Add a Review

  • Perhaps the most shocking and surprising treat of the 2016 Halloween season is director Mike Flanagan's prequel tale "Ouija: Origin of Evil"- a skillfully crafted, tasteful and highly atmospheric follow- up to the disastrously bad 2014 thriller "Ouija." It's frankly stunning just how good a film Flanagan was able to build from such a poor foundation, weaving a tale that honestly not only runs laps around it's far inferior predecessor... but honestly made me completely forget about what came before. In my mind, "Ouija" will be a forgotten victim of studio greed, while this prequel will stand tall as the "true" film based on the iconic and controversial board-game of terror.

    In the 1960's, widow Alice Zander (Elizabeth Reaser) works as a fortune teller out of her home, staging false séances with the help of her teenage daughter Paulina (Annalise Basso) and younger child Doris. (Lulu Wilson) After purchasing a Ouija board as a new gimmick for her work, Alice does not notice that Doris has become overtaken by a deranged and mysterious force associated with the board, instead believing that her young daughter's newfound abilities and knowledge of things she could not possibly know are signs that unlike her, Doris is a real medium. However, as Doris' abilities become gradually all the more powerful and sinister, Alice and Paulina must band together to try and break her free from the devious spirits of the past that have taken ahold of her physical form...

    Flanagan directs from a script co-written by Jeff Howard, and much like his wonderful previous efforts "Oculus" and "Hush", here he continues to shine as one of the finest new voices in horror. There's a certain sense of taste and thoughtfulness he injects into his work, as he takes his time to try and establish strong character and interpersonal relationships, in addition to identifiable human drama which helps to accentuate the fear that builds. He also just knows how to deliver a darned good scare- a skill he uses expertly throughout the entire runtime here to build a great sense of foreboding dread.

    The performances are all stellar as well, helping to add to the film's high quality and impact. Elizabeth Reaser is fantastic as the mother Alice, and you really get a feel for a person lost after the death of their beloved spouse who is trying to hold it together for the sake of her children. Wilson is a great new Doris and does remarkably well for an actress of such a young age. Supporting roles by the likes of Henry Thomas are all uniformly strong and help to round out the cast in likable performances. And Annalise Basso steals the show as Paulina (also known as "Lina"), who becomes our main focus and is a strong presence on-screen. At only 17 years old, Basso is definitely one to keep an eye on in the future. She possesses talent far beyond her years, and is the beating heart of the film as a sister and daughter struggling to help her sibling and mother from the forces at play- both supernatural and emotional.

    The film does falter at times a bit, which is where it loses points. Despite the first film being decidedly very poor by comparison, this film does a bit of distracting ret-con work that may bother those who are familiar with the original. Some major details of the backstory and rules are changed, which made it feel a bit inorganic as a continuation. It's also a bit too heavy on the scares up- front, which lessened their impact. I would have preferred more slow a buildup. And it does lack some drama since this is a prequel and you'll be able to guess some of what happens based on this fact.

    Still, that cannot stop this from being a darned good and very well- assembled supernatural horror. It's not one of the best horror films ever made by any means, but it's a solid and highly entertaining thriller boasting some heart, some good scares and a great cast. This is the movie you've been waiting for if you've wanted to see a movie based around the idea of the dreaded Ouija board. My advice? Skip out on the first film and just watch this as a stand-alone. It's far more rewarding an experience than the awful original could ever hope to be.

    I give "Ouija: Origin of Evil" a strong 8 out of 10. If you're open minded, be sure to give it a shot, especially if the last one let you down. Take it from me... this is a very pleasant surprise.
  • This prequel has no business being as good as it is. The first Ouija film came out in 2014 and quickly faded away into obscurity. So imagine my surprise when they decide to make a 'prequel' of all things. I hunch is that The Conjuring films have been pretty successful and they are set in the 70's, when things were a little creepier, no cell phones and genuine scary aesthetic. Imagine my surprise again when up and coming horror filmmakers Mike Flanagan was the man behind the camera. The underrated mirror horror flick Oculus and deaf home invasion flick Hush were two of his recent outings. Things were looking not too bad for this flick and to top it off, it received some pretty decent reviews.

    Alice and her two daughters run a scam business in which they "speak to the dead". The mother justifies this business by telling her youngest daughter, Doris, that it helps people move on and get closure. When her eldest, Lina, plays the new Ouija boardgames at a friends house, she tells her mother to incorporate it into her act. She does and things take a sinister turn when they scam becomes reality.

    It's hard to make a game board scary. The first film tried, failed and this one tries and succeeds for the most part. Any non-horror fan might balk at the idea that this film is good, but I consider this movie to be one of the most underrated flicks of the year. Flanagan knows how to build solid tension and he doesn't rely on cheap scares or an obscene amount of gore. This film has none of that. Careful framework and lighting is all he needs to create an unsettling atmosphere. Whenever someone decides to look through the ouija glass piece, you feel yourself tense up expecting something to happen.

