Wicked Little Things (2006)
to add this to your collection
to add this to your favorites
Karen, Sarah, and Emma Tunney are all moving to a small town in Pennsylvania where, unknown to them, in 1913, a horrid mine accident trapped dozens of children alive, underground. But there's a problem. They're still alive.
When I first saw the lineup for the After Dark Horrorfest, my reaction was much the same as I'd imagine yours was: "I've gotta see that one, definitely need to see that one, that one looks alright, that one will probably suck" and so on and so forth down the list. The latter was my initial opinion of Wicked Little Things upon reading the plot synopsis, and unfortunately, my early opinion turned out to be mostly correct.
Review by Chad
Added: June 06, 2007
Our story begins back in 1913, when an unfortunate mining accident causes the mine to collapse and kill the dozens upon dozens of children working inside it. The owner is acquitted of all charges and life goes on... until the present day, that is.
Karen Tunny (Lori Heuring) and her daughters Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and Emma (Chloe Moretz) have just inherited a house that - surprise! - is situated extremely close to the now-abandoned mine from the earlier flashback. When little Emma starts playing with an "imaginary" friend that she claims to have met near the mine, her mother brushes it off as childhood innocence and doesn't give it a second thought other than to warn her little girl about the dangers of getting lost in the woods. When they meet the strange old man living out in the woods who claims that covering the doors with blood is a necessary part of living around here, they brush him off as being a lunatic. When zombified kids start coming out of the woods with violence on their minds, the audience merely yawns and hopes that it'll be over quick.
Ignoring every other horror film in existence, Wicked Little Things actually wasn't that bad; sure, the lighting was horrible and damned near gave me a headache from squinting to see what was going on, but there were a lot of interesting ideas going on here as well as some neat visuals. My problem with the film was simple: almost everything in it has been done before and usually better.
1. The "stranger runs across the woods, causes the vehicle to spin out of control and almost crash, causing the driver to get out and discover that the stranger has mysteriously vanished" gag? Done countless times over.
2. Spooky house with plot-progressing newspaper clippings conveniently located in the basement? Check.
3. Cranky old man who reminisces over the olden days, giving us even more clues about the back story? Check.
4. Cell phones that don't work? Yep, that one's here as well.
5. The tried and true "hey, that crazy guy in the woods actually knows what the fuck he's talking about!" revelation? Present.
6. The kid playing with what everyone believes to be an imaginary friend which turns out to be a ghost? Seen it.
7. Killer kids who want to kill everyone they come across? Well, they were farmers instead of miners, but Children of the Corn nailed that one.
I could probably easily hit number twenty in the list if I set my mind to it, but I think you dear readers get what I'm trying to say. Had there been something - anything - present in the film that really caught my attention and sucked me into the storyline, I could have overlooked this; instead, I found myself thinking of which films were being ripped off during just about each and every last scene.
Although that was a huge issue with yours truly, I couldn't really complain about anything else found in the film. The leading ladies were decent enough in their roles, and although none of them were truly impressive, I couldn't really say anything bad about them either. They were there, they spoke their lines, they played the parts, and that's about it. I also enjoyed the look of the killer kids, but again, it wasn't entirely original; those Japanese movies have the market cornered on ghostly kids, and it looked like the guys responsible for this one took more than a little inspiration from those movies.
Again, Wicked Little Things technically isn't a bad movie if you can get past the fact that it's all been done before. Personally, I like to see something halfway original, but your opinion may differ from mine. 4/10.
- added 06/06/2007, 10:59 AM
Totally cliche and totally absurd, "Wicked Little
Things" was the worst of the After Dark Horror
Fest. I did have the same reaction -- there were
only two that I went to see in theatres, and the
rest I saw on DVD, except for a couple which I
have yet to see. This one was the absolute worst.
It blends elements of every haunted house movie
ever made, with "My Bloody Valentine" and
"Darkness" and anything else it can get its hands
on. Plus, the make-up effects were awful and
looked like they came by way of "Phantom of the
- added 06/07/2007, 07:34 PM
I didn't think it was that bad. Sure it wasn't
up to par with the other Afterdark films but I
thought it was ok. I really did like the look of
all the children though, I thought they done a
pretty decent job of making them creepy. All in
all I'd give it a 5/10,I guess, but I do totally
understand your compliants.
- added 07/30/2008, 10:12 PM
I caught this movie one night on SciFi, so I
probably didn't see the proper version, but
still... Normally, I can't watch zombie movies.
(God help me, I have a very real fear of the
walking cannibalistic dead.) The fact that this
one involved murderous children should have made
it even worse, but somehow I just couldn't stop
watching. The premise has been done to death
(forgive the pun), the acting was slightly better
than passable, and the effects were woefully
cheap, but the creepy factor was definitely there.
Nothing like watching a dozen or so undead
children, still bloodstained from a recent kill,
come creeping silently out of the woods to give me
the chills. 5/10
- added 04/05/2009, 12:25 AM
Eh, Scout's pretty hot. Other than that, skip it.