Beezel

I haven't enjoyed such a mediocre film this much in a long time. Aaron Fradkin is truly a skilled filmmaker. He understands the material he has and is aware of the kind of film he can create with it, doing his absolute best within the given framework. The end result isn't a high-scoring, blockbuster masterpiece with a massive budget, but rather a mid-level film with a limited budget and even limited chances of theatrical release... And within its genre, the film is truly a cult classic.

Please watch this movie and similar movies with this logic... And please appreciate such cinema workers.

I hope this movie gets a chance to be sold on blu-ray or at least on itunes.

What an impressive contained horror film! Not unlike Sinister or Barbarian, Beezel takes a single location and succeeds in building out an intriguing, unnerving lore, replete with a badass creature design for the witch (who, in classic Hitchockian fashion, appears only briefly- so much spookier than a ghoulie who's crammed down your throat!).

The use of found footage adds to the atmosphere (very Longlegs) without being overly used or trope-y. And like any horror movie worth it's salt, Beezel has a spine-tingling sound design that will haunt your dreams.

Grateful I don't have a basement-- I would never being going in it again!

The movie consists of three separate stories spanning a timeframe of 60 years, all involving the inhabitants of a house haunted by an evil witch. In the first story, a man whose wife and son died in the house invites a filmmaker to document his account of what really happened. Initially, the police suspected him, but after discovering bite marks that didn't match his teeth, they couldn't find enough evidence to charge him with the murders.

The second story follows a caretaker who has just arrived at the house to care for an elderly woman. The older woman begins behaving strangely, and the caretaker becomes haunted by increasingly terrifying occurrences.

The third story revolves around a couple who move into the house and are tormented by the witch.

I appreciated that the movie was divided into three stories. While it didn't add much to the plot, it was a nice twist that gave the movie more dynamic pacing. The three stories vary in quality: I enjoyed the first and second stories, but I found the third one rather weak. Unfortunately, the third story is also the longest, making the second half of the movie less engaging than the first.

All three stories maintain a creepy atmosphere and are reasonably scary. However, the film relies too heavily on cheap jump scares, which felt unnecessary since the atmosphere was already effectively unsettling. The acting is fine overall but occasionally inconsistent, making it difficult to connect with the characters, especially given the short duration of the stories.

The movie doesn't provide any answers, leaving me somewhat unsatisfied. I would have liked to learn more about the house's backstory and the witch's origins. Fun fact: the movie was filmed in the director's childhood home.

Overall, it's a decent movie and an enjoyable watch with its short runtime, but nothing about it stands out. I mostly liked it, though the first half is clearly stronger. The film loses momentum towards the end, which is disappointing. With a stronger third story and perhaps a slightly bigger budget, this could have been great. [5,6/10]

The story of Beezel is told over the course of 60 years, the film broken into four acts, each taking place in a different decade. The setting is a suburban house, the basement of which is home to a hideous flesh-eating witch, whose victims are provided by the owner of the property.

The premise is a good one, and the first three segments do a great job in building the atmosphere and tension as people investigate the gloomy basement or poke their noses into dark recesses, with the threat of Beezel suddenly emerging from the shadows to rip off their head. And that one jump scare involving the care nurse and the old woman is a belter.

Unfortunately, instead of building to a suitably crazy climax, the film fizzles out in the final act, with a very disappointing ending that fails to do the rest of the film justice. It's not helped by the fact that the acting in this final part of the film isn't the best. It's a shame, because director Aaron Fradkin's handling of his film is, for the most part, very good, an impressive mix of standard storytelling and found footage, with great sound design and a wonderfully unsettling creature.

Fradkin is definitely a talent to keep an eye on, but this one fails to live up to the hype.

5.5/10, generously rounded up to 6 for IMDb.

I agree with a lot of the positive and negative reviews on here. I think this film has both elements.

I have a soft spot for low-budget indie horror. Beezel definitely gives that feel. The story spans nearly 50 years (beginning in 1966), but the entire film gives a 70's vibe... even in 2013.

I love a retro horror film. But doing the retro thing seems to be the go-to with a lot of horror films lately... especially set in 70's or 80's. It works when it's part of the plot. But a lot of horror filmmakers seem to use this throwback style of filmmaking even when it's not really relevant to the plot.

The story is told in 4 different chapters, each with different characters. The first 3 build up like a slow burn, each giving us a closer glimpse of the horror that dwells in the cellar of a house... but doesn't give us much more than that. The less is more thing worked for me. It made those glimpses scarier.

By the time Beezel gets to its last (and longest) chapter, it kinda fizzles out into a plot that feels stale... and the characters aren't very likable, which didn't really make me care about what happened to them.

Part of me would've liked to have learned more of the backstory/origin of the evil thing in the cellar. But another part me appreciated the ambiguity. Maybe we'll learn more if there's a sequel.