    Kids in horror films are the go to for anything scary. Most movies tend to cast children horribly and they end of ruining the film. Doris, played by Lulu Wilson delivers an innocent and somewhat chilling performance as the youngest daughter. Her goodbye message to a young boy about what it feels like to be strangled to death is an excellent scene to send chills down your spine. No scary images, sounds or blood needed. Just a child delivering one monologue about suffocating you.

    Obviously the film is far from perfect, but it doesn't cater to the happy ending crowd either. It takes some chances and for the most part, lands them. I was surprised by how much I liked this film, which may be why the rating is higher than what others would tend to give a film like this. Had the first film never existed, this would be a bigger hit.
  • Prismark102 September 2017
    Warning: Spoilers
    Ouija: Origin of Evil is a prequel set in in 1967 and is filmed very much like a period piece from that era. The film begins with an old Universal pictures logo.

    Widow Alice Zander (Elizabeth Reaser) stages scam seances with her teenage daughter Paulina (Annalise Basso) from her house. They justify it by helping their clients to move on.

    When they purchase a Ouija board as a gimmick for the act, the youngest daughter Doris (Lulu Wilson) seems to have become possessed by a mysterious force and behaves like a genuine medium. Doris thinks she can contact her father and starts acting creepily even showing strange abilities such as mind control.

    Local priest Father Tom (Henry Thomas) investigates Doris's abilities as a medium and thinks there is a link to a sinister Nazi doctor.

    The film delivers thrills and some scares without going too over the top. The acting is good from the younger cast members. You get the sense of genuine dread but then lapses into silliness and predictability at the end.
  • I wasn't really expecting much from this one. The IBDb rating was pretty low, the title is a bit cheesy, and the writers, directors and cast are not exactly A-listers. None of that mattered though as this one was actually pretty good.

    First off, the scenes were beautiful. It was like watching a warm sunset. In addition, the direction and camera angles really enhanced the suspense and intensity. The special effects were also top notch and at one point I was like, "Whaaaat? That is cool".

    I was pretty captivated throughout, although it did have it's clunky moments but not too many of them and they quickly worked their way out of them.

    The cast did a superb job with the young Lulu Wilson pretty much stealing the show. I'll most likely be seeing her again in my nightmares. Annalise Basso, Elizabeth Reaser and Henry Thomas also did an excellent job so I don't want to sell them short either.

    Overall this was a pleasant surprise with moments of nail-biting suspense. Definitely worth the watch on a dark and quiet night. Oh, and one other reviewer mentioned not watching the preview. I didn't so that might have helped.
  • When I first heard about this sequel/prequel my initial thoughts were: "Who the hell asked for this?" The first Ouija was cookie cutter horror film. It use the device of a ouija board (and the mystique and eeriness of it) as a crutch for the thin, awfully written that followed. It was a completely forgettable experience, so one would wonder why the film series was brought up again. Its a good thing that first impressions are just what they are because this prequel is not bad at all.

    The film was in better hands when it was announced that Mike Flanagan would be directing but I was still mixed. Oculus was actually pretty great. A creative idea that was actually pretty emotional and investing. Flanagan's followup was the Netflix film Hush. I know a lot of people loved Hush but maybe these people don't watch movies often or are lenient to what they see on Netflix. Hush was terrible. I don't want to go into it here but maybe some other time I can explain how improbably dumb it really is. Anyways, this film is a prequel of sorts to the first and is based on a family who help people move on from their passed loved ones by staging seances. A ouija board causes dark spirits in the house to possess a young girl leading to trouble and at times, some wicked fun.

    The film is set in the 60s and you can immediately tell by the film style. The style is of a film you'd see from that era; they even used the old Universal Pictures logo at the start of the film. Its not just the post production editing of the film but the costume, music, and just all around aura is done very well. No one knows her well yet but Lulu Wilson made this film. She does a great job and there are a few moments (where the script was fantastic) and she was able to come off as unsettling, just from saying her lines. She is without a doubt the strongest point of the film.

    The film isn't without flaws. The third act isn't exactly fantastic as some questionable things happen and you scratch your head wondering if there could have been a better resolution. There definitely could have been. Also, the CG does look ropy at times but I think that can be forgettable as the film offers decent entertainment value. Here's a film that sacrifices scares for build up, good performances, and focus on the story of why spirits have possessed Doris and the circumstances surrounding whats going on. I can respect that.

    I'm usually extremely critical of horror films because these days so many films go for jump scares and have no substance. There are exceptions that are becoming smart, nostalgic, or reinventing the horror genre. I don't think there is anything innovative about Ouija: Origin of Evil but its a massive improvement over its predecessor and is a film has a good amount going for it to make for a good time.

