The Fall of the Louse of Usher: A Gothic Tale for the 21st Century

I'm not sure if it was because it was a slow Sunday afternoon or the fact that I'm having a thing for blokes with bad teeth (is that redundant?) but I didn't dislike this movie as much as I probably should have. I love Ken Russell...everything I have seen of his from The Boyfriend to The Devils.(We share birthdays!)I think that if a director is one of those filmmaker's who has a strong flavor, a distinct original style that one enjoys, it is hard to deny even his lesser moments. This movie is probably only for die hard Ken Russell fans like myself. I don't know anyone I would recommend this film to...but that is more of an insult to those I know than the movie itself.

Ken Russell has made some excellent films over a long career. He has also made some bad ones, but we can forgive him for that. This 'film', however, is unwatchable. I am at a loss to explain the positive comments posted on this site.

Let's be clear about what we're dealing with. This film is shot on a hand-held camcorder. The 'actors' appear to be random friends of Mr Russell. The plot is non-existent. Everything about this film is horribly, horribly wrong, from Russell's own heart-breakingly awful acting to the shoddily arranged orgy of inflatable dolls and dinosaurs. Post-modern? Now come on, that's no excuse. Not for THIS. Ironic? Post-ironic perhaps...? let's hope so.

This is not the Ken Russell we know and love; not at all. If you are new to his films, do not start here--start anywhere but here. If you like his films, my advice would be to avoid this like the plague, since it may well spoil your appreciation of his classic works forever.

Claims that the film contains complex symbolism etc. etc. etc. are unfounded. The cultural references, which an intelligent man like Russell should be in complete command of, are lazy and childish. And even to a person such as myself, who adores 'The Devils' and all its spawn in the realms of cult trash film-making, 'The Fall of the Louse of Usher' seems in extremely poor taste throughout. It leaves an unpleasant taste, even were it not for the sad fact of its having been made by one of Britain's greatest directors of the 60s and 70s. And so i have called it unwatchable. I have lent it out twice, and twice i have heard the same---neither could sit through it. I'm sincerely unsure whether i ought to admire those reviewers who have had the patience to watch it through, more than once as it may be.

As i conclude, i am still unhappy. This is because words cannot describe how awful this film is. It is simply beyond my power to explain. If it has found a sympathetic audience amongst some (as it seems to have done), then i suppose i am glad. But Ken, what were you thinking? Obviously this film went straight to DVD and had no general release. If you really wish to see it, try to rent it; buying it at full price is a significant risk, as you may, like me, end up hiding it away in a cupboard so you don't have to see it on your shelf beside classics such as 'The Devils', 'Women in Love' and 'Gothic'.

Thirty years ago, I sat in a movie theatre stunned to my very bones watching THE DEVILS. Director Ken Russell worked with big budgets and big stars then. Now, that's not the case, but the feeling of being stunned remains the same. FALL OF THE LOUSE OF USHER blows you away. It's as simple as that. Russell has made a low budget, feature length video with no producer or movie company looking over his shoulder. The result mystifies because, on one hand it's a puerile, tasteless, and totally delirious send up of just about everything connected with pop culture; on the other, it's a playfully mature work of art that can indeed be taken seriously if one can withstand its brutal and disorienting assault to probe the meaning of Russell's vision. It's like this: cross the Jackass boys with Jean Luc Godard and add a little ATTACK OF THE COCKFACED KILLER, and you get, relatively speaking, a point of departure for discussing this movie. Russell plays with his digital camera like a teenager in puberty, but the sophistication of an elderly artist is there, as well. This is not the least bit surprising to me when you consider Russell's obvious need to create. While others sit around and wait for the phone to ring, Russell gathers all these young folks at his house and goes for it. Given the ghastly state of most straight to video fare, much of which has been shot on video, one can only hope that those with money who produce will see the value of this director and let him go, go, go some more. The movie is great, and Ken Russell is even greater. Thank-you for stunning me so.

This is nothing more than a cheap ass home movie done by a director who should have known better.Its not that there is anything wrong with this being made but the look and feel of it is that of a goof made among friends over a weekend for their own amusement. Regrettably someone though the rest of the world would find it equally enjoyable and released it on an unsuspecting world.

The plot has Roderick Usher ending up in a asylum for murder where goth and allegedly racy things are going on. There music and jokes and tasteless stuff. Mostly there is an undying urge to turn the DVD off and put on one of Ken Russell's other films...anyone of them.

I'm a Ken Russell fan. I've always liked that fact that no matter what he did there was always something interesting to look at or see somewhere in the movie. Here there is nothing. Its a complete waste of time.

Oh how one of the cinema's great directors has fallen....

This movie, the 30 minutes or so of it I did watch, really filled me with horror. It is scary to think that this is Ken Russell without professional crew, editor, producer. The film really imparts the lesson that you do need a studio you do need backing you do need at least a few different expensive craftsmen for every pixel on the screen. I would be loathe to criticize Russell cause of his past work. Man Ray used to say that it is hypocritical of a critic to endorse one work by an artist then to reject another. But this movie looked like something you'd have to sit through at an underground film festival ca 1971 like Trisha's Wedding. And what moves me to speak badly of it is that although I doubt he meant to make this point, he has, and its not true. You don't need all the money in the world to make a great film you just need to take lots and lots of care or do lots and lots of shooting and lots and lots of cutting.

As far as using non actors to do scripted dialog, well George Kuchar does that a lot better too, using the awkwardness for comic effect rather than just having everyone yell constantly. But in the case of casting I think the ineluctable lesson is that unless you after a very particular kind of comedy, you shouldn't give non actors lots of scripted lines. The little darlings should be led by the nose through improvs into what looks like acting (in fact what often looks like very very good acting).

George Kuchar is a hugely important role model if you want to work outside the system. He has shot innumerable gorgeous films on 16 mm for say $600 per 20 minutes. He mostly works with video now.