Review by Daniel Emery Taylor
I, for one, do not understand all of the hate for this film. It's rated a 4.5 on IMDB. It has 12% on Rotten Tomatoes. Critics panned it. Everyone responded with desperate cries of "Disappointed!" at film's end. Why? Is it truly "rotten" as so many would have us believe? I don't think so. I think it's been judged unfairly and held to uncommon standards.
Now, is it great and terrific? I wouldn't quite go that far. In a world populated with films like "The Grudge" and "The Uninvited," this movie lands solidly in "okay" territory. The fact of the matter is when judging a film you have to consider what the modern standard is. You can't judge every film against Carpenter's "Halloween" when the modern standard-bearer is "Saw." The classics are classic for a reason. On occasion a film breaks free from the mold and becomes greater. "The Unborn" is not that film.
It's okay. I went in expecting a movie that would be okay and that's exactly what I got. It's style over substance, the type of movie to have on in the background while you're doing something else. Creepy, skilled effects are laced together by a semi-coherent story that really doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Nevertheless, it does deliver some scares and as long as you aren't expecting something special you should enjoy yourself for ninety minutes.
"The Unborn" is the story of pretty college student Casey Beldon and some odd recurring nightmares. She begins investigating the hidden meaning behind her disturbing visions. What could be the root cause of the night terrors? An unusual physical ailment takes Casey to an ophthalmologist where she discovers she may have well been born a twin. Her father confirms this fact and thus begins a tale of supernatural oppression. Does the deceased little brother want revenge against his living sibling? Is something much darker and more dangerous at work? Casey will get the answers but will not like what she finds.
What's good about this film? Gary Oldman. Gary Oldman makes every film better. That is all you need to know.
In addition to that, I like the fact that this is essentially a Jewish ghost story. Why should Catholics get to have all of the fun? Hebraic folklore is rich in scary myth and superstition. The dybbuk (a possessing spirit) was a suitable choice to introduce to a largely Gentile audience. The story largely centers around Kabbalah mysticism and the various rituals thereof. It was refreshing and new to see Magen Davids in place of crufixes and kippot in place of the broad stole. They still manage to slip a priest in, though. Why is every religious authority in horror films part of the Catholic tradition? Do you know what I want to see? I want to see a Baptist pastor fighting zombies or vampires. Only then can we truly achieve religious equality. (Of course, I completely understand Catholicism is much more theatrical and visually appealing and this likely leads to its prominence in film. Brother Bob, pastor of Whatsit Baptist Church, doesn't look very regal in his plain white shirt and bowtie.)
I made mention of the style of the film earlier with good reason. The film just looks good. The effects are all a skillful blend of organic and computer generated images, excellent lighting, and great character design. The ghosts are frightening. The film also does a great job of building suspense and setting up each scare. It's like an autumn haunted attraction. You never really feel endangered, but it creates tension and keeps you on edge. I call it the "Boo! Factor." Regardless of how silly it is you WILL jump and that is something this film uses well to its advantage.
The drawback is that the story largely doesn't make sense and leaves much to be desired. It does have some very cool elements, but gaping plotholes ebb away at your suspension of disbelief. Production goofs are also quite plentiful, leading me to believe that perhaps the film was rushed to meet a deadline of some sort. Also, very little actually happens during the course of the story. It is as if the entire film could have been played out in thirty minutes but they decided to pad it with pointless dream sequences. Now, the dream sequences are among the better parts of the film, but they do little to advance the story. You could say they were of minimal consequence.
My final word is a very mild recommendation with a disclaimer that you must be expecting the right thing. Consider the fact that you are watching a PG-13 horror film in the late 2000's and you will probably have a pretty good idea of what you are getting yourself into. If you're looking for anything more you might as well head on down the road.