    7/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I'll keep it simple, the curiosity around a Ouija board creates an interesting concept for a movie, however beyond the first 40 minutes the film becomes predictable and disappointing. There are some gaping holes in the storyline and the acting isn't fantastic, especially when the boyfriend drops down hung from bedsheets out of nowhere and the reaction from all present is as if to carry on as if nothing happened. Goes for the snappy 'fright' loud noise moments all too often without delivering on a progressive storyline, could've been a lot better but if you're looking for something along the lines of insidious or the conjuring expect a lot of disappointment
  • Ramascreen20 October 2016
    OUIJA: ORIGIN OF EVIL is super creepy. And it has good amount of well-placed jump-scares to rattle even the toughest audiences. As a horror fan, I definitely enjoy this installment way better than its predecessor.

    This is actually a prequel to the 2014 film, so they're taking this story back to the beginning; how it all started, with the same house but 50 years earlier. Elizabeth Reaser is a single mom raising her two daughters played by Annalise Basso and Lulu Wilson. They run a seance scam business to make a living but when they unwittingly invite an evil spirit into their home which then possesses the youngest daughter, this becomes the struggle to save her and drive the demon away.

    There's so much to like about OUIJA: ORIGIN OF EVIL. Well, for one, it's set in the '60s, so that in and of itself provides a very interesting style in terms of the actors' outfit and hair, it's like watching 'Mad Men' all over again, I'll never get over how much effort people put into the clothes they wear just to go to the supermarket back in that era. There's also heart in this story, the kids lost their dad, the wife lost her husband, the priest lost his wife, and and so that hole in their souls forms a foundation for why each of them has a longing or desire to speak with their dead loved ones. The reason why they can be taken advantage of by the spirit, totally makes sense, because they are at the most vulnerable point in their lives and looking for answers, unable to let go.

    And because this is a prequel, at the end you'll see how the story and the characters connect to the previous installment, I won't spoil it here for you, but you'll be able to make that connection without a problem. I think what essentially makes OUIJA: ORIGIN OF EVIL scary is Lulu Wilson's character, Doris Zander. Horror genre has a history of little creepy kids doing bloody gory things on screen, but there's something in Lulu's performance in that she's able to get your guard down, so when the frightening moments do come in, they become all the more effective. And unexpectedly, I might add. You'll jitter, your pulse will keep pounding, you'll close your eyes with your hands but with a few fingers open, and all the while you feel for the struggle of this family, you're invested in them. OUIJA: ORIGIN OF EVIL is one of this year's best horror films in my book.

    -- Rama's Screen --
  • Mike Flanagan just gets so close yet again, yet falls disappointingly short. Oculus is still his best work, and the promise that both Hush and this prequel to a PG-13 board game prequel show, is that if given the right opportunity he might really be capable of a cold-blooded classic.

    This is a film that shouldn't exist, should never have gotten theatrical distribution and definitely shouldn't have attracted the likes of Flanagan (okay, he probably did this to increase his clout in the industry, but still). He musters some great work here, following familiar supernatural clichés but bringing his own touch to the proceedings.

    The setting is beautiful, the characters likable and not completely square. The atmosphere is given time to build, he luxuriates in teasing and messing with audience expectations (as a way of spiting this, and goosing the audience lulled into a slow burn placation, he includes an explosive scene wherein the actual demon is seen shoving his fist down the little girl's throat. It's both too much and a necessary jolt at the time, a conundrum if ever there was one and a small encapsulation of everything right and wrong within this film).

    It's too bad some of the nice work done in the first 2/3rds of the film is undone by a clichéd, boring, exorcism-lite finale. None of it is very scary, and it all has the feel of fitting into the "Ouija" franchise package, whatever in God's name that could mean. Considering the stakes here, what Flanagan does is still impressive.
  • larrys321 February 2017
    I am by no means a hard core horror film buff, but I do view them from time to time. I found this one to be quite the creepy little horror flick, and it gets increasingly scary as it progresses.

    As I've often noted, I have to overlook some of the really dumb decisions made by characters in horror movies, and this one is no exception. Also, the plot elements here are similar to many I've seen in this genre. However, I felt it was quite well presented with good acting from all the cast, well directed by Mike Flanagan, and solidly written by Flanagan and Jeff Howard.

    Overall, this film rather creeped me out and I'm still thinking about that scary ending.
  • It is a decent horror film, but surely better than the first. The previous part was an usual teen themed horror where everything started as a playful. But this one was a prequel and it focused on the origins. A single mother with two daughters is making money helping the people who want to contact their beloved dead ones. The things changes when her little daughter started to communicate the spirits of her own. The chaos unleashes, the house becomes haunted and the family begins to fall apart.

    Keeping it simple is what worked out well for the film, despite thematically borrowed from others, scenes were kind of familiar and characters intentionally developed. Particularly the priest role was the most overused in any horror film. Followed by the twist. That turning point was good, but not a new. Nice performances and well shot film. Ouija is a fine concept for a horror theme and with this film's somewhat success, I hope the next one would only get better. So it is worth a watch, if you're not anticipating a something special.

