Lack of good storyline.

Far from Perfect, Far from Terrible

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

A young woman inherits a house from her biological family whom she does not remember. The family has a few dark secrets, and the spirits of the dead refuse to remain silent, particularly an overzealous preacher.Ashlie Victoria Clark is a beautiful and capable actress, as other reviewers have pointed out. However, that doesn't prove to be enough to save this boring film with a weak script and average directing. This is the very definition of a forgettable film, and I've already begun to forget it a mere thirty minutes after watching it.Clark tried her hand at acting a few more times and fell silent after that. I blame this film. She gave her all, but was derailed by appearing in a cruddy movie. Don't bother to watch it. It's available for cheap as a 4-pack, but the only good film in the pack is "Roman", so just buy that one by itself and you'll be fine.

Man, I've really got to stop buying DVDs out of the bargain bin at the supermarket. I've had a really bad run of flicks lately, with "Wages of Sin" coming in very close to the bottom of the pile. The film's trailer leads the viewer to believe that they'll be in for a spooky good time, but what appears on screen is a slow moving, talky, dull religion-based horror starring a cast with limited (that's probably being kind) acting ability.The set up is promising enough: the attractive-but-troubled Sue has inherited a house in the country and she's headed up there with three of her annoying twenty something friends to check the place out for the first time. Sue was adopted at age 9 after a family tragedy that she can't quite remember, and the house dates back to before she was adopted. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this house will eventually be revealed as Ground Zero for said tragedy, though the audience will come to this conclusion way before Sue and her friends will. The run-down house is littered with Bibles that have "FORNICATION" scribbled across the pages, spooky sounds emanate from empty rooms and the woods outside, and Sue starts seeing visions of her long-dead twin sister. After an ill-advised game with a homemade Ouija board, things hit the fan and one by one the gang turn against Sue and each other, possessed by an insane religious fury. Turns out when Sue lived in the house as a child, she and her sister were victimized by their grandfather, a crazed preacher whose idea of providing "salvation" to his family was by murdering them and eating their remains. Now that Sue has returned "home," he's been reawakened and he plans to finish the job he started twenty years ago. Yeah, it sounds like pretty nasty stuff, but the description is way more promising than what came out on screen. None of the young performers can act their way out of a paper bag (the girls are cute though, and boy can they scream!), the endless flashbacks become incredibly annoying after a while, and the gore quotient is next to none. For a movie with cannibalism as one of its supposed "shocking" revelations, you'd expect to see more red stuff, but... nope. What was the budget on this movie anyway, six bucks and a broken cracker? Part "Exorcist," part "Frailty," part "Amityville Horror," "Wages of Sin" is a yawn-fest. I'll give it a couple of grudging points for the decent cinematography but that's about the nicest thing I can say about it. Ignore, delete, destroy.

Okay, apologies to Chuck. The "killer" in WAGES OF SIN--styled variously as "The Preacher," "Grandpa," "Reverend Walker"--has simplified the basic tenets of salvation per Martin Luther or John Calvin. All one must do to be "saved" is to let the holy man hack you to pieces with an ax and then eat your remains (minus Hannibal Lector's "fava beans and chianti"). This film is so low-budget that the Preacher would be hard-pressed to come up with even Hamburger Helper or Velveeta.One must wonder about the commentators raving over the merits of this lame flick. When a Billy Graham-clone is exhorting his nine-year-old daughter to eat Mommy for dinner while "Jesus Loves Me This I Know" plays in the background, at least make the sacrilege as eye-popping as DOGMA--or even STIGMATA! Why be damned for 30 pieces of lead?

Don't tackle a subject or genre such as this with no budget...a valiant effort maybe, but to expect people to watch it? Nah. Would love to know how many drafts the script went through...my guess is none, its shocking. But the director DOES have a pretty good (if very slow) eye, and my guess is some of the actors sensed a weak story and over acted in a bid to compensate. It is VERY difficult to make a convincing horror when you have absolutely no funds to pull it off. Mike Watt does, but he doesn't take himself, or his movies, too seriously, and thats why people love him. As a result, the make ups are lousy, the script is SUPER lousy, and you can tell they had no choice but to cop out of some key scenes which would have made the movie a lot better. I agree with one reviewer, Ashlie Clark is beautiful,can scream her ass off, and is the ONLY reason I give it as much as three stars.