User Score
5.9 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 40 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 22 out of 40
  2. Negative: 13 out of 40

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    10 out of 10
    Rate this:
    out of 10
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  3. Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000

  1. OliverR
    May 4, 2009
    10
    I Thought it was very Jumpy, and a great film to watch in the dark, why all these bad reviews?
    • 2 of 2 users said yes
  2. RobertD.
    Aug 15, 2008
    9
    Excellent movie, Kiefer Sutherland was great, the story slacked a little near the end, but otherwise fantastic!
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  3. Padme'
    Jan 15, 2010
    7
    A enjoyable movie and very underrated which fullfills its purpose very well, recommended viewing.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  4. ArjanD.
    Oct 5, 2008
    1
    Horrible B-horror movie that has to compensate the lack of atmosphere and a decent story with huge amounts of blood and gore...
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  5. EdwinR.
    Sep 12, 2008
    10
    Really good movie.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  6. RobbieB
    Feb 2, 2009
    8
    This movie was good, not GREAT! But good, I thought Kiefer was pretty good. And that jaw-ripping part scared the crap out of me! Even with Amy Smart nude, I still couldn't keep my eyes off the jaw, instead of where other people were paying attention to. Overall, it's a good movie. It's been awhile since I sat down and enjoyed a GOOD horror film.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  7. Jordan
    Nov 15, 2008
    2
    This movie was uttely pointless and a waste of an attractive cast's talents. The script is garbage and the acting could be a lot better.
    • 0 of 2 users said yes
  8. AmyC.
    Oct 17, 2008
    2
    The plot was so unclear & confusing.... there was (I think) a ghost (burning woman in dept store), then there were some demons which possessed 'Ana'... all muddled up & seemingly appeared for different reasons. Sutherland's acting was not bad though. I must thank the guy next to me who kept jumping off from the occasional boo! scenes. It was him who kept me awake during the whole movie. Expand
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  9. MarkYouDontNeedToknow
    Aug 15, 2008
    3
    Meh. It's a typical "horror" flick that has little-to-no sense. The characters are poorly developed and lacking in substance. Also, the jaw part was very unncessary, even though the gore was laughable at points.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  10. MoooseChesser
    Aug 17, 2008
    7
    Very good movie. Not as good as The hills have eyes yet there were some parts that were pretty creepy. The jaw part was unexpected but I thought it added the gore to the movie. Overall, somewhat disappointing ending, but I thought it was worth the money for the ticket.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  11. SteveA.
    Aug 25, 2008
    9
    Kiefer was very good - plot a little thin but still enjoyable.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  12. BrentA.
    Aug 30, 2008
    9
    A good horror flick. Good acting and some surprising moments. Very entertaining movie. Much better then the critics say.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  13. RichardR
    Sep 1, 2008
    1
    I just saw this, and it was literally the stupidest movie I've ever seen. I'm not exaggerating. I've seen Turkish Star Wars, I've seen Plan 9 From Outer Space, and I've seen 2 Girls 1 Cup, and Mirrors is the worst of them. Sutherland must REALLY have needed the money. Watch out for the sequel, where instead of mirrors being horrific dangerous nightmares, pez dispensers will be. Expand
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  14. PatrickD.
    Sep 8, 2008
    2
    I'm so close to giving this a 1. It was a really bad movie with plot holes and other things I cant even begin to describe.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  15. hellothere
    Jan 13, 2009
    2
    People saying the movie had plot holes must not give the movies they watch any thought at all. The movie really doesn't have any plot holes. It is what it is. The ending is meant for you to thank back through the movie a little and you can easily figure out what happened. That being said...the movie was pretty bad. Nothing really scary about it. Lame story. Decent acting. I like Kiefer but I laughed everytime he screamed a cuss word for no reason in the movie. Literally every scene his character had an outburst and ends the scene saying "God Damn*t" or "Sh*t!". I've also read a couple reviews saying how the special effects are one of the positive things about it. Really? There were a few special effects in the movie that looked so bad or cheesy that it really distracted me from the scene. First instance was when Kiefer's character caught on fire. It was so obviously CGI that it looked bad. The way the Ana's character's face gets distorted looked so cheesy as well as the faces in the mirrors trying to push out. Overall not a good movie. This coming from someone who enjoyed Aja's first 2 movies. High Tension (Switchblade Romance I believe is the original title) and The Hills Have Eyes remake. Loved both of those...what went wrong with this movie? The whole idea was poor from the start I think. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  16. mauriciol
    Jan 22, 2009
    7
    Very freeky, i saw it in the movies and liked it.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  17. JayH