    6/10
  • Ouija: Origin of Evil is a swingin' sixties prequel to the 2014 horror movie and sleeper hit Ouija. Its predecessor has a mere 6% on rotten tomatoes, but had tremendous financial success. The budget was an estimated $5 million, and by December, 2014, the film had grossed almost $51 million. Obviously, the next step is to plan a sequel.

    I was fortunate enough to attend a pre-screening. Basing my expectations off the 2014 Ouija, I was ready to be bored and disappointed. Boy was I in for a surprise.

    The film opens with a mother and her two daughters performing a scam séance for a grieving man and his skeptical daughter. The first part of the film delivers a steady stream of laughs and starts on a light-hearted note. This mood only continues when the oldest daughter Lina (Annalise Basso) sneaks out, looking suitably 60's, and plays with a ouija board along with her friends. Then things, as they often do in horror movies, turn for the worst. In an effort to spice up their séance scam, Lina's mother Alice (Elizabeth Reaser) buys a ouija board. Doing so then causes the youngest girl, Doris (Lulu Wilson) to become possessed, no surprises here.

    What happens next, however, is one of the scariest horror movies made in a while– but when the director and writer is Mike Flanagan, you expect nothing less. Flanagan, director and writer for films such as Hush, Oculus, and Absentia, knows what he's doing. The whole theatre was on the edge of their seats. People shifting to hide their face or cover their ears was a constant sound, and the scares delivered genuine screams. Once the horror starts, the 99 minute film never lets you take a breather.

    The main person to thank for this is Lulu Wilson, the youngest daughter. This girl is only 11 and she carried the film from start to finish. Her malevolent intensity and purposeful movements made even the toughest members of the audience uncomfortable. To be blunt, she's creepy AF and steals every scene. One in particular involving a basement, hole in the wall, and a menacing Doris standing behind a poor soul comes to mind. To say any more would spoil the movie, but this film has its share of jump scares, unexpected frights, and a delightful retro tone through out. Various moments feel like homages to horror classics of the 60's and 70's. The film will also appeal to fans of recent horror films Oculus and The Conjuring.

    Another aspect often neglected in horror films is the human aspect. The small rag- tag family is reeling from the lost of a husband and father. The grief feels genuine, as does the hope and tentative joy they feel when the ouija board and Doris seem to be contacting her deceased father. The film is both horrifying and tragic. The ending evokes equal parts screams and empathy for this ailing family.

    Overall, if you're looking for a fresh horror movie to deliver a punch–you're in luck. Outstanding performances by all the actors, a fantastically creepy little girl, and a retro vibe create a film that will stand the test of horror time.
  • Am i the only one who finds newer "horror" releases to be completely predictable, boring, and the effects unimpressive? We're living in an era where Paranormal Activity(don't get me started) made enough money to make numerous sequels...I've tried seeing some recent films like Mama (okay), The Babadook (decent til the end), Lights Out (actually was decent), and now this, and CGI just makes things NOT scary. Was the film itself nicely done? Yes. I liked the cast, the acting wasn't bad;they actually looked like "real people." But the cliché where the little girl happens to know more than everyone else about the evil spirit, she becomes possessed and it becomes like every other attempt at an exorcism film. Not only are we supposed to fear a child, we are supposed to fear a child that has a liquid-like face that stretches and CGI whited out eyes, she runs along walls (last ten minutes) and says...stuff in other people's voices? I just don't get how this can pass as good. 3/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Sorry but I honestly do not understand the 10/10 reviews for this movie. In fact I think my 4 is begin a tad over generous. Let me explain why..

    I'll begin with the good bits.. 1. the score is pretty nice, ambient but eery and a bit sad.

    2. Some of the effects are pretty creepy, especially where the possession starts to fully show. 3. There is some good suspense to be had a few nail bite moments especially as it all gets a bit crazy toward the end with a possession free for all going on. 4. The young lady playing Doris shines in this movie, very talented despite being given a painfully clichéd creepy child role, she is superb. 5. The ending was a surprise, but that's probably as I haven't bothered watching "Ouija" due to very bad reviews. 5. The actress playing Lina has her moments also as a promising actress. 6 Character dynamics and interactions have some genuinely believable moments.

    The not so good bits..

