Lord of Tears

Wow, either director Lawrie Brewster recruited all his friends and relatives to give high ratings and write favorable reviews for his film, OR none of the avid fanatics around here has ever seen a genuinely atmospheric Gothic horror movie. I'm sure my user comment will receive a lot of not-useful votes, but what the hell, "Lord of Tears" does not deserve its current 7.1 out of 10 rating and please do not be deceived by the plenty of comments stating it's an impeccable new genre classic. There, I said it. However, I do admit that the film is a worthwhile and well-crafted attempt at traditional & spooky horror with beautiful scenery and filming locations, an admirably melancholic ambiance and – most of all – an authentically creepy monster! The Owl Man, which you can admire on the cover artwork, is a nightmarish creature with impressive mask and claws that demands for a specific type of sacrifices. The timid school teacher James Findlay has been plagued by visions of this creature ever since his childhood, but now he can confront his traumas because James' mother died and he inherited the parental "Baldurroc Mansion" in the Scottish Highlands. James believes all his phobias originate from this place and, together with the lovely caretaker Eve, he begins to investigate the hidden secrets of the estate. Okay, so far so good, then why exactly isn't "Lord of Tears" as magnificent as it ought to be? Basically because the actual plot is feather light and ultra-thin and there are only two principal characters (and one reasonably significant supportive character) in the entire movie. Brewster compensates for the lack of variety through (over-)long sequences that stylishly build up tension and atmosphere, but they lead absolutely nowhere. You know what kind of sequences I mean: sudden apparitions of the creature underneath a tree, but it vanishes when the protagonist looks again, abruptly ending dream sequences, the clichéd use of creepy children's drawings, etc etc.. The denouement – as in the revelation of the Findlay family secret – doesn't make any sense and raises more questions than the script can answer. The acting performance of Euan Douglas is quite pitiable and the beautiful Alexandra Hulme doesn't convince either. David Schofield's sinister voice is underused. Lawrie Brewster and Sarah Daly (the writer) definitely show talent and growth potential, but "Lord of Tears" is overall unmemorable and weak. Okay, go ahead, hit the non-useful button if you must

This was a recommendation, it was suggested to me that this looked like it could potentially be scary stuff! It was not, it truly truly wasn't.

Lord Of Tears is one of those horrors that thinks it's a lot smarter than it actually is, an over convoluted plot, an arthouse look and student film level quality.

An English horror I'm surprised just how much I walked away disliking the film, some of the visuals are adequate but there is just no substance, lackluster performances and honestly the plot is a mess.

I like the concept I do, but it was utilized so incompetently it left the film a barely watchable embarassment.

I'm not a great lover of British cinema at the best of times but this is British cinema in the hands of people who have no place in the industry.

Certainly one to avoid.

The Good:

Beautiful scenery

Visual effects are quite good in places

The Bad:

Acting is sub-par

Comes across like a bad arthouse film

Awful scoring

At several points I did actually ask myself what the hell I was watching

Plot is seven shades of awful

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

No accent grinds on me more than a Scottish one

You can stay in the Mansion featured in the film for just under 400 British pounds per night

Atmosphere, yes. Great locations, yes. Interesting enough premise, yes. And I didn't notice that the lead male couldn't act until "Eve" showed up. She can act, but at the community theater level. Lordy, when she said "I'm from the South" in that "I'm not from the South and I don't think I've ever been there" accent it was over. Oh, did you know she trained as a dancer? Well, golly, there's a scene where she spins.

It's just all fluff and stiff moments with decent locales, some nice nature shots, and a MYSTERY!

Lord of Tears promised me something unique and terrifying, but it didn't quite deliver what I had been hoping.

For a movie funded by kickstarter and working with a tiny budget, it's well-made. The artistic direction, photography, and everything visual in this film is wonderful. The score is beautiful and unsettling when it needs to be: very appropriate. The concept of the film had so much potential, potential which was completely bunked because of the performances within the movie.

The lead, Euan Douglas, wasn't absolutely awful, but something seemed to be holding him back, causing his acting and lines to appear stiff and awkward and uncomfortable at best. This could have been a problem with script or direction, but I would be willing to bet that it might have been conflict with the second-in-lead, Alexandra Hulme.

Hulme's performance was atrocious. It takes a lot for me to dislike a character which is not meant to be the target of audience hostility, but Hulme managed to accomplish this. For me personally, her over-acting and forced lines and exaggerated movements really tarnished the otherwise appealing movie. Had the part been taken up by another actress, it might have been an entirely different horror movie, but instead, Hulme has dragged my review down to a 3/10, and beset me with bitterness and buyer's remorse.

A lot of people tend not to expect much with horror movies, but the truth is that it's very much an art, as with any other genre. To really scare someone or cause unrest or discomfort, whatever the horror movie's motive may be, there's a delicate balance that must be maintained through visuals, music, and performances. If just one portion is off, it can ruin the experience entirely.

I wanted to like this movie very much. I'm a huge supporter of independent horror and Hollywood horror alike, but as the extensively positive reviews led me to this film, I needed to address it from my own point of view. I don't know where the 8.2 rating came from.

TL;DR: the marketing was brilliant, the visuals stunning, and the score beautiful, but the performance of Hulme just completely ruined it for me. This was not the horror movie that I was looking for, though it seemed to promise that it was.

I never "review" movies, but when horror breaks what I consider to be the #1 cardinal rule of the genre, it makes me almost angry for some reason. That rule, which is an entirely personal one, is that if you're going to take yourself dead seriously with your horror movie, you damn well better have good acting. Your story has to embrace camp in order for bad acting to have any hope of working. The lead actors ability is to me only a few small steps above infomercial quality. There is no feeling to his performance here whatsoever, especially when it calls for dire emotion which it does much too often. The story's execution, although interesting on paper, really doesn't do him or the lead actress any favours. I couldn't in good conscience rate it as low as possible because there are three things, a star for each, that to me must be commended: 1) The location and cinematography that takes place outdoors is fantastic. Beautiful stuff. 2) The lead actress is absolutely gorgeous here, and her performance singlehandedly carried me through to the end, which I could barely believe I made it to. She is embarrassingly cheesy in the third act, which I won't spoil here, but that is entirely the fault of the filmmakers. She did what she could with what she was given. 3) The movie is dedicated to Christopher Lee. This one is self explanatory.

3/10