Nigel P It might be considered a little unfair to rely on a group of juvenile girls to carry the establishing scenes of this low-budget chiller. Whilst the set-up is sound, there's no denying that the acting lets things down somewhat.Having said that, the acting isn't the strongest element throughout 'Bind's' 86 minutes. The American family that we next meet, moving into their new home, have weak moments too. Conversational exchanges between them are fine, but when anger or hysteria consumes them - especially the adults - limitations are surpassed. Mum, her second husband, little daughter and the dreaded depiction of the 'goth teen', foul-mouthed Zoe (Mackenzie Mowat) have bought a dilapidated orphanage at a reduced rate and no-one can really blame the girls for not being enthused about living there. The building is huge and crumbling and exists next to a noisy train line.Things start to happen. Ghostly faces at the window, shadows, and unexplained events - all achieved with a nice, creepy directorial touch from Dan Walton and Dan Zachary. There are moments of gore which look pretty good too. The location filming appears to have taken place during late summer, early Autumn, which always produces some nice long shadows and crisp, leafy mornings.Elements of 'The Shining' and the 'Amytville' series join in the familiar ways 'Bind' tries to scare us and it is partially successful despite the shortcomings. There's a good character twist towards the end that makes sense, but only if you caught the awkward glance between daddy Ben (Darren Matheson) and Joan (Morgan Pasiuk). 'Bind' won't change the world, and it doesn't set out to redefine horror, but I enjoyed the gloomy atmospherics and occasional shock moments.

littleton_pace One of the worst pieces of "acting" I have ever seen comes from the father in this movie. He was hideously awful as an actor. Every one of his lines came off like he was reading the script right in front of his eyes. Not only him, everyone's lines in this movie were terrible. No one talks like this. Why do movie writers insist people talk like people in a soap opera? Like the mother alone saying: "Oh, crap I forgot the washing detergent" or the daughter alone saying "this phone never gets signal". And why the hell was the mother so insistent her daughter call her step-father Dad? She's 16, she can call him whatever she wants and Dad wouldn't be one of them. Stupid idiotic movie. Saving grace was the scares from the ghost woman, but they don't save what is a vomit-ridden crap-fest of lazy dialogue, terrible acting and an hour and a half of my life worse off than before I started watching.

Paul Magne Haakonsen I fell for the title of the movie, even with its blatant cash in on the recent successful "The Conjuring" movies. But hey, it is a horror movie, so I still decided to give it a go.And I did, and I managed to survive perhaps a whole 20 minutes or so into the ordeal that was "American Conjuring" before I just threw the towel in the ring and gave up, getting up and left to watch something else. Actually, not just me, but my wife did the same.I can't really give a proper synopsis of the storyline in the movie, because the movie wasn't really in gear or had gotten to any milestones by the time I gave up.What made me give up was the lack of a compelling storyline. There just was nothing that captured me and kept me in the seat. The was nothing scary anywhere in the 20 minutes that I endured. And the acting wasn't really a factor that worked in favor of the movie either, just added fuel to the reason for why I gave up.I haven't the faintest of clues what directors Dan Walton and Dan Zachary set out to accomplish with "American Conjuring", nor can I claim to have any further interest in finding out. But thumbs up for actually managing to make a movie nonetheless.I have no intentions of returning to finish "American Conjuring", not even if I got paid to do so. Once a movie fails to impress and captivate me, then the race is over, so to speak. I am sure that there are someone, somewhere out there that would find some kind of enjoyment in "American Conjuring", it just wasn't me...

smilingshadow The entire movie is predicated on the idea that a family moves into a house where something bad happened - 3 girls were murdered by another girl (that was possessed) that subsequently committed suicide.The family moves in, the former owner of the house shows up and tries to convince the family to leave because "something bad happened" but is interrupted by the real estate guy.The family is like: "Huh. I wonder what happened here." and promptly moves in. Hello? 2016 anyone?The teenage daughter in the movie is on her smartphone texting like all the frigging time. She should be able to Google all the details about the house like 30 seconds after the creepy incident. But nooo... Things have to spiral out of control and then they meet with the former owner who gives them a scrap-book with the newspapers clips about the murders that happened in 2004 - you know, back in the day when EVERYBODY WAS ALREADY ONLINE AND NOT USING SCRAPBOOKS TO STORE NEWSPAPER CUT-OUTS.The person who made this movie is either 100 years old and their world stopped in 1993 or 16 years old and thinks 2004 was in the Middle Ages.Other than that: Boring. Incoherent story. Sex scene and a shower scene with zero nudity (if your budget is so low you cannot get the lady to even show her naked back to imply nudity, skip the sex scene and the shower scene please, it is just pathetic...).