This could have been a very good movie, because "haunted edifice" films are rare and far more fun than the milked-out haunted house genre, plus the basic set-up wasn't bad.
Unfortunately, the film-makers - once again - decided that horror film fans are complete idiots who can and should be served nonsense and then expected to eat it up without complaints. Well, screw that: I have plenty of complaints.
1. Each flat has HUGE cameras watching the tenants, yet the tenants don't notice them: mind-bogglingly dumb.
2. Already 15 minutes into the plot we are told half the story, which deflates the sense of mystery: from this point onward we know that tenants that go back to their old habits get killed. The only thing left to find out is how and where they get killed - and that's just not enough; for me at least. I'm not one of those empty-headed serial-killer torture-porn viewers whose peanut-sized sociopathic brains are content to watch torture with zero plot. There was still a plot, but it was paper-thin, and the viewer was nearly always ahead of the main character and her often predictable investigation.
3. The little girl disappears despite being under the watch of a brigade of cops (all of whom seem skeptical and disinterested and can hardly wait to leave). This would be acceptable if the premise was supernatural, but it isn't. Hence it's a really dumb plot-device.
4. Which brings us to the movie's biggest flaw perhaps: it refuses to be a supernatural horror despite its OBVIOUS supernatural nature. Mrs. Mudgett's bald-headed green-painted son has the strength of five elephants - quite literally. This made me logically assume that there was some kind of a demon involved in all this. Nuh-huh. He is supposed to be a regular guy i.e. this is yet another dumb thriller trying to sell us the usual modern-thriller nonsense that a mere mortal - just because he is evil - can have some kind of superhuman cryptonite powers, which include the ability to throw people around like tennis balls and to materialize on top of elevators with no aids whatsoever. Hence we are supposed to accept the fact that Mudgett junior is mega-strong simply because... his ancestor was a mass-murderer? Does this mean that Hitler's hypothetical children would all have the strength of 50 Tolkien trolls? Too cretinous.
5. The downer ending is supposed to be a "twist". These dummy horror film-makers don't seem to be aware that MOST modern horror films have downer endings, hence that only an "upper" ending would be the real surprise and would constitute a breaking away from the cliche.
6. The cops don't have a search warrant - after a victim calls the cops from the crime scene AND suggests that there may be mass-murder perpetrated in the hotel? Really? So when do cops get a search warrant? When 1000 witnesses send irrefutable footage to the police? Would that suffice? No?
7. That plot-twist with the girl joining the killer clan is too dumb for words. That kind of absurd garbage logic can sink a film all on its own, without the help of the stuff I mentioned previously.
8. The notion that a torture clan would make the decision to kill based on some morality principles is asinine. Contemporary writers are so desperate and confused.
The movie lies to us about Webster Mudgett. He was a real 19th-century serial-killer but not of 200 people who were slaughtered in an elaborately constructed large abattoir. He was proved to be the killer of no more than 9 people, and the whole torture hotel story is pure fabrication, propagated by dozens of badly researched sensationalist crappy exploitation books. Kind of like this movie.
Unfortunately, the film-makers - once again - decided that horror film fans are complete idiots who can and should be served nonsense and then expected to eat it up without complaints. Well, screw that: I have plenty of complaints.
1. Each flat has HUGE cameras watching the tenants, yet the tenants don't notice them: mind-bogglingly dumb.
2. Already 15 minutes into the plot we are told half the story, which deflates the sense of mystery: from this point onward we know that tenants that go back to their old habits get killed. The only thing left to find out is how and where they get killed - and that's just not enough; for me at least. I'm not one of those empty-headed serial-killer torture-porn viewers whose peanut-sized sociopathic brains are content to watch torture with zero plot. There was still a plot, but it was paper-thin, and the viewer was nearly always ahead of the main character and her often predictable investigation.
3. The little girl disappears despite being under the watch of a brigade of cops (all of whom seem skeptical and disinterested and can hardly wait to leave). This would be acceptable if the premise was supernatural, but it isn't. Hence it's a really dumb plot-device.
4. Which brings us to the movie's biggest flaw perhaps: it refuses to be a supernatural horror despite its OBVIOUS supernatural nature. Mrs. Mudgett's bald-headed green-painted son has the strength of five elephants - quite literally. This made me logically assume that there was some kind of a demon involved in all this. Nuh-huh. He is supposed to be a regular guy i.e. this is yet another dumb thriller trying to sell us the usual modern-thriller nonsense that a mere mortal - just because he is evil - can have some kind of superhuman cryptonite powers, which include the ability to throw people around like tennis balls and to materialize on top of elevators with no aids whatsoever. Hence we are supposed to accept the fact that Mudgett junior is mega-strong simply because... his ancestor was a mass-murderer? Does this mean that Hitler's hypothetical children would all have the strength of 50 Tolkien trolls? Too cretinous.
5. The downer ending is supposed to be a "twist". These dummy horror film-makers don't seem to be aware that MOST modern horror films have downer endings, hence that only an "upper" ending would be the real surprise and would constitute a breaking away from the cliche.
6. The cops don't have a search warrant - after a victim calls the cops from the crime scene AND suggests that there may be mass-murder perpetrated in the hotel? Really? So when do cops get a search warrant? When 1000 witnesses send irrefutable footage to the police? Would that suffice? No?
7. That plot-twist with the girl joining the killer clan is too dumb for words. That kind of absurd garbage logic can sink a film all on its own, without the help of the stuff I mentioned previously.
8. The notion that a torture clan would make the decision to kill based on some morality principles is asinine. Contemporary writers are so desperate and confused.
The movie lies to us about Webster Mudgett. He was a real 19th-century serial-killer but not of 200 people who were slaughtered in an elaborately constructed large abattoir. He was proved to be the killer of no more than 9 people, and the whole torture hotel story is pure fabrication, propagated by dozens of badly researched sensationalist crappy exploitation books. Kind of like this movie.