And finally, I believe you're making a guileful, if rather inept use of the concept of "original research". I challenge you to find me reliable sources stating that 3*16=48. If possible, making such fact the center of the article or a relevant part thereof. Same here, with the additional fact that it is the producers and distributors who decide a relevant part of the critics' response to a filmand this is not conspiracy theory, this is basic market dynamics. The plot for Oculus contains the same relevant points as the one for The Boogeyman:
 * two siblings witness the death of their parents/mother's boyfriend at the hands of one of them, and the whole scene is preternaturally captured by a mirror
 * this happens after one of the siblings had been chained/tied up in their bedroom by the victims, then freed by the other sibling
 * years later the murderous sibling (in both cases the brother) is still psychologically scarred by the event
 * and murders and unnatural phenomena arising from the ghost-catching mirror and its shards ensue.
 Do I need sources to see a pattern? This is like calling the film a "horror film" without a source. Would you refrain from calling it so even if no source did? Would it be "original research"? Come on.