How sad is this?

What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

I just finished watching "Lost Souls" on TV2 Film (a Danish movie channel), and I instantly logged on to IMDb to see its rating, and perhaps learn more about the layers of the film.I was shocked:: a 4,5/10 rating on IMDb!? Granted, the film is far from perfect, but it's a lot better than 4,5/10, so I must admit, I actually only think the film deserves a 7/10 rating, but because its rating is so low, I give it an 8/10.I also managed to find some good heated discussions about the movie on its IMDb board - especially its ending. And I must say, any movie-ending capable of starting such heated discussions on IMDb has my full respect! "Lost Souls" definitely owes a lot to Roman Polanski's "Rosemary's Baby" from 1968 and William Friedkin's "The Exorcist" from 1973 (and perhaps even Roman Polanski's "The Ninth Gate" from 1995) thematically, visually, and plot-wise. Examples: the general dark cinematography, the cinematography during the "exorcism of the priest"-scene resembles scenes in "The Exorcist" a lot, director Janusz Kaminski's choice to leave scenes open to debate (Which they are! Want proof? Just check the heated discussions on IMDb...), and finally the whole idea of "everybody" being in on it (as shown in the church-scene towards the ending) resembles "Rosemary's Baby" a lot. You can see these examples as a sign of director Kaminski being unoriginal, or as references/a tribute to the original classics. I choose to see it as the latter.It's clear that director Janusz Kaminski and cinematographer Mauro Fiore understand the horror genre. The cinematography is dark, creepy, and classy. The scenes are slow, although not Tarkovsky-slow, but, however, still far from the past-paced MTV editing of most of today's horror movies. All in all the movie is very atmospheric and has the feeling that something dark is looming around the corner (which perfectly underbuilds its plot). Kaminski also manages to avoid the most annoying horror clichés, although, as aforementioned, he does pay a lot of (too much?)tribute to especially "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Exorcist" - but there are even more genre references, so keep an eye open if you dig movie intertextuality. Furthermore Kaminski understands that true horror arises not from whats going on on-screen (too often big over-blown CGI-monsters), but from what goes on off-screen (in your mind!). No movie monster can ever compete with the figures of your imagination. This movie follows that philosophy.Wionna Ryder fits perfect in the role as Maya. It's not a mind-blowing performance (because the character is, to be honest, rather cliché), but it's steady. Ryder understands when to act subtle and when to act on the big emotions. Ben Chaplin is acceptable as Peter, although a bit more anonymous character-wise and easily replaceable by another actor with similar looks. Finally, Philip Baker Hall as Father James, is always a joy to watch. He doesn't receive much screen-time, but he's menacing in the few scenes he appear. A true character actor!I see a lot of IMDb users hate this movie because of its ending. Personally I like the ending, but I understand them to a certain a degree. It can feel like an anti-climax - but only if you're not using all your senses when watching movies. I think it's a great ending for the same reason I liked the ending of "Rosemary's Baby": it's open for interpretation, thus leaving the movie running in your head a long time after it's ended. You can't stop thinking about the ending. Did Peter turn into Satan before Maya shot him? Or Did Maya actually shoot an innocent man? Was she, in fact, the one destined to become Satan all along? Or did the whole story perhaps take place in a mentally ill Maya's mind? If you're a thinker, these questions are bound to come up. That's what makes this movie so interesting, and even re-watchable. At least I'm gonna watch it again, so I can look for more clues to the puzzle that I didn't catch the first time.But the movie also has its flaws. It's as if the director didn't have the guts to go all the way with the "horror works best in the audience's imagination"-philosophy, and had to put in some supernatural slasher scenes that only work against the movie's horror. Either that or he was under pressure from studio execs. Furthermore the plot and the dialog sometimes feel a bit too cliché. It's as if the movie isn't sure if it's a mainstream or art-house movie. Does it want to be an intelligent piece of art or a mind-numbing by-the-books Hollywood horror. It's as if it's going in both directions at once, and therefore doesn't fully succeed at either one.That being said, the movie does have a lot of qualities, and is definitely worth watching for any serious fans of the genre (as I am). I've watched all the classics: "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "The Exorcist", "Rosemary's Baby", "Repulsion", "Halloween", "Cannibal Holocaust", "Nosferatu", "Dracula" (1932 and 1958), "Vertigo", "Psycho", etc. etc. etc. - this movie has a lot of good elements, although not quite enough to reach the classic/cult status of the aforementioned movies. At the moment I'm waiting for Lars von Trier's upcoming 2009 movie "Antikrist" which is, surprise, surprise, a horror movie... Trier's first since his TV-series "Riget". I hope he'll bring something new to the genre, because the genre sure needs it.Well... that's about it I guess. On to the rating. I find the movie worthy of 7/10, but give it 8/10 because of its currently absurdly low IMDb rating of 4,5/10!

Rosemary's Baby rewritten ( badly ) for the clueless generation ... This film reeks ... The acting is fine ... The story is basically "antichrist" appears on earth ... Done to death ... And as most people with a brain now realise that there are no gods, this sort of story no longer works ... The fact that whoever edited this was unable to put a narrative flow together from such a simplistic story is another matter I love horror films but would strongly suggest you give this one a wide berth as it offers absolutely nothing of interest This rule that you have to write 10 lines or more is really difficult with this film because it is so devoid of any interest that it really is just ... Sad ...Boring ... And a complete waste of everyones time

Listening to the director's comment track on the DVD makes it obvious that he did not understand the story and background at all. His focus was on the cinematography which is understandable since this is his main occupation. This was his first director job. He did not understand the religious parts of the film at all. This led to many faults that were not resolved. He stated he did not want to do what "The Exorcist" had done so refused to clarify the story. He was the wrong person to direct this film and it shows.He stated that he took the original script and completely reworked it from the original intent. It is obvious he did not know the religious ideas therefore making a mess of what could have been a really good film.

Another story of someone suspecting that the Devil is soon to take over the world. There have been so many of these kinds of movies that I can't even distinguish them anymore. Winona Ryder has starred in so many good movies, so why did she degenerate into this? About the only clever scene was when he couldn't hear the tape; otherwise, "Lost Souls" made little to no sense.So, there are plenty of good movies out there, so don't bother with this one. Also making fools of themselves are Ben Chaplin, Sarah Wynter, Philip Baker Hall (the old guy in Paul Thomas Anderson's movies), John Hurt and Elias Koteas. Not a terrible movie, but pretty worthless.