Before anyone starts thinking Dario Argento, no. This film was extremely disappointing for a variety of reasons and instead of typing a summary (which you can read on the back of the box) I will do my best to address some of the issues I had with this movie.<br /><br />1.)Stephen King Did it Better- The movie version of "It" is not as good as the novel, or even that great of film, in that the editing and re-imagining weren't that good. I do think, however, that the story idea was very original and scary. While watching "Hellbreeder", I was totally put off by the fact that the screenplay had several "coincidences" that have nothing to do with coincidence. Centuries old thing masking itself as a clown to kill children in their backyards with sheets blowing-would be one of these coincidences.<br /><br />2.)Leave the Surrealism to Argento, Boys- The filming techniques in this movie were interesting but too distracting. It seems like they were so busy looking for new angles, lighting and cells that the story gets pushed aside in the whole "look how awesome it looks" game. Watching the actress walk and stalk for ten minutes is not even suspenseful, let alone thrilling. Plus the repetition becomes almost comedic instead of horrifying.<br /><br />3.)When Good Special Effects Happen to Bad Films- The blood effects are pretty damn good, as is the scar on the actress' body, which does lead to a pretty chilling scene. Once more, it was wasted on a film where you're trying to figure out what the hell is going on.<br /><br />4.)Actors are NOT Bodily Functions- The detectives in this film are truly pointless in the end and are used like vehicles or bodily functions: something to get something done automatically. I hate when filmmakers can only make a plot move by adding someone for no real reason and then not even fleshing out the character.<br /><br />-Overall, this movie is a poor attempt at artsy-fartsy horror.