It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

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

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

The 2008 horror film "Sight" can only be called a diamond in the rough. It's production values are humble, but the director, write, and actors all come through to deliver a surprising creepy and deeply dark tale.The story centers around Jeffery, a quiet, introverted man who just so happens to be able to see the dead. A movie that never pulls punches, "Sight" opens up with a tableau of Jeffery's childhood and the abuse he suffers from his father. The acting and storytelling skill of this scene alone is enough to understand why Lionsgate would have produced such a low-budget film. From there the story transitions into Jeffery's adult life where he encounters the mysterious Dana, a woman sets off a chain of events that spiral our hero into a world of darkness. I won't give too much away, except to say that once you look past the image quality of the film, the story will make it impossible to stop watching until the end.This brings us to the one bad aspect of the film: the low-budget appearance. You can tell they didn't have a lot to work with; but what they did have, they used remarkably well. The blood and gore look creepier and more realistic than in "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street" - I kid you not. The lighting in "Sight" is both a blessing and curse. At times it gives the film an impressionistic feel, but at other points you're straining your eyes just to see what's going on. The movie is just SO dark at some parts, but too bright and blurry at other parts. The film quality they were using really shows, and it's sad.What isn't anything to worry about is the acting. I found Clayton Haske (Jeffery) and Tony Luke (Paul) totally believable. Allison Persaud seemed a little amateurish, but more experience she is really going to do great.All in all this is a movie that came out of nowhere to be something truly dark and scary. Schizophrenic shots, sadistic nightmare sequences, impressionistic lighting, gory visual effects and LOADS of blood, hair-raising sound effects and a score that will remind you of the Silent Hill games. It all comes together for a stunning American ghost story with a pitch black ending. With all the remakes that studios have been doing recently, I feel this one should near the top of the list. Regrettably, the gritty and dark storyline may be too much for some. But horror fans will definitely like this. Look out for writer/director Adam Ahlbrandt, he's truly talented.

This movie is psychic. Its not meant to scare you, or amaze with dialogs. Yet it touches you from the depths. Even in the very beginning, they use white screen, that unconsciously attracts your attention. The music, or should i say, sound vibration, were were well put together on the occasions. Even for a psychic movie this was very creepy. It could fit in Horror genre too. Whole movie goes from elements, and they even use flashes to, again, contact your subconscious. It did was overacted, and the camera angles were far from perfect, but the general idea of movie, and the way they put it in does affect you. Im sorry to confess, but this is one of the rare movies that will go deep into my memory. The feelings it left were strong. The ending is left open, once again, letting the watcher to interpretate, therefore creating an ending for his possibility of thinking. This movie is not for everyone. Brain-dead action lovers should skip it, you wont find action here. The ones who do like psychology movies may watch it. Thats the movie for the small, but strong, circle of people, and I'm happy to get into it.8/10. It looses 2 points for the proportions mentioned above.

This movie was not worth watching. As other people have mentioned, the acting is absolutely awful. I'm sure a better cast could have been found by using rejects from film making school.The editing is irritating - quarter second views at different angles of the same object, combined with the irritating audio. The voices are too quiet to hear without turning the volume up, but annoying electronic sounds like phones and alarm clocks ringing practically blow out your speakers.The story does not make sense. One of the first scenes is completely bizarre. I watched this movie with friends who do not speak English. Despite the lack of dialogue in the beginning of the film we both could not figure out what was happening.I recommend not wasting your time with this film. I'm surprised any company even backed this production financially and decided to publish it.This movie is easily the worst I've ever seen.

I think this movie was pretty good for a low budget Philly movie. It contained some basic elements as twists, who done its, and so forth. These elements keep you guessing, causes you to wonder and be confused, as well as makes you jump at times. There is an artistic use of lighting, as well as the volumes of voice. Then there was the purposeful absence of facial expression when called for. All the makings of a decent flick. Everyone wants to be a critic.The movie was good enough to be selected by one or more film festivals and get a distribution deal, which is a lot more than what some of you critics can boast about. So there.