I wasn't expecting the best film ever with this one, but I'm a huge fan of this genre, so really wanted to like it. I also like slow burning, suspenseful films as long as it's a satisfying watch. The lack of gore and cheap scares is a good thing, as it allows you to focus on the story and characters.Most of the acting was OK, but the lead actress was more wooden than an ironing board. I've seriously never seen such expressionless acting in my life. Even situations that would make the average person scream their head off didn't seem to phase this girl at all. I know she was messed up in the head due to the trauma, so who knows how she would react to things, but the acting was so bad I found it offensive. It was like she begrudged being there at all. The story wasn't so bad, it was quite sad in the end, but I won't be recommending this to anyone, nor will I be watching anything else with this horrendous actress in it.

when I saw the 'MTV Films' logo pop up at the beginning of the movie. This production company are well known for making teen-focused trash like the JACKASS movies, but BENEATH seems to be their sole foray (so far) into horror movie territory. Let's hope they don't make any more attempts in the future! This is an utterly predictable, completely routine and altogether dull movie. It looks and feels familiar from the outset: a maladjusted but pretty young heroine, who often suffers nightmares and hallucinations, returning to her small town and discovering some dark secrets amongst the townsfolk. Such films have propped up the Hollywood film industry since the 1970s and BENEATH proves to be a familiar and depressingly poor addiction to that genre. Despite the prevalence of plot twists in the narrative, everything that happens is easily guessed and the wannabe-shock ending is worth nothing more than a yawn and raised eyebrow.In some places the story seems to have been inspired by JANE EYRE but classy this isn't. Instead it's a film filled with clichés, from the good-looking deputy sheriff type character to the wide-eyed heroine stumbling around in the dark. Nora Zehetner (BRICK) makes a game effort as the heroine but she can't do much with the all-too-familiar material. The worst part of the film is the flashy direction, which is so clichéd as to be unbelievable: all sudden jump cuts during the so-called 'scare sequences', flashes of people writhing in beds and the like. The most unpalatable part of the film is the twist ending, which left me with a bad taste in the mouth. It just tops off an altogether uninteresting movie.

Christy Wescott (Nora Zehetner) has spent most of the past six years of her life in under medication. On her 14th Birthday she goes on a joyride with her older sister Vanessa (Carly Pope), which goes awry. Christy survives the crash unharmed, but Vanessa breaks her legs only to be engulfed by flames. Miracously she survives and falls into the loving arms of her husband Dr. John Locke. For six months Vanessa fights for her life, amongst others for her daughter, Amy, but ultimately dies of a heart attack. At the funeral Christy has visions of Vanessa being buried alive and is quickly diagnosed as demented. Years have passed, Christy has tried to move on but visions still occur. A funeral in her home town forces her to revisit her past... All in all not a bad watch. Sometimes it even goes outside the box and even though you know the mystery miles before it is officially resolved it does keep you enticed. The movie does however have its significant flaws, including illogical motives and behaviours of movie characters. The ending is especially unsatisfying with some serious inconsistencies.It does however end on a high note, even if it had to make some blunders to get there. Nonetheless a decent horror flick with little to none gore and a couple of scares. Superficial, but doesn't fully deliver its promises.

Anyone who is nitpicking at this movie over ridiculous things such as "do school websites list past students' phone numbers" and "this character would've/should've/could've not let the younger sister drive" should be ignored.Films are made for viewers willing to allow the film to take them where it will. If the film is imperfect, the real film lover will still attempt to see it for what it wanted to be; for what it's actual *point* was. That is, of course, assuming there is one.On the other hand, there will always be the wannabe Sherlock Holmes of film fandom, who will pick at the silliest details as if a movie somehow needs to be a fully provable mathematical truth.Silly.On to the film.I must say, it is a typical thriller with horror elements taking place in a typical old house with typically hidden "creatures" and such, where the main character attempts to uncover a mystery until in the end -- surprise. If you want to understand what this film's atmosphere is like, think of "A Tale of Two Sisters" and "The Others" (with Kidman).Is the movie super-successful at what it does? I wouldn't say so. I will say, though, that it was certainly not a failure either. In fact, "willing viewers," as described above -- in other words, those viewers who have managed to retain their childlike sense of wonder and innocence when they sit down to watch a film -- should be left completely unaware until the final revelation.And let me tell you, mate, if you have any kind of compassion for the characters you see on screen and think the value of cinema lies partly in you allowing yourself to become emotionally involved with them (as opposed to analyzing their every action like some goofs will inevitably always do), you will be horrified at the ending. Bleedin' horrified. Not that it's particularly "scary" in the typical horror film sense, but because of the human suffering and injustice involved.Ignore the yapping cynics and enjoy this perfectly acceptable entry into the spooky-family-in-an-old-house-with-a-dark-secret roster. However, allow me to still add that that if you are looking for a movie along this theme and want one that is *really* well done, watch "A Tale of Two Sisters" instead.