The Ashcroft Entity (II) (2015) User Reviews

It's okay

[dancity · 5/10 · 27 October 2020]

You can tell right from the start it's a very low budget film, the acting isn't great and the script wasn't great - however if you want a horror film that's going to make you jump you'll definitely get a few from this, the ending was the worst part about this movie

Watchable

[GladtobeGrey · 3/10 · 17 April 2020]

OK, there are some bad reviews for this film, however, I have seen worse, much worse, from 'A' list performers. Perhaps because the film I watched prior to "Unholy" was pretty poor - and that starred Donald Sutherland - that I am in a kinder frame of mind towards this film. It is obviously an amateur production and as long as one bears that in mind then it isn't such a disappointment. I thought the 1970s era was well captured, and precisely because the cast are unknown actors it felt fairly realistic. Watchable on a wet afternoon if stuck indoors, and provided you watch it for free you shouldn't feel cheated.

Stop bloody whining you lot !!!

[jezwood69 · 5/10 · 12 February 2021]

Of course it's low budget !! Of course the acting isn't brilliant !! For *+*+* sake get a life !! It was an average production with average actors and an average budget. Do you people wake up on a morning asking "what can I whinge about today ?" ? It's a film to say "yeah I've seen it and didn't think much of it but do you know what ? I've seen worse". Get over it losers.

Terrible Terrible Acting

[vickiralph · 1/10 · 10 September 2017]

Awful film. If I had given my two teenage boys a camcorder and a sheet they'd have produced a better film than this. The worst thing was the acting, it was dreadful! So bad that it ruined every single scene. In was a relief when the character Norma was on the screen, albeit only for a short time, because at least she could act. The sound track was bad, the camera angles were bad. The sets were good, we had the same tiles in our old bathroom, so that's where the 1 out of 10 comes from!

Awful

[lolapearltb · 1/10 · 26 March 2021]

Why is no one talking about the polystyrene floor and b&q paint at the end?

Diabolical

[chris-57647 · 1/10 · 7 October 2017]

Oh my goodness i have just wasted over £5 on watching this film. If we had heard that this was our 7 year old's first film we would be proud to watch but we thought this was a serious film. I would recommend everyone stay away from this film. Acting, story, set and effects were of the poorest quality.

Terrible acting

[strangepeople · 1/10 · 19 June 2019]

The acting is hideous, no wonder they were haunted.

Good that they're local actors.......?

[gaylb · 1/10 · 13 June 2021]

Door banging!! But it wasn't hitting anything.

(Knock knock knock) "It's just me. You can come out now" said PC Plod in his plastic dressy up helmet.

"He'll be sorry when he realises I'm here".... "MICHAEL"! (Micheal runs up the stairs). "GET THE CAMERA!" (Micheal runs back down the stairs).... Bless that reporter.... (Pete) "step away from the door!" :-) "I can't put Margaret through anymore danger...I won't!" 'Please. Please!' "Oh bloody hell, alright!"....move the furniture to the other side of the room..... They spend all their money on red paint then somebody farts, lights a match and blows the door off!

And those pesky boots! I knew they'd be trouble!! They just filled up and it almost proved to much for Pete!!

So bad it was fantastic!

[davehaile · 7/10 · 2 May 2020]

I really enjoyed this film! As others have said, the acting is pretty poor and the script isn't any better, but that is exactly why I liked it! Special mentions go to "Pete's" attempt to gingerly break a door down, the journalist whose portrayal of fear and confusion was so wooden it would be a highlight of any local arboretum, and the very obvious miniature set at the end that oozed with "blood" then burst into flames. But, for a £600 budget I think they did a fantastic job. I definitely have to give props (pun intended) to the set dressing and "Margaret's" performance was definitely better than her co-star's. Though I may not have enjoyed it for the reasons they intended, I enjoyed it nonetheless.

