NOTE IMDb
3,6/10
2,1 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA 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... Tout lireA 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.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Darren J. Bransford
- Giro
- (as Darren Bransford)
Avis à la une
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.
I'm a massive fan of this movie, it's a perfectly executed re-imagining of 1983's Scream Time. Charisma Carpenter is a great choice for the lead role of 'Susan' and she successfully pulls off a difficult character arch that sees her transform from a settled, confident woman into a truly tortured soul. Ricci Harnett is also great as the rather creepy groundsman 'Peck' and Paul Sculfor is a very clever choice for Susan's husband - adding a level of credibility and logic to the film that I won't spoil with this review. If like me, you like your horror to be full of suspense, thrills, sex and deception - you should watch this movie.
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.
This is not a real review, it should be taken more as a collection of impressions on the film.
Very slow and also quite boring film with a beginning that doesn't have much to do with the rest of the film and an ending that is the only slightly nice thing that the whole film has to offer. So the film is bad even if the ending is nice because even if the final twist is a bit the opposite of what I expected, the rest of the film is meaningless and very boring. Another thing is that the film dates back to 2011 and the way it is shot looks like a B-series horror film from the 1980s. So in conclusion the ending is valid but the rest is rubbish.
Very slow and also quite boring film with a beginning that doesn't have much to do with the rest of the film and an ending that is the only slightly nice thing that the whole film has to offer. So the film is bad even if the ending is nice because even if the final twist is a bit the opposite of what I expected, the rest of the film is meaningless and very boring. Another thing is that the film dates back to 2011 and the way it is shot looks like a B-series horror film from the 1980s. So in conclusion the ending is valid but the rest is rubbish.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesBernard Kay's last film.
- GaffesSusan 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.
- ConnexionsRemake of Screamtime (1983)
- Bandes originalesWhichever Way You Wanna Give It
by Hot Leg
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Psychosis: La Mort dans l'Ame
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 1 200 000 $US (estimé)
- Durée
- 1h 29min(89 min)
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.78 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant