward we see at the beginning that makes guessing the coming events very easy, but also by the introduction of a policeman character that belongs in a funnier movie where shooting an aggressive kid in the back without warning is normal, and ironic cop mustaches are still in.

not much to like about this attempt at horror

[FountainPen · 3/10 · 8 March 2018]

I rate it 3/10, all factors considered, in particular the weak script, poor direction, and lame acting by the lead lady. WHY did the director waste almost a full minute as the camera watches the gal get out of her car and walk across the street to the door of the house where she's applying for a job? Ridiculous! Oh yes! Once again my suspicion is confirmed ~~ whenever I see a very high rating for a lousy movie, I suspect the "reviewer" must be very young, very inexperienced, or somehow connected with the movie, i.e. some bias at work...... "heritic1949" rates this film 8/10, says "Very solid indie thriller..." which is rather a joke. And indeed my suspicions are confirmed when I see this IMSb member has reviewed only ONE movie: "Sick Boy". Oh yeah. The makeup of the creatures needed better attention, much more competent execution. The ending is unsatisfactory, sadly; a better close would have lifted my rating a bit. The cop who came to the house came across as a real dope, ditto the security guard at the hospital. Cinematography not bad at all. The storyline is OK, and in the hands of real professionals and with seasoned actors, this flick might rate 6/10 or more. NO way does it deserve more than 4/10 at a stretch. NOT recommended. 3/10.