Let's Scare Jessica to Death

One of the best, CREEPIEST movies, back when they still made creepy movies WITHOUT such modern "horror movie" distractions as over-scoring, music-video editing and the casting of rappers instead of actors. A buried treasure. Worthy of a double-bill with any classic of the time: The Exorcist, Night of The Living Dead, Carrie, etc. If there is a better "ghost story" on film then perhaps I have not yet seen it.

I recall this movie appearing on Stephen King's top-ten scariest films list in his book Danse Macabre. Isn't that enough of an endorsement to warrant a DVD release already? (Or is that not a selling point anymore?)

Hands down, this is possibly the most frightening movie I have ever seen. Absolutely eerie atmosphere highlights this frightfest about a woman, her husband, and their long-haired friend Woody (Kevin O'Connor, who played Humphrey Bogart in the TV Movie "Bogie: The Last Hero") who purchase an old farmhouse in Connecticut and are soon befriended by a strange girl named Emily, who was hiding in the house. Soon, things aren't right as dead bodies start appearing and Jssica starts hearing voices and seeing other strange images. Very scary and moody, and a great performance from Zohra Lampert. Aside from the cheap aftertaste the film leaves, it is definitely worth your time. Turn off the lights!! 9/10

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

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

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.