Please don't spend money on this.

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

It often happens that the directors stand in the place of the editors, and also the editors become directors. So it happened with Kevin Grotert, the same person who mounted all the beloved "Saw" as a "Game of Survival", and several subsequent films. But, unlike the first "Saw", in the projects "Saw 3D" and "Saw 6" Kevin acted as a director. In addition, he withdrew the "Jezabel" and the same horror "Visions" with Jim Parsons.The story of the "Jackals" or, as decided (cruel and merciless) Russian hire "Circles of the Devil" tells of a family who has gone to a small house in the middle of the forest to get his son out of the sect. The theme of the story is reminiscent of "Strangers", "You are the End!" And of course "The Last Expulsion of the Devil", but here is a much simpler concept, during which we watch an hour and a half as a guy tied to a chair sits and depicts an obsession.From the positive aspects of the film I can highlight the realistic game of Ben Sullivan and Stephen Dorff, who literally decorated the picture with his presence. As soon as it becomes smaller in the frame, the film ceases to be interesting. Even beautifully shot scenes, with a chilling blue color that enveloped the backyard and killers in masks, does not save this mediocre story."We need children ..." - may be needed, but only in this desire there is absolutely no drama, nothing that would catch the viewer. The killers copied from "Strangers" do not have their own character, they are only a murder weapon, whose story is not interesting to learn."Jackals" or, excuse me, "Circles of the Devil" - an unfinished project that looks once, and then safely forgotten.

Where do I start? Frankly, I'm angry at myself for not reading reviews first before paying my money to go see this abomination. Have you ever seen a movie so bad that you thought you're being punked and at any moment someone's going to step from behind the screen and say: gotcha!! Well multiply that feeling by ten.Ohh man, this film sucks. Holy sh*t it sucks so bad my cousin dozed off during the first ten minutes. I was like: let him sleep to avoid the torture I was going through. The characters - I don't think you can call them that - are so naive, so one dimensional, so stupid, you'd wanna throw up when they speak. The plot - if ever there was one - is so faulty, so bad, so bland, so utterly dumb that your IQ score will drop dramatically after seeing this film. If you value your money, do not pay to see this insult to your intelligence. Midway through the movie, I woke my cousin up, gave a big middle finger to the cinema screen, and went the f$%k home. My cousin asked me what the movie was like. I replied: TORTURE.

I deserve a pat on my back - watched the entire movie in one go. Having said that, this is a seriously dumb movie.It is a low budget cabin in the woods kind of a flick, but instead of supernatural antagonists, what we have here are a group of men dressed as jackals - and they have absolutely no motive, no background, no character, no nothing - they are just as meaningless as the movie.The acting in the movie is okay, for a change, nothing amazing since the movie doesn't require anything amazing, but, it does seem like the cast can easily do better -> should be signing better movies. The background, cinematography are amateurish (or worse). Screenplay is non-existent. Storyline is intermittent, meaningless, flawed and boring. Character building seems to have been an absolutely no-no, since, even if every single person on screen died a horrible death, it would have absolutely zero effect on the viewer.2/10

Watched this after the movie was hyped a bit on a few online horror forums and ended up being fairly disappointed.Admittedly, I'm not big on home invasion flicks as it is so take that into consideration.There doesn't seem to be any reason for the 80s setting outside of an excuse not to have cellphones. The home, clothing and style could easily be modern. The only 80s style with the filming is the grain, and the story seems more late 90s-early 00s than anything.The acting is pretty solid but the cult member brother goes a bit too far into the crazy scale and ends up coming off a bit silly.The cult members that attack look cool, but seem a bit to similar to the You're Next and Strangers villains, and it was a little frustrating to not get any detail about the cult at all, making the story seem a bit, useless maybe? They're also given little to no personality. But that seems fine with the huge personalities of the family members.The camera work on the beginning is really dark and shoddy, but the rest of the film is shot very well. The editing is good, but was this cut down significantly? With the lack of a good ending (the one present is really abrupt and does nothing for the story) and the weird edition of Matteo that's never really properly explained it seems like maybe this was chopped up a bit too much.The effects were good, of simple and not super unique. I did like the burning hands.Stephen Dorff was a nice surprise and I liked his character above the others, which turned out to be unfortunate. Props on getting him though.All in all, it certainly isn't terrible it's just not really my speed, as it's more of an action over substance home invasion which isn't really my thing, as I said before.