Opiniones de usuarios

If you ever seen a horror movie, the chances are you know from the start where all this is going. And there will be no surprises.

So the main problem of this movie is the plot, its based on classic folklore stories and follows the path that so many movies (or even child stories) have shown before. Which might be good... but it does not exceed any expectation.

So some might call it a classic, some might call it a cliche. Either way, its not unique, its not new, even the creature - I saw it in dozen other movies, and I can name multiple where its simply executed better ("The Ritual", for example).

In other terms, it is mediocre. Characters are not very likable or believable. The motivation of the antagonist (for example) and his image - I believe they are severly lacking any originality or style, they are so superficial it hurts.

Ending is simply weak - culmination is unsatisfying. It is simple (which is good sometimes), but it ain't smart or fulfilling, or entertaining in this case.

So I'd say the score I've given in generous. It's a mediocre movie. Some might say its okay, some might say its bad, but there is no basis to call it great - that is for sure.

I see multiple ways this could've been a better movie (just add a single thing that isn't a trope), but it is obvious that nobody bothered here to create something new or unique, this is just same old same old once again.

Starts off with some promise but quickly outstays it's welcome. Ralph Ineson does a good job of playing brooding local Jocelyn Abney but the plot regarding the disappearance of a vicars daughter at a harvest festival thingy has nowhere particularly exciting to go.

Folk horror with its strange pagan symbols and odd country folk with their odd country ways, it's not actually that scary is it?, not in this movie anyway. And it starts to grate after a time.

It reminded me somewhat of a better and rather underrated movie called The Witches from 1966.

Word around the village is the daughter has been abducted by a harvest spirit called Gallawgog.

The mother of the child is played by Tuppence Middleton and she looks suitably anguished throughout and does a good job I thought.

To be honest this was a hard slog and i started to not particularly care what the outcome was. Young Evie Templeton puts in a good turn as the missing daughter, and maybe if your in to Folk Horror more than me you will enjoy it more.

I found it rather washed out and worse , unintentionally funny at times.

In 2023's Lord of Misrule we are introduced to a woman who moves to a small rural English village to take over the church. After the villagers celebrate the Winter Festival, her young daughter suddenly disappears and therefore her search for her missing daughter begins.

The movie is a pagan horror story with a suspenseful atmosphere and some mysterious characters. But sadly the movie mostly falls into some generic plot lines and has no outstanding strengths. There's not much special to talk about that the movie could use to separate itself from the masses. It is directed by William Brent Bell who directed quite a few horror movies before ranging from pretty good to pretty bad and I think this one just walks the line of being average. It's not terrible but also not great either and the movies biggest strength is probably the casting of Ralph Ineson as one of the villagers. However I did like the ending and therefore I overall don't regret watching this. [5,2/10]

The UK is already rich with folk tales and old beliefs, but this isn't one of them. The actual Lord of Misrule is an "office" during the Tudor and Stuart periods in which the selected person oversaw the feasting and merriment during the twelve days of Christmas. It fell out of favor during and after the Interregnum. He was usually selected from among the servants or other low ranking people and only "ruled" during those 12 days. This film turns him into some sort of Halloween bogie man, a mystical figure who goes about cavorting with evil spirits and welding power and influence year 'round. Tosh. The writer bastardized an old English Christmas tradition and tried to pass it off as a horror movie - and steals from every "small English village steeped in supposedly ancient pagan rituals and assorted mumbo jumbo" movie/television episode ever made (and there have been a slew of 'em) in the process. Add to that the writing is somewhere between "saw that coming a mile away," and "well, that made zero sense." Pick one. If you've seen The Wicker Man, you've already seen this drivel. I rented it on Amazon Prime and am considering requesting a refund. Skip it and thank me later.

Tuppence Middleton Ralph Innes.

This film joins a raft of folklore horror films over the years. To be fair though it was pretty well put together and I liked the pace. You don't always have to have action, beautiful actors, gratuitous violence and cgi..this is just an honest and decent sinister film. Special mentions to Tuppence Middleton who I thought was outstanding and very plausible as the vicar. Ralph Innes played his part very well too. People giving this 9 or 10 of 10 are way off the mark, as are those clowns giving it 1s and 2s. It's a decent effort in a saturated market, and while I likely wouldn't watch it a second time I did enjoy it.

Any comparison to "The Wicker Man" is in passing; ie a small village seemingly trapped in the past that believes in a folklore legend. That is it.

Someone called this "amateurish". Well as an avid film watcher, former pro actor, and a vet of the biz I can point to a half dozen or more "films" that were shot by apparent teenagers that managed to get distributed via VOD, or before that, VHS. (Actually I am doing a disservice to teenage movie makers as I was once one and made better films than some of the crap I have seen professionally presented!!)

This is an engaging movie that keeps your interest from start to finish. No one phones in a performance and the script, while it does level a bit in the middle, provides enough twists to make this very worth your watching while.

We have a vicar who rarely acts very religious (except in church) and drops F-bombs casually on multiple occasions. Her spouse seems like a bitter atheist and will not pray with her. I mean, they seem more like an average mismatched couple - one theistic, one not - than AN ACTUAL VICAR OF A CHURCH and her husband.

People get angry and then calm down within seconds. They don't have much respect for the vicar and treat her more like a random crazy woman than anything else. The children even start chanting in a vulgar way, gleefully, without a hint of fear or embarrassment at acting that way in front a church pastor.

I feel like Lord of Misrule is a patchwork attempt to mimic other, older horror movies. Like mixing 1970s The Wicker Man with 2000s Silent Hill and a random urinating scene like the original version of The Exorcist.

Lord of Misrule does have atmosphere and lovely folk horror aesthetics yet the writing and character development are significantly wanting.

It's not a perfect film, but it does a lot right and is worth your time if you like this type of thing.

In line with what I expected from the director - the story is going to be a rehash and not perfect, but certainly nothing offensively bad.

Casting, Directing, general pace is all fine... I notice a few other reviews complaining about the pace - absolutely nothing wrong with it, it's building tension and the general meh of rural life.

The writing, as others have pointed out, is a bit... well traditional Folk Horror... but where is there to go with it? If you've read a few Folk Horror books you'll notice the same things coming up: Harvests and sacrifices - often unwilling. So... complaining that a Folk Horror contains all the required Folk Horror tropes seems a bit odd to me (which seems to be the running trend here).

It leans heavily into Christianity vs The Old Ways, and treats Christianity with a rare respect - the Vicar is not a overtly double standard kiddie fiddler for once, they're a sympathetic character that you can get behind. Some clever steps here: make it CoE and make the Vicar female. Allows an awful lot of legwork to be done in your head.

Does it want to be The Wicker Man, well obviously.

Is it The Wicker Man, well... course not - but what is? You can't compare a Michellin Movie with a midrange offering - you'd be a fool.

The casting is superb, not only Middleton and Ineson, but the supporting cast as well - they carry the middling story a very long way.

All the pieces are in place here for a decent folk horror, but Lord of Misrule never really takes off. Tuppence Middleton does an okay job but I could never believe in her as a vicar. She, her husband, and their child are just a 'meh' sort of family. And all the pagan elements are things we've seen a dozen times already. A trio of people standing in the mid-distance wearing animal heads. A rambunctious festival hiding something more sinister. Corn doilies and whatnot hanging from trees. And then, of course, a missing girl, and sacrifices, and so on, and so on.

It's not bad, exactly. But none of the characters behave in particularly believable ways, which means that it's hard to get invested in them. This, combined with its lack of originality, makes it all a bit of a slog.

Firstly, this 5.x rating is nonsense... Normally I try to be very even handed with reviews and not get too worked up, but in this case we honestly have a very, very good film that is extremely well made, well acted, and with a fantastic Folk Horror atmosphere, in my lowly and wretched opinion the best I've seen since the original 'WICKER MAN'

The reason why I feel so strongly about this movie is because it seems that we so rarely see such a well thought out, deeply intriguing Pagan/Folk Thriller without a bunch of heavy handed, over the top cruelty or violence. In this case, we have a very well crafted film that has TONS of genuine and creepy atmosphere which strongly lends itself to some good suspense and Mystery.

Yes, the story is a bit on the slower side than what is considered 'Horror' these days, almost a throwback to when these kinds of movies relied more on building a good, effective atmosphere with continuously tightening up the tension until a powerful ending. And, what I personally like about the ending, without of course spoiling anything, is that we have something that I feel is refreshing and unlike the usual cliched 'Sting' at the end, but still with a pretty strong surprise.

It is too bad that a lot of people come here and gave this excellent and well made film such low scores, simply because THEY just don't care for slower, more atmospheric, Folk Horror stories. It's like I've said many times before in my reviews... I personally hate sadistic movies that feature Torture Porn. But, it would be unfair for me to come here and rate all the movies like that poorly just because I personally do not like them. That would not help others who happen to like those kinds of movies in any way to know whether it is a 'Good' film or not, would it.

So, I refrain from doing that although I very much do not like those kinds of movies. It would be very nice if others would show the same respect for the types of films that they simply don't care for or find 'Boring' as many say here, and not deliberately lower the score for those of us who DO indeed really like this type of Horror. Thus my rare but I feel definitely earned '8' rating that I gave it.

If you don't like, slower, more atmospheric Folk Horror films, then please just give this one a pass and kindly don't ruin the score for those who do like them. BUT... if you do like these kinds of Folk Horror stories like the Iconic 'WICKER MAN' (original of course) then you should really enjoy this excellent, well made, and I feel quite effective Horror story.

Lord of Misrule-yet another feeble attempt to evoke the haunting brilliance of The Wicker Man (1973). This film, like so many of its ilk, seems to believe that all it takes to replicate The Wicker Man's eerie folk horror is some drab rural setting, cryptic townsfolk, and a healthy dose of poorly executed pagan symbolism. How utterly delusional.

The plot drifts lazily between stale tropes and half-baked attempts at suspense. It wants to unnerve, but instead, it lumbers along like a creature unsure of whether it's in a horror film or some dreary BBC drama about sheep farming. The film teases at tension, but alas, it has the emotional weight of a wet sponge. Whatever atmosphere it hopes to conjure is utterly dissipated by the weak direction and lackluster pacing.

Then there's Ralph Ineson, an actor who, by all rights, should be the film's saving grace, but even he cannot elevate this lifeless exercise in mediocrity. His performance, while solid, is tragically undermined by the abysmal writing and a supporting cast that seems to have wandered in from a pantomime rehearsal.

The film, in its pretentious desperation, clearly yearns for the haunting ambiguity and psychological terror of The Wicker Man. But instead of nuanced commentary on faith and human nature, we are treated to a series of predictable "shocks" that would struggle to startle a toddler. Lord of Misrule is but a pale, sickly shadow of its predecessor-an insult to the folk horror genre and a prime example of why modern filmmakers should perhaps spend more time studying true cinematic artistry rather than churning out such vacuous drivel.

In short, Lord of Misrule is the cinematic equivalent of a knockoff handbag-cheap, gaudy, and utterly lacking in any substance or style. Spare yourself the tedium and rewatch The Wicker Man instead.

"Lord of Misrule", from writer Tom de Ville, was a horror movie that I had never heard about. I happened to stumble upon the movie by random chance here in 2024, and of course opted to watch it, given my life-long fascination and love of the horror genre.

Naturally I had no expectations to the movie, as I had never heard about it. Nor did I actually know what I was in for here. And I suppose, on that account, then director William Brent Bell had every opportunity to entertain and bedazzle me with this 2023 movie.

The storyline that Tom de Ville wrote was a bit boring. Sure, there were interesting enough aspects to the storyline, but the pacing of the narrative was slow and mundane, and there simply wasn't enough of anything interesting, much less actually scary, happening, and that made sitting through "Lord of Misrule" somewhat of a struggle and an ordeal.

I wasn't familiar with the cast ensemble in the movie. But the acting performances in the movie were fair, despite the fact that the movie failed to entertain me.

Visually then you're not in for anything grand here. The movie is not one that relies on special effects, jump scares, etc. To tell it tale.

I have to say that I wasn't particularly entertained by director William Brent Bell's 2023 movie. And this is definitely not a movie that I will ever return to watch a second time. Nor is it a movie that I will recommend to fans of horror movies.

My rating of "Lord of Misrule" lands on a very generous three out of ten stars.

No pun intended - also not trying to shade the main character here ... actually you could make a point that she qualifies for that position. Now since this is (folk) horror you will be able to guess a few things coming ... though you will not be prepared for everything ... that's just not possible ... including an ending that ... well see for yourself I reckon.

The acting is quite well - and I think this is a good entry into the (sub)genre. Very well shot - the sound design is also well done. And you can tell that the director feels at home - no pun intended. The Lord may misrule, but rules still apply to anyone involved ... even if you may not entirely be aware of all of them ... strange behavior included ... you gotta have that (and suspend of disbelief to go along with it)

I had high hopes for this British production, but the story did not translate to an effective horror movie with tension, momentum, and clarity.

The actors were flat in the face of scenes of sacrifice and missing children. The backstory was not convincing. This could have been so much better with quicker pacing and a prevailing sense of urgency.

Instead we got a slow, unconvincing folk tale of a female vicar operating in the midst of a pagan cult village. There is a mild payoff at the end, but its not enough to compensate for the tedious unfolding of the confrontation.

For fans of British folklore only.

The answer to the question ''what if Hot Fuzz took itself seriously".

A shame because the cinematography is great and there are solid character actors in the cast. All of this was let down by A: a terrible script (sounds like a first script out of film school), B: bad editing, the pacing is all over the place, the first 10/15 minutes of the film feel like you jumped in over half an hour into the movie, then drags and C: the director has not drawn good performances out of these actors (partly down to the aforementioned script). Ultimately, couldn't have cared less about the date of the child..

Brilliant performances by Tuppence Middleton and Ralph Ineson lay a good foundation both of whom feel fresh.

It feels unerringly British and appeals well from that perspective to me, as a brit, with a well fleshed out cast of country village England characters.

Think Midsomer Murders crossed with Midsommar. With a good helping of Hot Fuzz.

Beats the snot out of 2006 Wicker Man which I loath. Can't compare to 1973 Wicker Man.

Worth its short run time. It does miss a bit of potential but is not overbearing which is probably better and a watch I would certainly recommend. And the end was admirably out there.

I don't understand what people expect from this movie. Was it too sophistocated? Was there not enough sex and swearing and bad acting? I know that's what everyone thinks makes a good movie these days so.... I'm not an older person either and I'm not a prude. I'm just tired of trash movies.

For this one, the acting is great and the story is very good. The setting is in a beautiful English town and countryside. I liked that it didn't end like a lot of movies, with having the viewer interpret what happened or leaving it completely open ended to interpretation. That gets old and can really be lazy on the writing end of it.

Wicker man, the ritual, kill list, men, wake wood etc etc .

This was so poor it was barely believable.

I was looking forward to this for months, great cast , smashing trailer and I was so disappointed. It was a badly made mish mash of every movie that features any village folklore, but instead of creating something new- this just stole snipets from so many good films.

It dragged out and was slow and boring. There is a twist however , and anyone could guess it after first seeing finchy.

The movie could've been squashed into 30 minutes, in fact, reece and Steve at number 9 have done so a few years ago in series 7 of inside no9 , the episode 'mr king'

Just don't bother with this. It's awful.

Then happens nothing. This movie is all about building tension for something about to happen, but in the middle of the story you start to understand that nothing is going to actually happen, other than good photograhy, good cinematics, good acting and good music.

So this is a review about nothing, and nothing is what i will tell about this movie about nothing.

If you liked Midsommar, you will feel at home but You have already seen the good version of this movie, so You can skip to' the next without having lost anything. Do yourself a favour and save 100 minutes for something better to be seen.