    1. This type of story is beyond exhausted. They try to twist it with the whole " we can make our readings more - real with this board" but it's not enough 2. dead parent, creepy kid, bitchy rebellious teen kid, dead parent and strong but unravel parent. 3. A creepy new fad appears and things go all eery. People get possessed, people get killed and then more people get killed- no real reason as to why these spirits are killing a whole family. 4. No real closure as to what the "other" things with Markus are 5. The families general reaction to hanging teenager in their stairway & their dead kid/sibling is way too nonplused. I mean you kill your sister happily then come round not giving a hoot.. but freak out only when you kill your mother. 6. Given that the dynamics and interactions have such believable moments , the chronic underacting near the end just makes me frustrated. 7. The mother is seriously irritating throughout.And exploiting your child, top parenting, how does no one step in knowing her kid is skipping school to "work" with her? 8. Dialogue begins to drift into cliché territory near the end as do all the effects, it's just like watching a rip of the Exorcist mixed with other known themes... 9. The end just appears so suddenly. I hate it when movies begin to show promise then just race to an ending. It just escalates un naturally fast for my liking, I mean really the kid does what like 2 readings, writes loads of junk in polish then mass murders and possesses people in a couple of days if that? 10. Daddy sews up doll mouths to stop "the voices" was he alive/dead when he did this? and why so suddenly, I mean if these things have been in the house so long, the mother and her kids do "readings" all the time why suddenly does it take this kid turning out to be some insane conduit medium out of nowhere? Surely she'd have shown signs sooner? surely they would have had weird things happen sooner?

    Too many plot holes in this movie which is a shame as it does have promise but the lazy approach tarnishes it's ideal.
  • I'm a casual horror fan at best. I've seen a number of horror films spanning several time periods, from Hitchcock to 80's slasher films to a few from the 21st Century. Still, I'm not a huge horror buff, and I don't take in scary movies time and again the way that some people do.

    That being said, I found "Ouija: Origin of Evil" to be the perfect horror movie for someone like myself who likes a good scary movie now and then, but isn't a huge horror buff. The movie is very well made, features good acting and has an intriguing plot. And, again taking into consideration my personal comfort zone with these type of movies, I found it to be the right blend of scary but not over the top intense. The movie is not very gory at all (it's rated PG-13--a rating I find appropriate for this film), and while it certainly does have its creepy side, it's not the kind of thing that's going to keep you up all night. Well, I suppose that's a subjective thing--but for me I found it to be a fun kind of scary, rather than an overly unsettling film.

    In light of all that, I'm giving this movie 9/10 stars--a rating that I give to relatively few movies. I feel that this movie is deserving of that because it nails its aim, which is to be a well made horror flick that is "family friendly" so to speak, i.e. suitable for a teenage audience. If I had teenage kids, I'd definitely feel comfortable letting them see this movie--and I wouldn't mind sitting through it with them, as it was fun for me as an adult. Having seen it on October 25th, it's definitely helped get me in the mood for Halloween here in a few days!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    First of all, let me state that I do not consider myself a hardcore horror connaisseur, but I do like to think that I can spot a pile of sh*te when I see one. And boy is this movie a massive sh*tepile!

    Also, I don't ever do reviews. But I feel like have to step in here.

    I saw HUSH, it was okay... I saw OCULUS, it was bad... But this one... man oh man... The real horror about this movie is that it manages to score 6.2 on here and even get some good reviews.

    It is obvious that Mike Flanagan has seen all the James Wan horror flicks. It is also obvious that Mr. Flanagan does not understand what makes these movies good.

    To make things easy, let's start with the good: - The oldest daughter (Annalise Basso) was pretty convincing (up until the end) - Her boyfriend (Parker Mack) looked like a young Patrick Wilson and wasn't horrible nor important. - ... Nope, that's about it.

    Other characters: - The mom was bland and boring. Also, more than once the camera stayed on her for too long for her to stay in character - The priest was okay but unnecessary - The youngest daughter wasn't good, but hey, she's young. Even worse was her CGI mouth, though. Flanagan must've thought this looked amazing because we only saw like seven random jump scares with the girl's CGI mouth open wide... - Ghost daddy... why?? what?!

    The writing is horrible as there are far too many dialogues in which the characters lay out their entire backstory in the most uninteresting way e.g. we don't need to know that the girls' grandmother was a fortune teller.

    The pacing was incredibly slow. There's one scene in which the girls are alone in the house, which could have been a tense sequence. Instead we see some teenage couple shenanigans and a really tiresome dinner date of two widowed adults. The only purpose being that we know the priest lost his wife and we can move on to the seance scene...

    Almost every moment of this movie felt like I'd seen it somewhere before only slightly/a lot better: - The 60s feel from "The Conjuring" - The medium hoax setup - The black monsters from "Insidious" - The gaping CGI mouth from 100 movies - The pupil-less eyeballs - The slingshot scene - The lips sewn together - The jump scare cliffhanger before the credits - The girl saying "it seems really dumb to split up" - The fact that they do split up even after the girl said the previous... Almost all of it is a badly rip off from another (or 10 different) movie(s).

    ALMOST! The one thing that was a first for me was the "plot". If I understand correctly, the family is being terrorized and eventually killed off by an angry mob of Polish Jew ghosts? The priest explains that the ghost possessing the little girl was (a) rescued from a concentration camp by allied soldiers (b) brought back to America only to (c) be kidnapped buy some crazy Nazi doctor who experiments on Jews in a basement in an American suburb... These experiments primarily being your typical torture stuff(?) like sewing mouths shut, cutting vocal cords, cutting in general...