Most scary thing

[agnr · 1/10 · 10 April 2020]

Well for me the most scary thing about this film is the modern LED light over the garage that constantly appears and disappears In the film on & off like a bride's nightie Continuity person went to the pub I suspect....spooky

True to what happens

[urbanangel-24653 · 10/10 · 27 June 2019]

I watched this movie with an open mind. I've had hauntings and dealt with horrid things. This movie is similar to what happened and what I'm dealing with so I could relate to the movie well. The acting I thought was "normal" like watching normal people and wasn't over acted. I found it refreshing. It was good to see the black shadow figure and the awful stench that comes from demonic entities be included in the movie. It wasn't overly focused on fake frights and close ups of over acting. Quite simply I thought it portrayed people naturally and what the reactions are like when things happen. The story takes you on a journey of what the couple went though when they move into a lovely house. It's not as big budget as some movies but I like that about it. I liked this movie a lot.

Unholy unbelievable

[andrewhills1970 · 6/10 · 6 April 2020]

Really really enjoyed this, yes it's low budget and the acting is local amateur theatrics but I had a laugh every minute. Things I loved were: The modern TV in the background when the estate agent showed them around. Upvc doors and windows. The plastic policeman's helmet and his LED torch.

But it was fantastic, fun, really well done on a budget. I've paid more to see worse films at the pictures

Truly Awful

[tomflinn123 · 3/10 · 8 March 2020]

I am always generous with my ratings. This was garbage don't watch. Acting was laughable.

T_dog reviews

Awful acting

[lukehewett1 · 1/10 · 16 July 2021]

The acting is diabolical. It's more of a comedy then a horror... or maybe that's just me laughing at the film! I wish I could rate this lower then 1 star.

Terrible acting

[mrjonjedwards · 3/10 · 1 October 2020]

My and my girlfriend sat in bed, hoping to watch a scary horror movie, what I didn't expect was a horror film that was more a comedy, I've seen scarier episodes of spongebob. I've seen better acting in adult movies. The actor who played Pete look confused and unnecessarily angry I would say for a good 90% of the movie. Good to watch for a laugh and that's about it

Many horror movies are just bad, but this one does bad really well.

[ryangoodall · 3/10 · 30 June 2019]

All those reviewers saying the acting is poor aren't wrong; they're fantastically poor. The policeman who prefers to run around with a torch rather than turning on the lights does a great impression of Mr Bean. Peter's character was so inept it made me wonder if they added his part in late on as a prize in a local raffle. Winning the award for most entertaining acting though has to go to the psychic lady; she was hilarious, especially when she died.

We really enjoyed this film. We didn't jump or get scared once, but laughed out loud many times. Great comedy.... If they'd meant it though I'd have given it a whopping 5/10!

Haunted by poor performances.

[Millhaven_Curse · 2/10 · 10 December 2017]

Totally agree that some of the acting is appalling. The policeman scene in particular early in the film is hilarious. I think I have seen more convincing policeman performances when they have been hired for stag weekends.

Kelly Goudie playing 'Margaret' is mostly fine. Everyone else not very good but to be fair to them they aren't exactly helped by a clunky script and the special effects are mostly poor, especially in the seance scene in the build-up to the finale. Having said that, if it is true the film's entire budget is 600 quid, then pointing out the poor effects might be a tad harsh.

Now there are some creepy scenes in the film but they are mostly when Goudie is in the house on her own.

But watch out for the unfortunate but hysterical placing of a plant prop at the very end of the film which ruins any atmosphere the director might have hoped for.

Film school student feel

[keithbisset · 2/10 · 18 May 2021]

The settings of the 1970's are probably the best feature of this done to death themed movie. Unfortunately without acting talent any film will suffer and this is no exception. Amateur performances all round accompanied by some dodgy lines makes this more of a lesson for would be film makers on how not to shoot a film.

Comes to an end with an explosive finale that has to be seen to be believed.

[midmovguy · 7/10 · 6 February 2018]

