Lord of Tears

Wow. Just. Holy cow, what a cringefest. I mean, I am pretty tolerant of cheese you guys, but this stinks. It stinks. What a tremendously awful film. Almost everything about it just assaulted my senses. To be fair, the scenery was beautiful and the setting deserved a better movie. But they don't get credit for Scotland being cool.

The writing was awful, the plot boring, the acting - dear god. Who are these people? Why are they in a movie? Who let this happen? These characters are zero-dimensional, and these actors should stop. Just stop now and pursue other career choices.

You know when you are watching a movie and it's so bad you are embarrassed when other people walk in the room? Like you have to have an excuse for why it's so awful? This is that. They are lucky Scotland is eerie, or this 2 would have been a 1.

Atmosphere, yes. Great locations, yes. Interesting enough premise, yes. And I didn't notice that the lead male couldn't act until "Eve" showed up. She can act, but at the community theater level. Lordy, when she said "I'm from the South" in that "I'm not from the South and I don't think I've ever been there" accent it was over. Oh, did you know she trained as a dancer? Well, golly, there's a scene where she spins.

It's just all fluff and stiff moments with decent locales, some nice nature shots, and a MYSTERY!

I never "review" movies, but when horror breaks what I consider to be the #1 cardinal rule of the genre, it makes me almost angry for some reason. That rule, which is an entirely personal one, is that if you're going to take yourself dead seriously with your horror movie, you damn well better have good acting. Your story has to embrace camp in order for bad acting to have any hope of working. The lead actors ability is to me only a few small steps above infomercial quality. There is no feeling to his performance here whatsoever, especially when it calls for dire emotion which it does much too often. The story's execution, although interesting on paper, really doesn't do him or the lead actress any favours. I couldn't in good conscience rate it as low as possible because there are three things, a star for each, that to me must be commended: 1) The location and cinematography that takes place outdoors is fantastic. Beautiful stuff. 2) The lead actress is absolutely gorgeous here, and her performance singlehandedly carried me through to the end, which I could barely believe I made it to. She is embarrassingly cheesy in the third act, which I won't spoil here, but that is entirely the fault of the filmmakers. She did what she could with what she was given. 3) The movie is dedicated to Christopher Lee. This one is self explanatory.

3/10

Such a shame, I paid to watch this movie on Vimeo after reading many glowing reports on various horror sites online, but sadly I once again wasted my money.

The imagery in Lord Of Tears is actually quite good, with many shots of dark windswept coasts and old buildings that could have accompanied a great horror flick. But the acting, man the acting, it's like something off a children's TV show. Its really, really, bad. And one of the first shots of the main character getting scared looking at an old crayon picture had me burst out laughing. It was cringe worthy to say the least.

Lord of Tears tries to base its presence on a string of shots that would make great still photographs, and then string them all together with some of the hammiest acting I've ever seen. It's sad indeed they couldn't find a few folks who knew how to carry a film, rather than the ones in this damp squib. It all goes to show you cant take other peoples word for it when it comes to movies. And is it any wonder that people download things for free these days when money is at a premium? If we keep wasting our finances on stuff like this we eventually want to try BEFORE we buy. I collect horror movies, and I have hundreds of Bluray and DVDs. If this had been a good movie I would have bought it to keep, so the reality is, true horror fans will buy movies even if they are free, IF THEY ARE GOOD. So paying for a stinker just doesn't make me smile at all.

I'm all about Horror (and I mean Horror, with capital "H"), Thrillers, Film-Noir, Suspense and some (very few) Indie films (or "Artsy") When I took a look at the trailer it seemed to have a healthy mix of those things I always enjoyed watching (as an example, my favorite movies in the above mentioned genres are "The Exorcist" I and III, Jacob's Ladder, Alien and Angel Heart, just to mention a few).

Alas, (almost) none of these elements are to be found in "Lord of Tears", though the effort seems genuine.

What really transpires through out the entire movie is confusion and insecurity; at best. And I assure you, you will feel it as well.

There is a lot of needless repetition in imagery (that - it self - is under-achieved, though one can imagine what the intention was for it), a lot of rushed shots and out of sync/time with the general emotion it was trying to convey (either too soon for said shots or too late... or too much of it, to be honest). I had this constant feeling the director/writer (maybe both) had several ideas and were trying them all out and were unable to choose the most effective ones and ended up using them all. Well, that was not a good idea.

A movie is also about pace/timing. And pace/timing is nowhere to be seen nor felt.

Also, there are ideas there that are used ad nauseam: too many "flash shots", too much of the female character later "pole dancing" (seriously, that particular part of the movie made me facepalm, smirk and yawn all at once). Too much pseudo-romance. Too much of many things I can't tell or I'll end up ruining the perfect opportunity for you to also facepalm, smirk and yawn as I did (if you indeed want to watch this movie).

The intention is good, that is all about the good things I have to say about it, and I honestly wish the best of luck to the people involved in making this movie, and may they take the experience and learn with it.