Grauen um Jessica

The lurid title could easily side-track you from what is essentially an extremely frightening exploration of a woman's descent into madness. You can read it, of course, in a material sense as the title suggests; but everything in this film has the potential to signify something else entirely, and its this ambiguity that makes this film so macabre and interesting. Everything, from the killing of the 'mole' to the conclusion where Jessica is trapped in the middle of a lake on a barely floating boat, could be signifying or at least implying something else. Classic metaphors for the human consciousness are bodies of water; being trapped in one or drowning metaphors for madness. The films ambivalent set of monsters, from a strange set of undead elderly villagers to sexually promiscuous vampires, threaten Jessica and her sanity. The fact that there is no ultimate explanation for the strange set of phenomena that take place is also demonstrative of the horrific and inexplicable quality of psychotic behaviour for those suffering from schizophrenia (for those of us that have had the misfortune to experience it) or the side-effects of drugs. This film is really worth seeing

A haunting piece of work that has stuck with me since I fist saw it in the seventies. I wont give any elements of the plot away but you will always remember the whisper "Jessica". Fairly low budget, lacking effects and production and it is one of the creepiest/eerie films in ages. A must see. No real gore. No Monsters or mutants just psychological haunting

No need to repeat the plot. Despite a catch-penny title and a no-name origin, this is a spellbinding horror film. It's also a work of considerable subtlety that doesn't tip its hand in obvious ways. I can see why many dislike the results—the title promises one thing, whereas the results amount to something else. Then too, it's slowly paced, depending more on mood and morbid interest than the more familiar mayhem and gore. Nonetheless, the overall effect tends to be cumulative, such that once you're drawn in, you can't let go. And judging from the number of comments on the Message Board, it's a seductive film, indeed.

Making the main character (Lampert) a recovering mental patient places an overriding ambiguity at the story's center—how many of her creepy experiences are real and how many are imagined. My take is that most are real, whereas the whispers are imagined. But no interpretation, I believe, can be conclusive, which is how it should be for a film like this.

To me psychological horror is much more effective than the palpable kind, since imagination is scarier than obvious blood and gore. The reviewer who likens mood and predicament here to Bergman's highbrow Hour of the Wolf (1968) makes an apt comparison despite the difference in pedigree. There's also a lot of 1940's horror-meister Val Lewton here, as well.

It's hard to say enough about Lampert's beguiling performance. It's also one reason the film's so seductive. I'm just sorry she didn't have more of the headline career her talent deserves. Anyway, the movie came as a happy surprise. Because I was fooled by the exploitative title, I did have to watch it a second time in order to try to put the various threads together. Despite the budgetary lapses, the movie can hold its own with such atmospheric classics as The Other (1972) and Don't Look Now (1973). So don't miss it, unless you want things spelled out in tidy fashion.

A intelligent depiction of a woman who knows that she may be schizophrenic, but has only her own perceptions upon which to rely, and perceives herself to be increasingly surrounded by the undead. While a bigger budget and today's technology might make this film more effective, and those who didn't endure or enjoy the period in which it was made will find it especially difficult to relate to the characters, this is a very fine film, and should be a source of continued pride for those involved in its making.

Jessica (Zohra Lampert) is a troubled woman. Recently "cured" of a psychological disorder, she and her husband, along with a friend, move to a large house in the country. Upon arriving, they find a mysterious, but agreeable woman named Emily (Mariclare Costello) living in their house. They invite her to stay and things seem to be going smoothly. But Jessica has started having visions again. She sees people who aren't there, hears voices, and discovers dead bodies. No one else notices anything. Is Jessica going mad? Or is there something more evil going on?

For the most part, Let's Scare Jessica to Death works as a slow-moving, atmospheric horror film. If you need chainsaws rumbling, masked killers, and blood spurting, steer clear of this one. But if you're a fan of slow-burn, subtle horror, you will find a lot to enjoy. There are moments in Let's Scare Jessica to Death that go beyond creepy and enter the realm of downright scary. The film has the feel to it of something just under the surface you can't see, but scares you nonetheless. Images like Emily coming out of the water in her wedding dress are classic. And, overall the film looks great - and by great I mean suitably dark and foreboding. The acting is generally good with Costello giving a standout performance. A lot has been written about Lampert - some going so far as to call her performance "Oscar Worthy". To me, she seems to be trying a bit too hard. Yeah, we know she's a nutcase, but that doesn't excuse some of the over-the-top histrionics. Get over yourself!

Notice I wrote that Let's Scare Jessica to Death works "for the most part". I have never cared for the ending. The finale takes the film in a completely different direction from anything that comes before. For lack of a better word, it's too obvious. It's as if someone demanded something more overt in the ending. A more subtle, mysterious ending would have fit better with the atmospheric feeling that the film had been building. Instead, we're given an ending that really harms what is otherwise a classic horror film.