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

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.

Even though his work was always wildly indulgent and overblown, I've enjoyed the unique excesses of Ken Russell's cinema, being fond of several films because they're good (if still excessive), flamboyantly bad, or some campy mix of both. He's always done best under pressure from a generous budget and strong studio or producer oversight.

Left to his own devices, and abandoned by the film industry, this farcical goof only tangentially related to Poe themes is silly, shrill, amateurish, sophomoric-ally sex-phobic, and aims to shock in a dated early 80s punk/New Wave cinema mode. Its wit is mostly a matter of horrible puns, community-theater "foreign" accents, and in-joke references. The performers ham in Russell's preferred over-the-top style, albeit without the skill of the professional actors he once used--none worse than Russell himself, who plays a mad doctor with a vaudeville Nazi accent and is not a pretty sight as his face has gone spotty-red and pustule- ridden.

That said, there are some funny touches--as in the "Premature Burial" upending, an early gag involving one of those singing/tail-waggling fishes on a trophy placard, or a late sequence exploiting a huge blowup children's slide--and even on zero budget Russell retains a knack for lending nearly every shot some sort of surreal flash. (Whether that means having an actor in a gorilla suit or utilizing a multicolored plastic Slinky.)

It gets better as it goes along, but there's still a feeling of glorified home-movie indulgence by an attention-hungry old man only further caricaturing his image as a filmmaker who never should have been taken seriously. That's unfortunate, because (skipping his TV work as a separate issue) from "Women in Love" through at least "Lair of the White Worm" he made strikingly distinct if always flawed contributions to the art form. (Russell will never get a Knighthood, unlike just about anyone else who's got a long high-profile career in British cinema, because he's just made too many movies HRH couldn't be associated with.)

I have loved Russell's films for years, but this one tops it all. It is inventive and stunning beyond belief. Made on a shoestring budget, but with the flair of a Hollywood blockbuster, it has humor, irony, great self-conscious acting and the biggest arsenal of consumerist gadgets since, well, Russell's own masterpiece The Lair of the White Worm. Stunning set-pieces, great visuals and a surprise-a-minute. Russell has turned to underground film-making once again (that's how he got started in the late fifties). The financial restrictions have forced him to be truly creative again. The result is this film, made on digital video. If ever a film was rightfully called mind-blowing, it's this one. There's nothing quite like it, nor is it likely there ever will be. One of the most extraordinary films you are likely to see. Ever. SEE/RENT/BUY IT NOW!

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'.