Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

I'm giving this movie 5 out of 10 stars because there are a lot of very good things about it, even though the sum of it is absolutely terrible as an exercise of narrative. Ie: the story is very shabbily told, it is full of holes and ellipses, cheesy visual effects and silly scares, to name but a few big faults. It is, in fact, quite boring, and has near zero suspense. A lot of the acting is mediocre, and the directing work is full of errors typical for a first-timer (behind all of which, we can see very promising manners).The germinal talent is one of the good points of the movie. There are more: for example, the leit motiv is very original, and would make for a *terrific* horror movie, should the script be rewritten and more put-together, and the movie remade (Hollywood could pull a very entertaining and appealing horror movie from this -good movies have been made with a much, much poorer starting material). The settings are also very spooky and well-chosen, and a great point was, in my opinion, the surreal quality introduced by the distortion of an early twentieth-century style, lighting, and technology in a twenty-first-century story and setting (for example, not once do we see a computer, a cell phone -or a phone, for that matter- or a digital device, or traces that such technology is even known to the characters in this microcosm). This creates a very disturbing yet very attractive effect. The surrealism is enhanced by other implausibilities that ask for sustained suspension of disbelief, but create, in exchange, a very appropriate atmosphere, akin to the German Expressionism -paid homage to by the authors in the names of the school that the movie is set in, or in those of some characters'-, or the English Neo-Gothic.The acting is also quite acceptable, in general -one thing that hurts the movie in this department is, I believe, the fact that it was shot in English, which was not the first language for many of the leading actors (Alberto Amarilla, Alex Angulo and Leticia Dolera are all Spanish), and it must have affected their acting. However, they all do a nice job and you can tell they really try to bring depth to their characters. In my opinion, Leticia Dolera succeeded at it especially.I will admit that the first time I watched this movie, I absolutely hated it. And although it isn't a favorite of mine now, or even a movie I want to keep watching, I am able to appreciate the many positive sides of it.

Went to the premiere yesterday and I was a bit disappointed. Nothing new (but this is forgivable) , at time confused and rushed, with some plot holes in the writing (people start missing and die and no one cares? No one calls the police???) and the suspense wasn't always very suspenseful. Some references to the first Argento, some blood but not too extreme, and a final revelation (the mysterious "Imago Mortis") that when finally is captured on a picture my only reaction was "So what???". To say the truth someone in the theater walked away well before the end credits... But I must admit that I've liked the director's style : it's more a psychological thriller than an all-out horror. Unfortunately not all the actors were convincing in their roles (at times too much melodrama, I'm afraid) but some ideas were interesting. Maybe it's the philosophy and the bizarre science described in the story that I've liked more. Not the worst movie experience, but nothing that remains afterward. At least for me. Geraldine Chaplin was in it maybe to help the career of someone she loves: it's one of the good things in the movie, so maybe she was right. We'll see if this "Imago Mortis" will have more life. But through eyes very open...