Promising start but intensity spoiled half way through by unoriginal tropes and poorly conceived images.

Rating: 5/10 (20 February 2012)

I was really looking forward to watching this film. The trailer looked good: an interesting take on child possession. Good intensity built in the first half - helped by the obvious denial of husband that something was not right in the house. Liked the seeding that he had a past that was obviously going to emerge as the story unfolded.
...and it did. But what spoiled it entirely for me was the appearance of two lone gunmen/ghost facers types (thanx to X Files and Supernatural respectively)who for some reason seemed to be there to give comic relief. Intensity gone. Enter the medium (Poltergeist here we go again) and the film begins to unfold mechanistically. Static stills of the 'ghosts'from the endless camera flashes show these literally as cheap shots rather than well crafted and wholly conceived images.
Josh's past was an interesting take but the whole thing totally overwhelmed by a young director who I don't think was able to take his genre seriously. Compare this to Whedon or McG (who seem to be BIG influences) who would never allow a gag to reduce the awful intensity of the moment.
The description of the raison d'etre of the creatures (in the documentary reel) was mind-bogglingly pretentious. An example of how to talk up mediocrity.