MrStichFilms latest feature film Unholy follows a very similar pattern most haunted house films do but executes it in a way where the audience are surprised at every turn. Directed by Anthony M. Winson Unholy starts with newlyweds Peter and Margaret Eastwood buying their first marital home, what the estate agent fails to mention however is that the house they're buying has a history. The film takes place in 1975 allowing Winson to ramp up the sense of dread, I think a lot of modern audiences appreciate horrors set in a period where there are no mobile phones, no internet and no easy way to safety. Successfully making the viewer believe in a period of time is a complicated component on even the most expensive of films so it's even more impressive to learn the film was made on a shoestring budget of £600. The crew include everything from clothes to cars to give the audience that extra bit of belief that what they are seeing is taking place in 1975. As I mentioned earlier Unholy does follow a paradigm nearly everyone is familiar with, a haunted house, a woman alone, a husband who doesn't believe her and the psychic who attempts to save the day. However, this could be seen to bolster Unholy in what it does best, scaring the audience. A lot of the early scares are set during the day and apparitions appear in the house unnoticed by the lone housewife, the immediate presence from the homes spectre is a refreshing change to the usual fare you would expect from the haunted house genre. Director Anthony M. Winson also on editing duty excels at just that, the editing is clear and concise and is evident that Winson has made a tight edit for the film with a short run time that doesn't overstay its welcome. Obviously one of his most important jobs as a director is getting performances out of his actors which he does to good effect, Kelly Goudie (Margaret Eastwood) is in nearly every scene of the film with her character carrying the film through three acts. Goudie does a great job in portraying the scared wife that no one believes representing the confusion, anger and fear that comes from her situation. Unholy comes to an end with an explosive finale that has to be seen to be believed, I was rather impressed a film of this size had effects that worked as well as they did. Ultimately Unholy works as a basic haunted house horror film, those seasoned veterans of the genre might not get as much kick out of it compared to someone who's fairly new and untainted by the structure in which it carries out. Whilst I enjoy films like Insidious and The Conjuring and are used to the tricks they normally pull I and a lot of horror fans out there will have watched Unholy with the curtains drawn, lights off, feet firmly off the floor, WANTING to be scared.

7/10

Unendingly tedious

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 26 September 2023]

UNHOLY is your usual low budget British indie horror, this time a haunted house flick undoubtedly influenced by AN ENFIELD HAUNTING. It has the same suburban feel, although I wasn't sure if they were actually trying to set it in the 1970s because the fashions are questionable at best. The story, what exists of it that is, involves a young woman who comes to believe that her house is haunted by the malignant spirit of a disfigured young girl. She's initially disbelieved, but as a catalogue of strange smells, sounds and visions stock up, calls in help. As usual this is mostly made up of dialogue delivered by a below par cast, and it's unendingly tedious.

Really good film bar for one thing

[lopezpatricia-06139 · 9/10 · 1 February 2021]

You'd think you would research and investigate the home that is haunting you. But there was non of that. But it really did give me a couple of frights. You get to see ghosts in this one. Totally recommend

Horrendous

[maaijasinclair · 1/10 · 15 February 2021]

Be warned, do not watch this film! From story line to actors it's horrendous. So so so bad, why was this made! Best actor goes to the black blob in the corner of the room! Diabolical from start to finish. Always the optomist I hoped it would get better....i failed as did this film!

Knock on wood

[Fatabelly · 3/10 · 28 April 2022]

If 'The Conjuring' was Oak, this would be pallet wood. There is the odd decent special effect but the acting wasn't good at all. Watch for free or give it a miss.

Awful

[euronick61 · 1/10 · 24 May 2022]

What a dreadful film .. where do they get these actors????? ... and the old woman who said she lived here years ago .. the film was set in 1975 and the house would have been pretty new then !!!

Could have been so much better

[davejessop-1 · 4/10 · 14 December 2017]

OK, first the negatives - As others have said the acting is pretty awful at times (I realise it was a pretty inexperienced cast) - the female lead was ok but the male lead was very wooden and tried to enunciate every single word like he was on stage - bit of advice son, be the character and not just someone reciting a script - talk normally like a real person because it was all very forced - I like the 70s retro look but this sort of thing was done much better in When the Lights Went Out (2012) - a lot of the scenes seems to have been "borrowed" from other films like The Haunted and even Amityville so the whole thing never seemed original in the slightest.

I realise the budget was small and that probably led to the "that'll do" approach like we see in so many low budget films - it really could have done with some scenes getting a few more takes - you have to wonder if it was purely down to budget or a weak director failing to get the best out of the actors.

Now the good stuff - I liked the story - I also like the 70s feel with the decor and the props but the fashions weren't quite 1975 especially the black guy having his shirt untucked - that was very 90s - this could have been a solid 7/10 with better actors and bigger budget but just gets a 4/10 from me - I think over 50s would appreciate this more than a teen viewer purely for the 70s feel