    Oh and then the priest drops something along the lines of "but there was something else in the darkness, something that had never been human to begin with"... So demons? Do you mean demons, priests? Can you tell us more about those inhuman fiends please?! No? Oh... you want to keep the focus on the Polish Jew ghosts? Oh, OK... So don't torture Jews or they will possess innocent kids and slaughter families? That's not a weird moral at all...

    So... don't spend money on this. Please don't. I haven't seen the other Ouija movies... but if this is the best one as stated by a reviewer before me, I will stay as far away from them as possible.
  • Halloween night over her gave us 3 flicks to watch, I watched Train To Busan and The Windmill Massacre but Ouija I never went due the failure of he 2014 version.

    On poster the font used to write Ouija was the same on both flicks. Never wanted to see this one due the 2014 version I noticed the reviews were better so I did go watch it afterwards.

    And it's a hell better then the 2014 version. The way it was shot and the slow movement of the flick did add towards the creepy atmosphere. The ticking of the clock throughout the whole picture also add the creeps.

    It all starts with an Ouija fraud and of course slowly it turns into a possession. It never had any boring moments and the effects used were great. Even as they were CGI, it all worked out fine.

    Be sure to watch it until the end credits are over, you're in for a big surprise if you're a horror geek. Worth picking up.

    Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 3/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5
  • I just went back and read my review for the original 'Ouija'. It was a fairly negative review overall and there was an interesting line in there about these movies being doomed before they even start making them because Ouija boards aren't scary. Step forward Mike Flanagan to prove me wrong. Flanagan is becoming a bit of a heavyweight in the horror industry with each of his films so far being very strong. Here, he does the near impossible and makes the a sequel (technically a prequel) infinitely stronger than the original was.

    There was a lot of great stuff here. Something I loved was that the jump scares were more about the imagery than just a loud noise. Typically these days jump scares take almost no skill at all to pull off because the damn noise that accompanies them is so loud that it wouldn't matter what happened on the screen. In 'Ouija: Origin of Evil' the scares are more about the brilliant visuals that are created throughout the film. They're the type that will stick with you afterwards and require a lot more skill to pull off.

    The writing is also a lot better this time around. The first one had some atrocious dialogue and incredibly stupid characters. This time there are genuinely fascinating plot points that give the film even more levels than just a horror film. The original also had an immensely weak opening scene. On this occasion the opening scene is one of the strongest in the whole film and even has its own mini-twist.

    The character of 'Doris' was the highlight of the whole experience. I was incredibly impressed with young Lulu Wilson's performance. Playing a regular character in a horror movie is easy, but playing a villainous character is not. She was brilliant and played a large part in making this film what it was.

    Altogether I really enjoyed 'Ouija: Origin of Evil'. In a world where good horror films are becoming rarer and rarer we have to stop and truly appreciate the great ones that do come along. This was certainly one of them. Keep churning out films please Mr Flanagan.
  • Went in with an open mind with this one...i will say now that I am not a 14 year old who would be scared of something on the kiddies channel..I am a fully grown up with 50 years of movie watching under my belt. EVERYTHING about this movie is wrong and it would mean me going on for 20 paragraphs like some reviewers to explain them all...but here is a few..

    PLOT! wrong and insipid

    ACTING..wrong and wooden

    DIRECTION..wrong and lazy

    CINEMATOGRAPHY..wrong and boring

    Cliché COUNT..wrong and too much..sewn up mouths..rolling eyes..ouija boards..nice vicars...cursed children..all seen a million times before in a million movies..the list goes on..

    Also I had a slight uneasy feeling about the director and his choice of camera work concerning the 2 young girls..found it a tad disturbing at times..

    This movie puts horror back about 50 years...nothing made any sense and some parts were silly beyond words..

    Of course there was a few daft teenagers jumping in the theatre but thats never a good sign for true horror fans.

    Put this up with last years excellent " Babadook" and the difference is big as it gets...strangely enough I would compel you to see it as it is an education in how not to mess about with a century old genre! I will not...WILL NOT ..be going to the next 2 sequels...not even if you paid me.

    TRASH!!
  • I watched the original film feeling like I wanted to tear my eyes out. Then this prequel comes along. I click the play button and before my eyes I see something that looks like television show quality, a throw back to the old cult classics that I use to watch as a kid in the eighties. It was an interesting direction, but really didn't know what to make of it.

    I say to myself "okay it's set in the past and we are about to embark on a journey". All went well for about an hour, there were very little jump scares noises, if any, and only one stretchy CGI demon face(for the first hour or so). But the stretchy cheap CGI demon face was done in a way that is acceptable. There were very eerie moments when the camera would pan to the left or right catching a shadow figure in the background. But the good thing is there was no cliché jump scare sounds, it was left up to us as the viewer to deem the scene scary or not.

