IMDb-BEWERTUNG
3,6/10
2117
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Füge eine Handlung in deiner Sprache hinzuA serial killer unleashes his blood-lust at a remote environmental camp. Years later a horror novelist relocates to rural England and is plagued to the point of madness by horrific hauntings... Alles lesenA serial killer unleashes his blood-lust at a remote environmental camp. Years later a horror novelist relocates to rural England and is plagued to the point of madness by horrific hauntings of a massacre.A serial killer unleashes his blood-lust at a remote environmental camp. Years later a horror novelist relocates to rural England and is plagued to the point of madness by horrific hauntings of a massacre.
- Regie
- Drehbuch
- Hauptbesetzung
Darren J. Bransford
- Giro
- (as Darren Bransford)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
Reg Traviss and fellow screen writer Micahel Carpenter have crafted a supremely frightening script and the cinema results are extraordinary. Directed as well by Traviss with flair and originality, he creates an atmosphere of almost surrealistic suspense and a unholy, dark environment of overwhelming dread. Charisma Carpenter gives a superb performance in the role of the young woman haunted by visions of what she believes to be remnants of violent episodes that have taken place in the house where she lives. There is incredibly disturbing imagery and horrific scares as she strives to discover the answers to all the terrifying mysteries. No one who sees this superior horror film will ever forget the unendurable suspense, stunning visions, and lightning like intensity that is Psychosis.
I didn't find this movie as slow-moving as most, but it WAS as pointless as they've written. At first the ending was marginally surprising until I thought about it for five seconds. The only reason it was surprising is because of the misdirection of the movie's first 10 minutes. Remove that and the lease ingenuous viewer will know what the deal is after about 30 minutes.
Very linear and predictable with extra characters that really do nothing to advance or even influence the story. It really could have been told with about five characters.
Very little was done to explain why the lead sees what she sees other than a few vague words from a medium, but even at that there is no explanation as to why she sees things now, but apparently never did the first 35 (or so) years of her life.
Still, it's decent enough for ambient viewing while loading a dishwasher or doing some paperwork. You've seen it enough times to not have to pay rapt attention, but it's not some obviously cheap, horribly acted flick that shoots entirely in day-for-night blue.
Very linear and predictable with extra characters that really do nothing to advance or even influence the story. It really could have been told with about five characters.
Very little was done to explain why the lead sees what she sees other than a few vague words from a medium, but even at that there is no explanation as to why she sees things now, but apparently never did the first 35 (or so) years of her life.
Still, it's decent enough for ambient viewing while loading a dishwasher or doing some paperwork. You've seen it enough times to not have to pay rapt attention, but it's not some obviously cheap, horribly acted flick that shoots entirely in day-for-night blue.
Just saw this a couple of days ago, and am still wondering why this was made. First off the plot for this film could barely of filled a 10 minute short, and yet was stretched to fill the duration of this so called feature. All the layers that the director mentioned he added in the making of made no sense, didn't go anywhere and added nothing to the film. Acting was beyond poor, especially by a certain lead man. Lighting seemed flat. On the upside, some of the special effects seemed pretty well done (a fake head in particular) but are not enough to save the film.
The only interesting thing on the DVD was the making of, and interview with the cast. Maybe they should have got that guy to direct instead.
Watch at your own risk.
The only interesting thing on the DVD was the making of, and interview with the cast. Maybe they should have got that guy to direct instead.
Watch at your own risk.
When it was available in the shops were I wander around it was immediately in sale. I should have known better. This is not good, simple as that. The main leads, Paul Sculfor and Charisma Carpenter aren't believable. Just watch at the end of the movie when something is happening to Paul, the acting given is not good. And Charisma couldn't convince me too, you see them both acting. But that's not the only problem. It's low on the red stuff so there should be some other teasers to watch but sadly it isn't. It's never frightening. just watch the first 5 minutes and the last 15 minutes, forget what lays in between. Could have been so much better...
'Psychosis' is an example of a movie that I'm sure read brilliantly on page. The story is there, old English house, horror writer retreat; descent into madness, at times it reminded me of the Demi Moore film 'Half Light' although that's an example of how it should be done. The setting of 'Psychosis' is spot on creating a country atmosphere similar to 'Watcher in the woods'. However hampered by wooden acting (save for its two leads) and stilted dialogue, it's hard to warm to the characters or become engaged in the story.
Charisma Carpenter and Paul Sculfor are both easy to watch and had they been given a slightly bigger budget, tweaked dialogue and better surrounding actors then this could have been a winner. There is some chilling vision in the film (notably the tent scene at the start with the man licking the feet, cryptic I know but I don't want to spoil anything) but that vision seems to fade into clichés very quickly. There is a twist, it's a small one but unique and again showed potential for something better.
I watched this because I am a Charisma Carpenter fan so to other fans out there I will say its better than Scyfy's awful 'House of Bones', so if it comes down to the two watch this one.
Charisma Carpenter and Paul Sculfor are both easy to watch and had they been given a slightly bigger budget, tweaked dialogue and better surrounding actors then this could have been a winner. There is some chilling vision in the film (notably the tent scene at the start with the man licking the feet, cryptic I know but I don't want to spoil anything) but that vision seems to fade into clichés very quickly. There is a twist, it's a small one but unique and again showed potential for something better.
I watched this because I am a Charisma Carpenter fan so to other fans out there I will say its better than Scyfy's awful 'House of Bones', so if it comes down to the two watch this one.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesBernard Kay's last film.
- PatzerSusan is lying on the bed with one leg dangling over the edge, waiting for David to return from checking downstairs; her leg is seen dangling in the mirror, not touching the floor. The camera then goes to a floor-level close-up of a hand reaching for her foot, which now touches the floor. Right before the hand grabs her ankle the camera goes back out to show Susan and the mirror, which shows Susan's foot off the floor again with the hand around it.
- VerbindungenRemake of Screamtime - Die unheimlich verrückte Videostunde (1983)
- SoundtracksWhichever Way You Wanna Give It
by Hot Leg
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
Box Office
- Budget
- 1.200.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Laufzeit
- 1 Std. 29 Min.(89 min)
- Farbe
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.78 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen