La silla de los condenados

THE CHAIR has merit in that it offers something unusual in the way of a story line. It's about a child killer from 1906, who was hypnotized by a mesmerist at the point of his death. One hundred years later, said murderer returns to torment the woman (Alanna Chisholm) who moves into his old house.

There's mystery, suspense, and creepiness throughout. There's a haunting and even a possession. Then, the chair of the title comes into play, which is as ingenious as it is diabolical! It's a torture device designed to instill hopeless, suffocating terror in its victims, while slowly relieving them of their lives. According to the film's creators, this thing actually works, making it all the more frightening! In spite of its miniscule budget, this movie makes the best of its limitations...

The Chair feels like two movies formated into one, both have their ups and downs. The first half is a choppy but pretty spooky haunted house formula. Furthermore, If i didn't know better, I'd also call it a forerunner to Paranormal Activity. The second half is more of a Saw- formula, with more blood, adrenaline, but at the same time, more contrivance. The Chair as a whole deserves credit for being neither dull nor derivative (as so many b-movies are) but there is a sense of unevenness to the finished product. That and a sort of, scrappy/unprofessional screenplay degrade the Chair from good to 'almost' good. In the end it's silly but I think it will please horror movie goers.

Upper Year College student Daniel has just moved into a new place. A very old, red brick house. In less than a day, she becomes convinced that it is haunted. She starts doing a little experimenting: filming herself at night, going through closets. After doing some extensive research, she finds material which causes her not only to wanna write her masters thesis on horror related topics, but she is driven to perform some very sadistic behaviour, which is increasing becoming a concern (and a threat) to her friends and family.

Director Brett Sullivan knows what he is doing when he steps behind a camera of sits in front of the editing software. He effectively uses technique rather than traditional shock factor to scare the audience. While not the scariest of films, I don't exactly have a long list of films that achieve the kind of effect that the Chair does. some films on that list like Friday the 13th predate the chair, others like Paranormal Activity come after. But this is all contained within the first half. The second part of the feature, is where the blood gets spilled. Sullivan again avoids the superficial approach, relying more on grotesque ideas rather than quantity of bodily fluids to startle the audience. It works, but not flawlessly. This is the dumber half of the Chair.

speaking script-wise, it's not like the first half was perfect either. Most of the dialogue in the Chair is not that great. Nobody has much to say, but at least the delivery shows signs of attempt. Indeed the movie is just as dependant on a strong leading role as it is on suspense. Alanna Crisholm (in her only movie role) makes a pretty credible lead, given the limited room she has to work with. She sells it to us quite well through her face and her body gestures.

The Chair has quite a bit going for it, but not quite enough. It needs a bit of a reworking perhaps, because it stills feels a bit unbelievable in places. It looks as if it is intended to appeal to two different types of horror lovers: the Blair Which lovers and the Saw Lovers. As a horror film, The Chair is successful, but it remains a bit unstable and under fleshed. I did enjoy it though

Maybe it's a testament to the low-key sex appeal of its star, Alanna Chisholm. Or the generally good direction and cinematography, but this film was definitely appealing. I usually can't get into films shot on video, but this one looked pretty good.

Also, even though it has a slower pace, it was unrelenting up until the very end. I think for horror movies to be effective, on some level they have to be mean-spirited toward the viewer. The writer/director has to want to inflict a little psychological trauma in that 2 hours. This film doesn't seem like it's got what it takes to deliver that type of wallop, so it takes you by surprise at the end when it does.

I would recommend it.

To me this is a film of two halves or really should I say a film of three thirds, whichever way you look at it, this film had a lot of potential. The story, a haunted house, which I liked and the director played this really well. The idea about he history of a chair found in the attic, not bad, still a good story. Then the film leaves the house to carry on with it's story, not so good. Now this is what I mean by a film in thirds. Also let's see about the other things that dipped in the film. The acting, every now and then it went into a b - movie zone but this can happen with a low budget film. The story when it left the house, the tension went out the window and I felt it spoilt the movie as a whole. The two main actors, who played Danielle and Anna did a very good job at the film. A good film overall but I dropped some stars because the film dipped when the story left the house. Worth a watch.

Danielle (Alanna Chisholm), a young psychology student, is trying to rebuild her life when she sublets a century-old Victorian house. Unknowingly, she awakens an evil specter lurking in the dark recesses of her new home.

From director Brett Sullivan ("Ginger Snaps II") and distributed by the now-defunct Alliance Atlantis, this is a relatively low-key film that does not command one's attention. Indeed, it is subtle, and really only exists to showcase the so-called "panic chair" (which only shows up later on).

There is some interesting back story about a mesmerist, a child killer and a professor, but it is all sort of strange. May be brilliant or awful, just too hard to say.