Beezel

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.

Beezel is the new horror tale from the independent group Social House Films. Their previous work Val was one of my favorite releases of 2021. Beezel is apart of a subgenre that I like to call "homebrew horror." It's the type of story that centers on one central location. In this case it's a creepy and questionable odd house. Other examples of this style of filmmaking are the recent releases The Curse of La Patasola and Mind Body Spirit; both of which have some similarities to this motion picture. Each of these movies feel like they were crafted based on the convenience of having access to certain locations. It's a smart move for budgetary reasons, even if the end results are hit and miss.

The story of Beezel is told in multiple waves, where visitors of a New England home unknowingly encounter evil. Spanning across 60 years, Beezel follows different generations of a family that's being haunted by a witch inside of their own home. The madness continues on with their future kin moving into said house with little to no knowledge of the horrors that took place before. Beezel's plot is easy to follow, and there are certain scenes and graphic images that will stick with you like curse. It's well worth a watch, if you're into dread inducing shocks and scares.

Watching Beezel when I did felt like perfect timing; having just read book two of Anne Rice's Lives of the Mayfair Witches. The difference here is that Rice's witch stories are more fantasy based horror, whereas Beezel (although frightening and bizarre at times) feels more grounded in its approach to witchcraft. More "realistic" if you will. Seeing that the film takes place in Massachusetts only made the experience feel more authentic. The setups with the "haunted" house feel familiar yet off. It's a slice of Americana with a price, and that price includes blood. Lots and lots of blood.

The overall plot and bits of dialog were well written, using each of the segments as if they were a series of short films attached to an anthology. Each decade could be stretched into its own feature film, and no two segments feel alike. Each generation feels different, and judging from the direction it's clear that director Aaron Fradkin is a big fan of the horror genre. What I enjoyed most about Beezel is how well it incorporates old technology. I'm not a big fan of the "found footage" sub genre, but what sets Beezel apart from the rest is its use of different video formats.

The story spans across six decades, and each segment in the film uses cameras from that time period. As someone who appreciates physical media, I loved how much the quality of each video format changes throughout the film. Think of it as film school from a certain point of view. It's a great conduit for the scares and brutal violence. As a viewer you're witnessing the evolution of home video with different aspect ratios; capturing the horrors inside this Massachusetts home. This element alone creates dread and uneasiness, and it also makes the shocking ending all the more shocking.

Now that I mention it, shock value is where Beezel shines the most. Expect to see some graphic gore, some off camera shocks and a lot of squelching. What soured my enjoyment of the film a bit was the fact that everything gets revealed early on. Perhaps I was expecting more of a mystery with this story. It's an easy to follow plot that gets explained within the first 20 minutes. Once the reveal and overall point to the film comes to light, you're just along for the ride. It wouldn't surprise me if Victoria Fratz (star and co-writer) and Aaron Fradkin used their own real life experiences to craft this story. Something about Beezel feels personal. At least that's how it comes off in the dialog and choppy performances.

Overall, Beezel is a mildly original yet entertaining witch film. It has a great cast, marvelous cinematography and a musical score akin to Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. The found footage elements were smartly used to elevate Beezel's scare factor, and the use of special effects made for an uneasy gruesome experience. I personally think that the story would've benefited with a little more mystery. Perhaps that could be achieved with an expansion in the form of a prequel or sequel. Beezel a wonderfully written and well thought out atmospheric witch movie. A film that at times feels inspired by classic horror films of the past. Needless to say it's a fitting entry in the Dread/Epic Pictures catalog.

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]

I just don't understand all the hype around this movie. Social media influencers pushing this movie ecerywhere as "scary AF". First off.. it had a good start that got me intrigued, but it was so slow, and had you hanging into suspense waiting for something to happen, and it was just meh. I can put partial blame on the overall editing here. They needed more story line with scenes ending in a payoff vs. Lots of suspense, weird music, and disjointed story telling. Acting wasn't good, and has confusing characters. The opening sequences are the best with very little good after.

I do agree with others... these 8+ reviews on here are totally planted.

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.