Amulet

Amulet: The eponymous amulet/figurine is found by Tomaz (Alec Secareanu) in a forest in the Balkans during a war. Tomaz has frequent nightmares regarding those times, he was a soldier and while he avoided most of the ethnic cleansing he carries guilt for some acts he committed. Now in London his work as a day labour only allows him to live in a squat. Losing even these digs he encounters an enigmatic nun (Imelda Staunton) who asks him to stay with a young woman, Magda (Carla Juri) who is looking after her mother in a decrepit house. He reluctantly agrees but starts to develop a relationship with Magda. The "Mother" in the attic is strange, wails, bites Magda.

This is a dark tale of demons, possession, ancient guardians, revenge, with frightening even nauseating scenes of horror. Some of the worst horror though is in the flashbacks to the Balkans war, much of it is between the lines, as the ethnic cleansing is suggested rather than shown. The mundane is sometimes more disturbing than the mondo. The amulet plays a part in this but you'll have to watch the full film to understand it as the narrative unfolds. There are a few plot twists which cannot be revealed but they do allow you to view events in a new light. This film is both perplexing and unsettling, very much for adults who are not faint of heart or squeamish. Written and Directed by Romola Garai 8/10.

The movie tries a little too hard to be smart and artsy, and it ends up plodding along at a slow pace at some points. This isn't your standard horror fare, which is a nice change of pace. The cinematography painted the world as a dark, bleak place. But I ended up not caring for any of the characters, and the director somehow made the horrific elements boring as very little happens even after the horror is revealed. The ending, for me, was confusing although a repeat viewing (which is unlikely to happen) may clarify things.

This isn't for your standard moviegoer, but for those who like the more artsy films, this may be for you. Just go in knowing this is quite the slow-burn.

While there are only one or two actual scares in this film, it does a great job of building an increasing atmosphere of dread. There are also some pretty grotesque scenes.

Storywise, this concerns a PTSD-afflicted soldier who had been part of some overseas conflict (apparently Eastern European) and is now in London living with other refugees. After their accommodation gets burned down, a nun finds him free housing with a young woman (also apparently Eastern European) on the condition that he helps repair her dilapidated house. However, from the outset not all seems right. The young girl's mother (unseen) is apparently dying, in pain, in the upstairs room. But why all the secrecy about her? And what is the strange runic symbol that he finds in the ceiling. What is the meaning of the night-time flashbacks that he has to his time as a soldier?

Although I'm not sure that the story entirely holds up in terms of logic, it nonetheless kept me spellbound for the duration.

I must say, some of the comments left here by others are baffling to me. Reading not too far between the lines of some of them, it seems that some people don't seem to appreciate a horror story told from the perspective of a female writer and director, or that the lead characters are not English. Well, so much the worse for those viewers. As for being slow - if this hour-and-a-half of effective horror is a strain on your patience, then I wouldn't bother going to see pretty much anything else that is out right now, many of which stretch their stories over two-and-a-half to three hours (Memoria, anyone?).

An abstract horror mostly. Little more context relating the two story lines would be good but it's visually stunning and gets more messed up right to the end. Some of the imagery will be stuck in my head for a while and it's been a long time since a film has done that. Disturbing stuff.

Guys...stop. Having a bunch of well-shot footage of forests and obnoxious experimental music doesn't make something a high quality horror film on par with things like Hereditary and The Lighthouse. If that surface level stuff is all you think it takes to make a movie intelligent and masterfully crafted, sorry, but you're not as clever as you're trying to make yourselves sound.

There are many things that directors like Aster and Eggers do that make their movies rise far above ones like this, but let me just pick one, and arguably the most important one, THE PERFORMANCES OF THE CHARACTERS. You have to be absolutely kidding me if you're going to sit there trying to tell me that the actors in Amulet were anywhere close to well-directed, maximum effort performances from people like Willem Dafoe and Toni Collette. They aren't just on different floors, they're not even in the same building.

I've seen much, much worse than Amulet, and I wouldn't even go as far as to call it a bad film, but I can't think of a single moment where Tomas or Magda made me think "wow, what a great performance". Hell, I can't even think of one that made me care about either of them. They're dreary characters in a dreary setting acting out dreary motions to fill up time until the entire effects budget is blown in the last 10 minutes, and yes, the director is obviously TRYING to convey something poignant with this unconventional story, but they just aren't selling it.

"Weird + good cinematography" does not automatically equal a great film.

"Having an artistic vision + good intentions" does not automatically equal a great film.

It's a great effort, but it's not a great film. Wait five years to see if anyone's still talking about it, or even remembers that it existed, if you're still unsure about that.