VALUTAZIONE IMDb
2,9/10
1023
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Un reverendo e sua moglie scoprono che la loro nuova casa ha un segreto mortale.Un reverendo e sua moglie scoprono che la loro nuova casa ha un segreto mortale.Un reverendo e sua moglie scoprono che la loro nuova casa ha un segreto mortale.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
Suzanne Dallaway
- Marianne
- (as Suzie Frances Garton)
Recensioni in evidenza
Watched this and was extremely disappointed. It's not actually a horror film, a more accurate description would be a drama without any drama. Nothing actually happens, characters just mope around rooms and moan about their lives. The acting is abysmal and could not even be classed as amateur dramatics standard.The actor that plays Frank Peerless is ironically named as I've never seen someone act so badly. I've no idea where he got the idea to talk in a mock cockney/toff accent- but its laughable. The vicar is about as wooden as they come and the whole thing is unbelievable and would be laughable if it wasn't so tedious.
If this is the standard of British filmaking there is no hope.
If this is the standard of British filmaking there is no hope.
I feel embarrassed in particular for the lead actress. She is the worst out of the 3 so called actors. Real amateur dramatics caught on film. Is this why we pay so much for streaming services for them to insult us with this crap.
This movie is truly terrible!
An affront to all the movies that have gone before. The acting is abysmal and the script, I assume there was one? When the opening scenes begin the guy who comes to the house looking for a job as a handyman starts off with an Americanism " It sure is a wonderful place you have here reverend!" "Sure" is a word in that context that would never be heard in middle classes houses of England such as Borley rectory was supposed to be for at least another 40 years. It's also delivered in a bad RP accent reminiscent of amateur dramatics that cannot quite be pinned down as it apparently wanders between there and a cockney accent?
Also, for a house of dimensions there is an awful shortage of staff. At least there should have been a maid of all work to answer the door rather than the lady of the house answering it to the handyman surely? This script and movie has so many social and grammatical errors in the first few scenes that it's unrecoverable. The reverend, has all the character development of a door. In that he's wooden and untalented and really should behind the counter in a hardware store. There he could possible shine! He takes no references, has clearly never hired staff in his life, and just gives the job out like jumble at a church fair.
The applicant has his hat resting on the stool in the drawing room of all places. His hat should have been removed at the door and really should have been taken and placed to one side by the maid who answered the door. But of course the maid didn't answer the door because they didn't cast one. Servants in those days knew their place and would have been interviewed either in the study or the hall. It is such an amalgamation of bad writing, social faux-pas, bad acting, dodgy set dressing and woeful miscasting that one doesn't know what to say really. At 2.44 I had decided that there were too many mistakes to enjoyable to watch by the time I got to five minutes I had to switch it off.
Any more than that and I cannot tell you as life is too short to sit through this particular brand of tripe. I had to give it one star but really, it doesn't deserve it........
An affront to all the movies that have gone before. The acting is abysmal and the script, I assume there was one? When the opening scenes begin the guy who comes to the house looking for a job as a handyman starts off with an Americanism " It sure is a wonderful place you have here reverend!" "Sure" is a word in that context that would never be heard in middle classes houses of England such as Borley rectory was supposed to be for at least another 40 years. It's also delivered in a bad RP accent reminiscent of amateur dramatics that cannot quite be pinned down as it apparently wanders between there and a cockney accent?
Also, for a house of dimensions there is an awful shortage of staff. At least there should have been a maid of all work to answer the door rather than the lady of the house answering it to the handyman surely? This script and movie has so many social and grammatical errors in the first few scenes that it's unrecoverable. The reverend, has all the character development of a door. In that he's wooden and untalented and really should behind the counter in a hardware store. There he could possible shine! He takes no references, has clearly never hired staff in his life, and just gives the job out like jumble at a church fair.
The applicant has his hat resting on the stool in the drawing room of all places. His hat should have been removed at the door and really should have been taken and placed to one side by the maid who answered the door. But of course the maid didn't answer the door because they didn't cast one. Servants in those days knew their place and would have been interviewed either in the study or the hall. It is such an amalgamation of bad writing, social faux-pas, bad acting, dodgy set dressing and woeful miscasting that one doesn't know what to say really. At 2.44 I had decided that there were too many mistakes to enjoyable to watch by the time I got to five minutes I had to switch it off.
Any more than that and I cannot tell you as life is too short to sit through this particular brand of tripe. I had to give it one star but really, it doesn't deserve it........
I thought this movie was supposed to be about a haunted place, but it is, in fact, about infidelity. The story focuses on the Reverend's wife and the handyman's affair almost exclusively; so much that the supposed "paranormal" events look totally out of place.
This movie did not get anything right. It didn't look or feel like 1930 at all (I've seen documentaries about the 30s). The actors seemed wrong for their respective roles. The events were unrealistic and the characters' response to them illogical. The movie didn't seem to know where it wants to go or what it wants to do with itself.
The paranormal events were so few, so exaggerated, discorded and random that it'd make you think that, perhaps, they were edited into this movie from another movie by mistake.
The description: "A Reverend and his wife discover their new home has a deadly secret."
O.K., what "deadly secret"? Unless I missed something, this "secret" was never revealed...
I really don't understand the paranormal connection at all. This movies is about a cheating wife, not about paranormal activity. I didn't get what the ghost drivel, that was randomly shoved into a movie of entirely different genre, had to do with anything or what connection it was supposed to have to the story.
Basically, the whole thing is poorly pieced together and a bit messy. Perhaps it would appeal to "drama"- or even "crime"-lovers, but to label it as "mystery" is highly misleading to say the least.
This movie did not get anything right. It didn't look or feel like 1930 at all (I've seen documentaries about the 30s). The actors seemed wrong for their respective roles. The events were unrealistic and the characters' response to them illogical. The movie didn't seem to know where it wants to go or what it wants to do with itself.
The paranormal events were so few, so exaggerated, discorded and random that it'd make you think that, perhaps, they were edited into this movie from another movie by mistake.
The description: "A Reverend and his wife discover their new home has a deadly secret."
O.K., what "deadly secret"? Unless I missed something, this "secret" was never revealed...
I really don't understand the paranormal connection at all. This movies is about a cheating wife, not about paranormal activity. I didn't get what the ghost drivel, that was randomly shoved into a movie of entirely different genre, had to do with anything or what connection it was supposed to have to the story.
Basically, the whole thing is poorly pieced together and a bit messy. Perhaps it would appeal to "drama"- or even "crime"-lovers, but to label it as "mystery" is highly misleading to say the least.
Got this in a pound shop. 99p over priced. No relation to the true Borley Rectory story at all. No supernatural goings on worth reporting. OK, the actors weren't bad, but I felt embarrassed for them . Hope Suzie gets better exposure though, she's good . So slow, and not 1930's at all.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizMany years after the time period depicted in this film Marianne Foyster admitted that she was having a sexual relationship with the lodger, Frank Peerless, and that she faked paranormal incidents to cover up her liaisons.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is A Haunting at the Rectory?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Haunting at the Rectory
- Azienda produttrice
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 28min(88 min)
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti