Wages of Sin (2006)

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

I saw this movie before reading any reviews, and I thought it was very funny. I was very surprised to see the overwhelmingly negative reviews this film received from critics.

an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

...and it was actually the better half of a lo-fi double-feature I recently endured (the first half was the execrable "See Jane Run"), but "Wages of Sin" simply still fails to entertain in any significant way. It features four attractive but oh-so-bland leads, with the exception of Prentice Reedy, who showed flashes of genuine talent. The listless plot centers on Sue Walker (Ashlie Victoria Clark), a young lady who's inherited a desolate house out in the middle of nowhere, and decides to check it out along with her noticeably younger boyfriend, Ron (Brandon Michael), and another young couple, Taylor (Reedy) and Jane (Lauren "The Ashlee Simpson Show" Zelman), who are there primarily to elicit exposition from poor Sue, and to be possessed and die. Wow. What a thriller! Ms. Clark is quite attractive, but a remarkably unconvincing actor. Ditto Ms. Zelman and Mr. Michael. Mr. Reedy, as mentioned, shows promise. Both ladies show cleavage and nothing else, very disappointing in an indie "horror" flick. The Reverend Bad-Guy, the well cast but indifferently directed Billy St. John (any relation to Jill?), is occasionally creepy but not at all threatening. Writer/director/editor/producer Aaron Robson should have gone back to the drawing board a few more times. Co-DPs Tim Otholt and Chris Reilly turn in some nice work, thoroughly professional at many points, and the overall production values of the film are quite good for a cheapie (especially compared to backyard efforts like "See Jane Run"), but it's all in service to a derivative, uninspired script. Even with top-flight acting, the audience would have no reason to care about these characters, because most of their dialog is expository rather than character-driven.Please, novice movie makers, please use scripts that allow the characters to live and breathe and converse like real people, not cardboard cutouts who have to tell the audience what they need to know. Acting is doing, not telling. And movies should be as visual as possible. Don't tell us, SHOW us. Everyone, and I mean everyone, will be much happier all the way around.This one gets a "4" from me strictly for libido stimulation thanks to Ms. Clark, and the film's well-spent low budget.

I watched this film very closely and wondered what kind rating I could give it.To begin I thought it was fairly entertaining, the pace was slow moving yet it maintained a good character development {Not often seen in this line of film} the acting has a lack of depth, for example you don't often see a lot facial expressions during serious moments and the reactions at best are like extremely dull.At least the storyline is good, and the director created a not too bad look for the film.Overall, a relatively good choice for horror fans but don't expect Oscar winning performances.

With all due respect to zootie's comments I actually found a bit more positive in this movie. Perhaps it's because I've come off a recent run of really bad ones so by comparison this seemed much better than it really was..who knows. But it wasn't like it was putting me to sleep or anything...and truthfully I found the performances of Ashlie Clark (very nice looking!) and Brandon Michael to be palatable...certainly a notch above the rest of the cast. I do agree with zootie's estimation of the photography and production values...far superior to a lot of the "financially challenged" (politically correct term for low budget) horror flicks I've seen. With 2 fairly attractive females in the cast I was somewhat surprised that this film didn't take the usual "let's toss in some gratuitous nudity so more people will watch it" but I'm actually glad they didn't. Yes, the story tends to stumble over itself and the ending lacks a payoff but on the other hand I admire what the filmmakers tried to achieve and how they went about it. I assure you that although is not a great film, it is better than a lot of the other crap being released that I've had the misfortune of seeing.

I normally don’t comment, and leave movies be. As bad as some movies are, they at least deserve points for being done, for achieving existence.Since no one else has commented, I thought it deserved some words (if only to warn other visitors). This movie does achieve existence, but it seems little more than an acting class project, and these students have a long way to go. Acting is bad, and in the few instances when the story might actually go somewhere, the moment is spoiled by the actors’ reaction. The story starts OK (a bit slow), and looked interesting enough (for when in the mood for a a young-adults thriller/supernatural/slasher), but from there it just goes everywhere. It jumps from psychosis to psychopath to zombie/possession, supernatural thriller, bible fanaticism, and ghost story without building up much suspense or sympathy for the characters, just a stream of scenes w/o enough coherence to tell a complete story (continuity gets worse over time, spoiling the dream/clairvoyant sequences all packed together). Photography and production seemed adequate (professional enough) for most of the film, it just fails to tell a story, and gets lost in all the formulas and clichés it uses. Acting and production get progressively worse, and it falls apart at the end.