American Poltergeist 5 - The Borely Haunting
Originaltitel: A Haunting at the Rectory
IMDb-BEWERTUNG
2,9/10
1026
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Ein Reverend und seine Frau entdecken, dass ihr neues Haus ein tödliches Geheimnis birgt.Ein Reverend und seine Frau entdecken, dass ihr neues Haus ein tödliches Geheimnis birgt.Ein Reverend und seine Frau entdecken, dass ihr neues Haus ein tödliches Geheimnis birgt.
Suzanne Dallaway
- Marianne
- (as Suzie Frances Garton)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
I feel embarrassed in particular for the lead actress. She is the worst out of the 3 so called actors. Real amateur dramatics caught on film. Is this why we pay so much for streaming services for them to insult us with this crap.
I thought this movie was supposed to be about a haunted place, but it is, in fact, about infidelity. The story focuses on the Reverend's wife and the handyman's affair almost exclusively; so much that the supposed "paranormal" events look totally out of place.
This movie did not get anything right. It didn't look or feel like 1930 at all (I've seen documentaries about the 30s). The actors seemed wrong for their respective roles. The events were unrealistic and the characters' response to them illogical. The movie didn't seem to know where it wants to go or what it wants to do with itself.
The paranormal events were so few, so exaggerated, discorded and random that it'd make you think that, perhaps, they were edited into this movie from another movie by mistake.
The description: "A Reverend and his wife discover their new home has a deadly secret."
O.K., what "deadly secret"? Unless I missed something, this "secret" was never revealed...
I really don't understand the paranormal connection at all. This movies is about a cheating wife, not about paranormal activity. I didn't get what the ghost drivel, that was randomly shoved into a movie of entirely different genre, had to do with anything or what connection it was supposed to have to the story.
Basically, the whole thing is poorly pieced together and a bit messy. Perhaps it would appeal to "drama"- or even "crime"-lovers, but to label it as "mystery" is highly misleading to say the least.
This movie did not get anything right. It didn't look or feel like 1930 at all (I've seen documentaries about the 30s). The actors seemed wrong for their respective roles. The events were unrealistic and the characters' response to them illogical. The movie didn't seem to know where it wants to go or what it wants to do with itself.
The paranormal events were so few, so exaggerated, discorded and random that it'd make you think that, perhaps, they were edited into this movie from another movie by mistake.
The description: "A Reverend and his wife discover their new home has a deadly secret."
O.K., what "deadly secret"? Unless I missed something, this "secret" was never revealed...
I really don't understand the paranormal connection at all. This movies is about a cheating wife, not about paranormal activity. I didn't get what the ghost drivel, that was randomly shoved into a movie of entirely different genre, had to do with anything or what connection it was supposed to have to the story.
Basically, the whole thing is poorly pieced together and a bit messy. Perhaps it would appeal to "drama"- or even "crime"-lovers, but to label it as "mystery" is highly misleading to say the least.
Got this in a pound shop. 99p over priced. No relation to the true Borley Rectory story at all. No supernatural goings on worth reporting. OK, the actors weren't bad, but I felt embarrassed for them . Hope Suzie gets better exposure though, she's good . So slow, and not 1930's at all.
First of all, this is nowhere near a 'horror', it's not even a reasonable ghost story. Neither is it a reasonable thriller or suspense movie, nor a drama worth any weight at all.
Just because a film is low budget doesn't mean the fundamentals of film making should be abandoned.
If a film is being presented as a certain time period make sure it looks the part. In other words, camouflage modern fitments for starters, even if it means using a bit of painted cardboard!! Modern light switches slap bank in the middle of the frame.
Next is don't shoot your own equipment! In several scenes attention to framing is non-existent. For example a massive light rig in the garden during a night scene.
Shaky shake works SOMETIMES. Hand-held effects can bring drama to a scene when used appropriately. In this movie it is used far too much when the emphasis should be on the characters and becomes annoying and distracting (someone MUST have watched this before finalising the shoot).
Learn to direct. So many many times in this movie the actors appeared to be left hanging wondering what to do next. Long pauses that made actors look like they had lost the plot became another annoyance.