    Jan 7, 2009
    5
    Some good special effects, nice production but it's story is far fetched and not very frightening. It all looks very familiar and it lacks originality. The performances are fine. Empty and doesn't involve the viewer.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  18. ValterL
    May 31, 2009
    0
    One of the worst movies ever. The plot doesn't make any sense, and when you think it's about to end, it suddenly introduces a Nun-turned-Monster so ridiculous I was speechless. And the scariest thing about it it's a pigeon. I want my money back.
    • 0 of 1 users said yes
  19. PaulC.
    Nov 16, 2008
    9
    Outstanding and gripping supernatural thriller. Solid performances for Kiefer Sutherland and Paula Patton complimented the roller-coaster ride of exhilarating special effects from Director Aja. The fascinating back story ties the present to the past nicely and one is kept on the edge of their seat while searching for an explanation. Absolute goosebump material and definitely one of the more memorable movies of the genre in recent years. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  20. ChadS.
    Aug 18, 2008
    6
    A mirror doesn't account for the negative space that lies beyond the parameters of its reflection. But within this negative space, the replicas find safe passage. These roaming imitations seek signification from the next mirror which gives them a fleeting sense of corporeality before their authentic equivalent carelessly resigns them back into the oblivion of being hypothetical. No wonder the department store demon scratches out the name of the person that could set its bastardized form loose from the life-supporting looking glass. These mirror men, these mirror women, they're only auxiliary members of the human league. Ben(Kiefer Sutherland) is their latest hope for deliverance from this reactionist netherworld. At one point in "Mirrors", the nightwatchman catches on fire, but the invisible flames doesn't deter him from returning to the Mayflower, a department store-cum-mausoleum, ravaged by an inferno. In an old-school haunted house film such as "The Amityville Horror", the movie would be essentially over if the Lutz family had the common sense to pack up and leave. The success of this genre is contingent on its characters being stupid. They're gluttons for punishment. These people are often painfully slow in catching the hint. But the nightwatchman has no choice in the matter; his work follows him home, his family suddenly placed in jeopardy. Asian horror movies pioneered the novel idea that an entity no longer needed to be confined to its originating jurisdiction. Since the malevolent presence exists wherever there's a mirror handy, Ben can remain at the department store without "Mirrors" resorting to the autonomy of the idiot plot. It's not M. Night Shyamalan's "The Sixth Sense", but "Mirrors" delivers its fair share of chills, most notably, a particularly grisly murder that wouldn't have passed muster with the MPAA had this been an independent production. It's dramatically effective, however, because now Ben is emotionally invested in his war with the reflecting consciousness, a vendetta. Now this job for the ex-cop is personal. Driven by the summer blockbuster mentality, however, "Mirrors" climaxes with a little too much brio(borrowed from William Freidkin's "The Exorcist"), but its disquieting coda almost elevates this junky remake of Sung-ho Kim's "Geoul sokeuro" from close-call to guilty pleasure. Expand
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  21. SamA.
    Aug 25, 2008
    8
    Not very enticing story - good gore - Sutherland is excellent.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  22. ClaudiaM.
    Sep 13, 2008
    10
    I totally loved this movie, it was so freaky.. especially the little girl Anna when she was possessed and then when she was old.. I dont know why ppl always give it a low rating.. im sure they'd never even be able to plot a good movie.
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  23. PeteP
    Dec 14, 2008
    5
    Long: YES, Scary: YES, Cinematography: BAD, Plot: BAD, Cast: OK, Recomend to watch: NOT on the cinema but rent the DVD
    • 0 of 0 users said yes
  24. Dec 1, 2010
    10
    This movie very good at what it set out to do: to give the creeps every time you pass by a mirror! There is something inherently scary about mirrors anyway - the pristine reflection of our own visage can unsettle anyone who goes to the bathroom in the middle of the night and forgets how they look. Then add the ability of your reflection to act beyond your control, and to kill you, and that is a strong plot point. It is given further grounding by steadily revealing something that people used to believe, that reflective objects or surfaces, such as blood or water, were considered a conduit to the spiritual world in ancient times. The acting is great and there is more to the atmosphere than just "bad" lighting. The sets are terrific, and wonderfully done. Overall I think this should have received much better reviews, but often critics are not very adept at reviewing the horror genre. Expand
Metascore

Generally unfavorable - based on 13 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1 out of 13
  2. Negative: 6 out of 13
  1. This remake of a South Korean movie ultimately provides fewer scares than the average aging baby boomer feels every time they look into a reflective surface.
  2. 33
    The film looks to do for reflective surfaces what "Amityville 4" did for killer lamps.
  3. Reviewed by: Ken Fox
    63
    Actually a marked improvement over the plodding and confusing original.