    I was actually commending the director for this old school style of horror story, no silly jump scares. But in and around the one hour mark or just a little after, all silliness broke loose. This movie now turned into jump scare central, all the gags were saved to spoil the end. It's like they didn't know where to go with this ending, or they ran out of money, and decided to make the last half hour or so an editing mess, full of unwanted scenes, and dialogue that people have seen over and over again.

    You can really tell when a production runs out of money these days, it had such a good back story, but instead of branching out on that story, they made it into a teenage horror drama-fest. They did this by throwing in scenes of other films we all know.

    This film started out good, it had a feel of a really good short story, and unfortunately that's all it was, because the last half hour was all pies and anchovies.

    Note to studios: Stretchy CGI demon faces are silly and just dumb, and not even teenage girls find them scary, they are a product of the YouTube generation, and it's been done to death, so please I beg you stop using CGI in horror, it doesn't belong in this genre!(or any other genre)
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I was very interested in watching this movie. He had heard good reviews. It is true that it is better than before. But at no point do I feel that I'm seeing a good movie.

    Everything is Manichaean. I do not believe anything. I knew it starts with a theater and then it's for real. But is it really for real? All the actors are very bad makeup and hairstyles, it seems to be rather a comic movie. Although the girl is great, until the director decides to spoil it. What do I mean? I explain it in spoiler.

    At no time do I feel tension, there is no tension. There are not even scares. It takes something more than a bug to scare. Not that the end spoils the film, the movie does not say anything to me for a long time.

    The picture could be fine, indoors it's nice, but little else.

    The management is superficial. He does not know how to take the movie. It does not know how to create tension. He does not know how to draw plans.

    I like the genre of fear, but it is that this movie is not scary.

    Spoiler:

    The reflection of the film is the sequence of the girl telling the sister's friend about the hangman. The girl is great, the camera is kept in the girl, the girl attracts you, but the director or the editor arrives, I do not know what will have been and change the plane to the boy. He just finished with the tension. Already, even if you return to the girl, you are finished with everything. He does not go up any more. As you may not realize that.
  • To be up front, I have to admit - I am not, and never was a horror fan. For me an alien abduction movie is far more creepy than any 'horror' film could ever wish to be. Yet, some of the classics are decently entertaining as well as the Emily Rose film from 2005.

    "Ouija" starts out alright; it sets up the stage for events to begin nicely. They convincingly portray 1967 - at least for those of us not alive at the time. However, once things start to happen the film simply bombs. I really cannot comprehend the hype behind this film with praises such as 'creepy' and 'terrifying' heard on YouTube, radio, and elsewhere. The plot of this film is never truly realized - you are clued in to who the entities are, yet even that doesn't add up (one would think an evil spirit would have been an evil person in life). They never provide any real backstory aside from a short conversation and we are never given any closure. It is basically along the lines of "this thing is that" and then some half-***ed attempts at making the audience jump. Sure, the trend these days is for Hollywood to milk everything of its last drop of blood - and this film is left totally unanswered likely so another film can be made. Still, if this is a chapter in an ill-thought money-grab scheme they could have ended the chapter with one loose end - instead the entire thing is frayed. A friend and I actually sat through the credits and were rewarded with an utterly worthless scene of a "loose end" in present time... Which also answered zero questions. So my rating, for lack of any real tangible plot, brings this down to 5/10. When I watch a film I want a story - what I don't want is some loose-knit script with a movie constructed around it. The acting likewise tanks once the "scares" begin.

    That brings me to 'the horror' part of this film. The horror here entails a young girl screaming multiple times, whispering into ears in an indiscernible language, standing on the ceiling or walking on walls, and moving quickly. Every single one of these acts is done repeatedly - and perhaps after the second scream it is all yawn-inducing. So, for me, this film's lack of anything scary brings my final score to 2/10. If I see a drama I want drama. If I see an action film I want action. And likewise, if I see a horror film I want to jump. This film fails.

    I shouldn't even have to mention I will not watch the next iteration of "Ouija" even if it is free. And mark my words; there will be a $equel (or two or three of them).
  • Ouija boards developed from practices that are nearly 1,000 years old and have been controversial almost from the very beginning. The modern version of the boards, which supposedly allow users to communicate with the spirits of the deceased, developed out of the centuries-old Chinese usage of an automatic writing method. The hole in the moveable planchette device was eventually widened and the writing implement was replaced by a small piece of glass through which users could see letters and words on a flat board, thus receiving messages from the spirit world. This "Ouija board" (the name probably coming from combining the French and German words for "yes") was patented in the U.S. in 1890. It has survived in the same basic form up to the present, but has been criticized - by scientists who claim that the users are the ones actually moving the planchette (whether deliberately or unconsciously) - and by Christian groups who believe that the boards could lead to demonic possession. This fear, coupled with the game's origins, became the force behind a dozen or so horror movies since the 1980s. 2016's "Ouija: Origin of Evil" (PG-13, 1:39) is a prequel to the "Ouija" horror film released in 2014.