As with directing - learn to edit! Many of the annoyances because of the lack of direction could have been addressed in editing. Conversations between characters were often slow and laboured - totally artificial.
Make sure your story reflects what you claim. The marketing for this film is as a horror. As in my opening comment, it isn't - nowhere near.
Having said that, if the technical problems with the film had been addressed and the actors given direction and the opportunity to rehearse more this could have been an interesting movie to watch.
The production team had the equipment, but the lack of attention to detail has yet again let down what could have been a decent film.
Just because a film is low budget doesn't mean the fundamentals of film making should be abandoned.
If a film is being presented as a certain time period make sure it looks the part. In other words, camouflage modern fitments for starters, even if it means using a bit of painted cardboard!! Modern light switches slap bank in the middle of the frame.
Next is don't shoot your own equipment! In several scenes attention to framing is non-existent. For example a massive light rig in the garden during a night scene.
Shaky shake works SOMETIMES. Hand-held effects can bring drama to a scene when used appropriately. In this movie it is used far too much when the emphasis should be on the characters and becomes annoying and distracting (someone MUST have watched this before finalising the shoot).
Learn to direct. So many many times in this movie the actors appeared to be left hanging wondering what to do next. Long pauses that made actors look like they had lost the plot became another annoyance.
As with directing - learn to edit! Many of the annoyances because of the lack of direction could have been addressed in editing. Conversations between characters were often slow and laboured - totally artificial.
Make sure your story reflects what you claim. The marketing for this film is as a horror. As in my opening comment, it isn't - nowhere near.
Having said that, if the technical problems with the film had been addressed and the actors given direction and the opportunity to rehearse more this could have been an interesting movie to watch.
The production team had the equipment, but the lack of attention to detail has yet again let down what could have been a decent film.
Okay so going into A Haunting at the Rectory otherwise known as American Poltergeist 5 - The Borely Haunting I expected a low budget ghost flick and for it to be absolutely terrible but I was sorely mistaken.
I mean okay it's pretty terrible so I wasn't wrong about that but this simply isn't a ghost flick and quite frankly the supernatural element is needlessly tacked on and shouldn't even exist.
Therefore this shouldn't be considered a horror at all, more of a drama as that is essentially what A Haunting at the Rectory is.
It tells the story of a Reverend and his wife who take on a new handyman. But the handyman is not what he seems, and the wife begins to see ghostly apparitions.
Again the supernatural element is minimal and simply shouldn't have been added. I assume it was simply to raise interest in the film deeming it only likely to succeed in the horror market.
Instead of a horror we have a reasonably paced but not very interesting British drama that ends on a passable twist but you'll likely be bored long before it arrives there.
Want a horror? Avoid. Want a dull drama, this is one for you.
The Good:
Cast are above par
Twist is passable
The Bad:
Just not very interesting
Very deceptive marketing
I mean okay it's pretty terrible so I wasn't wrong about that but this simply isn't a ghost flick and quite frankly the supernatural element is needlessly tacked on and shouldn't even exist.
Therefore this shouldn't be considered a horror at all, more of a drama as that is essentially what A Haunting at the Rectory is.
It tells the story of a Reverend and his wife who take on a new handyman. But the handyman is not what he seems, and the wife begins to see ghostly apparitions.
Again the supernatural element is minimal and simply shouldn't have been added. I assume it was simply to raise interest in the film deeming it only likely to succeed in the horror market.
Instead of a horror we have a reasonably paced but not very interesting British drama that ends on a passable twist but you'll likely be bored long before it arrives there.
Want a horror? Avoid. Want a dull drama, this is one for you.
The Good:
Cast are above par
Twist is passable
The Bad:
Just not very interesting
Very deceptive marketing
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesMany years after the time period depicted in this film Marianne Foyster admitted that she was having a sexual relationship with the lodger, Frank Peerless, and that she faked paranormal incidents to cover up her liaisons.
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is A Haunting at the Rectory?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- A Haunting at the Rectory
- Produktionsfirma
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
- Laufzeit
- 1 Std. 28 Min.(88 min)
- Farbe
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.35 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen