User Score
5.7 out of 10

Mixed or average reviews- based on 52 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 28 out of 52
  2. Negative: 17 out of 52

Review this movie

  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. 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...
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. Jan 6, 2013
    1
    This movie was a good blood fest but a terrible plot that shoots it down into a spiral of sci-fi twist and leads to everything just looking backwards. Don't waste your time.
Metascore

Generally unfavorable reviews - 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.