Lord of Tears

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

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

Based on the 8.2 rating and a string of glowing reviews on different internet sites I decided to order this movie on DVD. The central image of a rather eerie owl-figure fascinated me no end. I was not disappointed by the presentation when I received it, packed in beautiful artwork and including a real feather. A wonderful detail.

Sadly somewhat of this visual flair diminished when watching the actual movie. On the positive side, the visual style/photography are in sync with the esthetic's of the exterior of the packaging, but inside the clockwork some serious glitches are showing, that partly ruin the experience.

Let me first start with the biggest flaw: the acting. Euan Douglas' delivery is often forced and unintentionally funny. This movie is his only credit for now, and I can see why. He simply lacks the complexity that is needed for this role, being both vulnerable and scared and obsessed by his demons. Even worse is Alexandra Hulme's over-acting. I understand that her character needs to be extravagant, but again her delivery is so over the top, I began to doubt the real problem was also in the directing of the actors.

Further disappointments were some of the plot holes and inconsistencies that abound. Especially the psychology of the characters doesn't make sense half of the time. Take the main protagonist. When he first discovers one of his drawings he made as a child of the owl man, a rather innocent, slightly creepy sketch, he pulls off a hysterical face, as if he saw a hideous monster. However, when he later on faces the real thing he keeps a straight face??? The film is full of these illogical stuff, but as I don't want to spoil the plot I won't describe them. Sufficient to say, this movie has all the marks of an inexperienced director.

That said, the movie also has its qualities. The whole idea of the owl man and the visual flair attached to it is quite extraordinary. It feels like there is a constant disconnect between the high profile visuals/photography and the amateur acting/dialog. I constantly felt the urge after each faltered dialog to stop watching, but the visuals kept pulling me in.

Especially sad is that the story behind the failed delivery is actually a nice (thought classic) ghost story. Maybe even that is somewhat of a disappointment, as the whole mysterious imagery of the owl man suggested something even weirder and unsettlingly unspoken, only to find out the actual revelation is more traditional.

In any case, I give this move a modest rating. Specifically for its above average visuals that give it more of an art-house look and not your typical bland-looking horror film. And maybe this is the whole problem of the movie: it clearly is not geared at typical horror movie buffs in search of blood and gore, but rather at an art-house audience. Sadly enough, to please this audience the movie fails to deliver enough dept in the form of subtle layers. And even more crucial, it neglects the essence of each enigmatic mystery: that a mystery even at the end when everything is wrapped up still needs to be...a mystery, in order to weave its spell after the screen has already faded to black.

Wow. Just. Holy cow, what a cringefest. I mean, I am pretty tolerant of cheese you guys, but this stinks. It stinks. What a tremendously awful film. Almost everything about it just assaulted my senses. To be fair, the scenery was beautiful and the setting deserved a better movie. But they don't get credit for Scotland being cool.

The writing was awful, the plot boring, the acting - dear god. Who are these people? Why are they in a movie? Who let this happen? These characters are zero-dimensional, and these actors should stop. Just stop now and pursue other career choices.

You know when you are watching a movie and it's so bad you are embarrassed when other people walk in the room? Like you have to have an excuse for why it's so awful? This is that. They are lucky Scotland is eerie, or this 2 would have been a 1.

Such a shame, I paid to watch this movie on Vimeo after reading many glowing reports on various horror sites online, but sadly I once again wasted my money.

The imagery in Lord Of Tears is actually quite good, with many shots of dark windswept coasts and old buildings that could have accompanied a great horror flick. But the acting, man the acting, it's like something off a children's TV show. Its really, really, bad. And one of the first shots of the main character getting scared looking at an old crayon picture had me burst out laughing. It was cringe worthy to say the least.

Lord of Tears tries to base its presence on a string of shots that would make great still photographs, and then string them all together with some of the hammiest acting I've ever seen. It's sad indeed they couldn't find a few folks who knew how to carry a film, rather than the ones in this damp squib. It all goes to show you cant take other peoples word for it when it comes to movies. And is it any wonder that people download things for free these days when money is at a premium? If we keep wasting our finances on stuff like this we eventually want to try BEFORE we buy. I collect horror movies, and I have hundreds of Bluray and DVDs. If this had been a good movie I would have bought it to keep, so the reality is, true horror fans will buy movies even if they are free, IF THEY ARE GOOD. So paying for a stinker just doesn't make me smile at all.