The Worst Film Ever

Just perfect...

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

I can't believe that some people gave this trash more than 1 star,what is this? where is the story?.Really if there is a degree under zero this film deserve it.This is a vacant story, simply and directly told by Irish writer-director Ciaran Foy. He doesn't try to explain too much, he doesn't depend on special effects and stays just this side of the unbelievable. As Tommy, Aneurin Barnard is very effective. He trembles and sweats with fear, he would seem paranoid if it didn't seem the "demons" weren't really there, and if they hadn't really killed his wife.The priest enlists Tommy in a scheme to destroy the Citadel and send the demons back to the flames of hell Hahhhhhhhhhh Where are these demons? and like the trash movies some things happen ad elevator did not open as usual. Tis film is very boring,no blot and also no acting

This is what I'm talking about. Just when you think you're so jaded that nothing can affect you, along comes a film that straddles the line between horror and harrowing drama with the effectiveness of the movies that caused the worst nightmares of your childhood! Citadel flew under the radar back in 2012 and I can see why. It's too grim for the average viewer; the kind of people who seek to escape reality with the absurdity of popcorn movies. Citadel does not want you to escape. It wants to drag you deeper into the cold, black depths of its own private hell. That it does with perfect writing, directing, acting and location.Too often the torch of "best horror film since..." is passed onto the rip-offs that have no intention of producing originality. They seek recognition for their ability to mimic their betters. Citadel is all alone in its personal nightmare, but if you see it, it will drag you in.It's amazing how, with the right tools at your disposal, simplicity can lead to such profound filmmaking. Citadel's strengths may seem few at first glance, but through amazing acting on behalf of its lead character, the psychology of fear - the victim mentality, the onset of panic and anxiety, and a visceral insight into post-traumatic stress syndrome - can leap to the viewer like a virus.With elements of Harry Brown and Tyrannosaur, Citadel is one hyper-real Aphex Twin urban nightmare, shameless in its teasing of the nerves and building atmosphere and suspense like the steam inside a pressure cooker.See it!

Browsing reddit for a horror movie to watch, I saw this one recommended a couple times. Something dealing with a more psychological aspect always interests me, so I decided to give it a shot. Sadly, I was disappointed. Small spoilers may follow (descriptions of small scenes) but nothing that will ruin the plot or the entirety of the described scene.The movie doesn't really do a good job at... well, anything. Its plot is rather simple (not always bad) and several things were never entirely explained, such as the actual cause of what's going on as well as why some of the characters in the movie seem to just completely ignore the main character and his cries for help. There's a part (not to ruin anything) where he's shouting at someone that he just saw someone get killed and the guy he's shouting at doesn't even look him in the eye. At first I thought this was part of whatever was going on in this movie, until the "creatures" killed that guy only seconds later.Additionally, several scenes in this movie seem implausible. While I'm aware horror's not supposed to be real, a couple scenes just defy logic, such as the creatures walking RIGHT past him at one point to attack some completely silent stranger further away from their point of entry. At times, it feels like the director forces illogical things to happen just to force conflict. Not to ruin anything again but there's a part where he has to break the door into his own house, leaving it vulnerable in the future. This is never explained, as it is made clear that it's his own house before this scene.As for scares... Well I don't look for scares in horror movies. I look more for creepy. This movie, sadly, has neither. The creatures look like uninspired zombies (yet they're not zombies) and there's no scares, legitimate or jump-scare.The movie's conclusion sort of just... ends. All in all, I want that hour and a half of my life back.

Tommy watches helpless as his pregnant wife is brutally attacked by some kid gang, an event that leaves him with agoraphobia. She manages to deliver the child and months later, the children attack him once again, apparently targeting the baby; Tommy must fight his fears in order to save his child.Nothing too creative here. Claran Foy might have 'based' this on a real experience, but there is little original here; the movie feels like a mix of 'Heartless' with 'The Brood'. In truth, I couldn't shake the similarities that kept rising between this and Cronenberg's twisted fantasy/horror. But unlike that one 'Citadel' tries to be 'serious' or somewhat realistic, which doesn't work. In fact, it is exactly the pretentiousness of trying to make it carry a realistic message and tone that makes this film so weak.Apparently people think this is a social commentary. If this is, it is just a terrible one or very badly mishandled. It might be about street violence and the whole thing gears towards 'you mustn't be afraid of walking around in public'... But street violence IS real; we shouldn't hide because of it, but 'not hiding' and 'going into a gang's den fearlessly' are two completely different things.Plus, what was the deal with the kids? We never get an explanation, or even a hint, of what they are, except that they started 'normal' and, inexplicably, became some kind of monster. It is not necessary to give a clear-cut explanation to everything, but when you try to keep a 'realistic' tone to the film and then go and bring to the screen a half-demon, fear-smelling thing... Well, you really jumped the shark there, Claran Foy.Acting is all around the place, partly due to the lousy characters. Tommy (Aneurin Barnard) is painful to watch; it is one thing to portray an agoraphobic realistically, another is to make him an exaggerated afraid-of-everything, irritating stereotype (that is more of a character criticism, though Barnard's acting certainly didn't help changing it). The bleeding-heart, 'I want to help everyone', 'these kids are just victims of society!' Marie (Wunmi Mosaku) is equally terrible to watch (her death was the closest to a 'good moment'); James Cosmo, the priest, is the only one that manages to make a fun watch.Being Foy's first picture, it is commendable that he managed to create such a good mood and even a few adequate jump scenes (something many seasoned directors still fail at doing). He just needs to hone his screen writing abilities (or better yet, get someone else to write for him) and he should do well.