    This film portrays the origin story of the evil in that house featured in the first film, much as it was related in "Ouija". "Ouija: Origin of Evil", takes place in the mid-1960s and focuses on the three female characters at the center of the 2014 film's mythology. Alice Zander (Elizabeth Reaser) is a widowed mother of a teenager named Paulina (Annalise Brasso), or Lina, as her family calls her, and a little girl named Doris (Lulu Wilson). Alice tries to support her small family by conducting séances for grieving people desperate to speak to their deceased loved ones. Alice has a few tricks up her sleeve to help her unsuspecting clients believe that the information she gives them is for real and that their dead relatives are really blowing out candles in response to specific questions. Alice's girls are in hiding, making the tricks work. Lina accepts that it's just a scam, but Doris doesn't really understand everything they're doing, so Alice explains that they're helping people by comforting them and giving them needed closure.

    After attending a party during which her friends played with a Ouija board, Lina convinces her mother to add one to the act. As Alice is working out how to manipulate the board's planchette for her "readings", she accidentally summons a spirit which begins possessing young Doris. As the spirit seems to come and go, Doris starts acting more and more strangely – doing her homework in ways that are beyond her capability, frighteningly dealing with a schoolyard bully, channeling voices, learning the hidden secrets of their old house and, just maybe, talking to the spirit of her dead dad. Of course, Alice is worried about her daughter, but comes to believe that Doris is a legitimate medium, like Alice's mother was – and Alice wants to talk to her deceased husband too. Unfortunately for everyone involved, this is a dangerous game that Alice is playing. Caught in the middle of all this is Lina's boyfriend, Mikey (Peter Mack), and the principal at Doris' Catholic School, Father Tom (Henry Thomas), who helps Alice figure out what's happening and why, what's real and what's not, and what to do about it, risking his own life to do so.

    "Ouija: Origin of Evil" does a good job of connecting its story to the original movie… but that's part of the problem. You won't necessarily be lost if you haven't seen 2014's "Ouija", but you won't fully appreciate what's going on either (especially in the very short post-credits scene, which you should just skip if you haven't seen the first film). Apart from the connections between the films, the connections between events in this film are not well established by Mike Flanagan's and Jeff Howard's script, and Howard's direction fails to build any real sense of dread – or much concern for the characters. Also not helping matters is the acting, which is pretty shaky, except for during the film's climax. Unfortunately, that resolution feels even more random and disjointed than the developments leading up to it. Many people seem to feel that this film is an improvement on the original, but that's not saying very much. Actually, knowing that these films are produced by Hasbro Studios, which is owned by Hasbro Inc., the company which currently produces the official Ouija boards, tells you all that you really need to know. If you have a Ouija board, ask it whether you should go to see this movie. If the planchette moves and hovers over the word "NO"… well… there might be something to those boards after all. "C-"
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The opening was fantastic! The old Universal (from the 60s), the overall look of the film looked as if was from the 1960s, the opening scene built up great suspense and then a huge let down. As soon as the people left the seer and the girls popped out to show us "this really is a scam" I was put off. Sure the scamming family started messing with a Ouija/Witch Board then things started happening but some of the major things that happened was similar to The Exorcist. The Ouija, then the demonic possession then here comes the priest that the demon takes over... yea just watch The Exorcist (1973) for a much better movie.

    I became quickly aggravated with this movie after the great opening scene. I really don't know what else to say about this film other than it is better over all than Ouija (2014).

    3/10
  • After seeing the original film, I was quite surprised to see the rating this movie received. Many have given it rave reviews citing quality work.

    I found the film very difficult to watch. It wasn't the movie that was scary, but the acting. As in scary awful. Annalise Basso delivers a convincing performance, while Elizabeth Reaser and Henry Thomas fall in line well behind. Their performances were so bad it made the movie unbearable.

    Unfortunately, little Lulu Wilson is slowly becoming typecast as the creepy little girl in horror movies. I think she acted the role as best she could. Not exactly a demanding role to begin with, mind you.

    The movie itself was incredibly predictable.

    If you are looking for a good horror movie to watch, find something else. I wouldn't say it is a waste of time, but it definitely isn't the best spent 90 minutes.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Film has a history as it is directed many times before. This time, it was directed to make it a good one as compared to its previous versions. Its cinematography was fine. Dialogues were strong. Recently seen this film. The film has few scenes of interest. As father comes and told the history of spirits to family, he told facts behind it and gave a solution like to call the Vatican Priests for exorcism. At that point i was excited because the scenes of exorcism brings some horror to the films. Story and screen play were going smooth before father become hunted by the bad spirits and he attacks on the helpless family. That was the weakest turn in the film. Moreover, the story ends without any moral outcome. It is unfinished. It was a Halloween special film. Its rating is fine as compared to its production. As compared to classical horrors like: Devils, Exorcist, Evil Dead and Nightmare etc., this film is bellow average. It would be a memorable product if a proper focus would be on horror contents. Over all film is average.
An error has occured. Please try again.