What would you do for a short conversation—through a door—with a loved one that had passed on? Would you defile that person’s grave? Would you abandon your family and travel to a run-down temple? And most importantly: when you hear that loved one’s voice on the other side, would you be able to keep your promise not to open it, under any circumstances? Such are the questions faced by Sarah Wayne Callies’ Maria, who has suffered a tragic loss, shown in flashback in one of the most heart-wrenching scenes of the film. Will she open the door? Well, let’s just say that if nobody had re-opened Camp Crystal Lake, or if Marion Crane hadn’t stole $40,000, or if the kids who lived on Elm Street hadn’t drifted off to sleep…we wouldn’t have had much of a movie, right?

I think we all have things that scare us, that might not necessarily scare others. Heights, for example, or small, enclosed spaces. (But not Murderclowns, because those are universally scary…unless there’s something wrong with you.) It seems I have found some of mine in this film. I hate to admit it, but it scared the daylights out of me on more than one occasion (in the first half of the film, anyway). Now maybe it was because I was watching it alone really late at night in a darkened house, but still—I made sure to look behind me a couple of times. The biggest complaint I’ve heard about this film is that it “relies on jump scares.” You know why horror films use jump scares? Because they can be fucking scary! Look, Hitchcock used jump scares in Psycho. (In fact, the three biggest “moments” of the film are jump scares.) Although everyone remembers the twist at the end, The Sixth Sense used jump scares, too. The Exorcist even used jump scares on occasion. There’s nothing inherently bad about jump scares. In fact, a lot of times I find that to be a weak criticism of a horror film, as though the person can’t figure out what they really don’t like in the film, so they fall back on “it relied on jump scares!” Which is a little like complaining that a romance had all that kissing in it. And honestly, what is Hollywood to do? If you don’t use jump scares, and try to scare with a slow build and atmosphere, like in The Witch, the same people will complain that “it’s so boring! Nothing happens!” Okay, rant over. Yes, there are jump scares, but I found them to be, on the whole, effective. And they set me on my toes, so to speak, waiting anxiously for the next one. In addition, the score is quite good, which can make or break a horror film. Again, think Hitchcock and Hermann. Callies gives a  fairly strong performance here, which was surprising, because I’m not a big fan of her or Jeremy Sisto, who plays her (clueless as well as mostly absent) husband, Michael.

The film is set in India, so we get some beautiful cinematic moments as well as some unflattering stereotypical presentations. I think that in the subtext of the film, there’s something being said about Colonialism and the relationship between “first world” and “third world” cultures, although I’m not sure exactly what. For example, Kipling’s The Jungle Book takes on some significance in the film, and even though Callies’ performance makes us sympathetic to her plight, we can’t help but notice that she’s also so selfish that she shits on a number of the Hindu religious traditions for her own desires. The only thing that could make it more offensive, I suppose, is to take a shot at the ineptitude of Indian drivers. (Oh, wait…they do that. Twice.) I’m not sure which is worse in a horror film: being preachy or being unclear about it.

There are a couple of other problems with the film, too. I thought it got less frightening and more silly as it went on, which is obviously not what you want from a horror film. The other thing, which you can’t help but notice, is that the film steals from numerous other films and sub-genres or horror. One of the more obvious ones is the scary guardian of the underworld and her creaking door noises, right out of Japanese films such as Ringu and Ju-Rei, but there are also nods to other films, including Poltergeist and The Exorcist. When you recognize one of those moments, it takes you right out of the film, unfortunately.

Overall, I actually liked this film, and despite what a lot of the critics are saying, I thought the jump scares were effective, and didn’t find them cheap. It’s a film that’s a lot better than most of the horror films being made out there, and I don’t have a problem recommending it to those who don’t mind a horror film that knows what it is, and doesn’t necessarily aspire to be more than that. IMDB gives it a 5.3; based on my ranking system (which can be found on my “Ranking Guide” page, and might be worth looking at, if you plan on reading more of my reviews) I would give it a 5.5—certainly worth a viewing on Netflix, or at a discount matinee, but maybe not good enough to warrant paying for full-price tickets. (running time 1:36)