Avaliações de usuários

The other reviewer on here either worked on the film or is crazy. They say the film has an eerie atmosphere just like Wicker Man. To compare this film to Wicker Man is not only an outrageous stretch but a blatant lie. Possibly the reviewer has not seen The Wicker Man. I hold Wicker Man in very high regard and find the comparison insulting. Despite the fact this movie was filmed in a historic haunted house i did not find it atmospheric at all, mostly due to the cheap lighting, bad costumes and flat acting. I really had higher expectations for this. Not recommended. Boring.

I am absolutely gutted by the quality, or rather the lack of quality about this film, you are told that you're in for a series of chilling stories, in reality you're given four very tedious tales.

The introduction was fantastic, you have to hand it to Ian McNeice, who's presence and delivery are great. Sadly the stories themselves are dull, and the acting is questionable.

On the plus side there is Johnny time, I'm sure many would have sooner enjoyed Johnny time as opposed to dinner with those two idiots.

Poor, 3/10.

OK, so the acting is poor at times, the sound is horrible in the second story... but for a no-budget community project this is a decent time passer. The vampire story is easily the best, with a clever ending, and the film's climax was something I never saw coming. It did indeed bring back happy memories of the (obviously better) Hammer and Amicus films and, moreso, ITV's Thriller series of Seventies Saturday night.

This is a labour of love and I say, thanks for trying.

The Architect (McNeice) introduces 4 horror stories a la Hammer / Amicus tales of the sixties set around an old house. The first, a short romantic ghost tale, the second is about witchcraft, the third a vampire on the loose and finally a nasty ancient demon.

So, on the plus side it is always a treat to see the great Ian McNeice at work. On the down side the stories and script are dreadful, it is not at all frightening, the acting is lousy throughout and technically it suffers as well - some cheap effects and make up plus some of the sets are daft (note the spotless, modern bar in the old vampire story with electric ceiling lights with a lady drinking white wine out of a modern wine glass). Best avoided.

Like another reviewer, I also wanted to like this film. It's supposed to be in appreciation of the Hammer movies of the 70s as well as other horror venues, and as a fan of Hammer and American International films from my youth, I was hopeful that this would be enjoyable. However, it pales far in comparison.

Gone are the bright, rich colors and creepy music. All of the sequences are gloomy and dark. The acting is wooden at best, and I struggled with boredom throughput the film. In one episode, a girl stabs someone in the chest with a pitchfork. The tines only go in about an inch-hardly fatal-but the recipient immediately gushes blood from their mouth and collapses. Then the girl puts her hands to her face and they are covered in blood. How in the world do you get blood on your hands while holding a pitchfork? Minor, yes, but annoying. This is not "Dracula Has Risen From the Grave." It is just not scary or interesting. In all, a disappointment.

This is a lovingly put together homage to Classic British horror, with lots of little Easter eggs got fans of the genre to look out for.

It starts slowly with a haunting ghost tale before taking us into stories of witches, magic, murder and demons, all interconnected to one a single cursed house.

If you are expecting a big budget horror or a modern slasher flick you will be disappointed, but this is worth a watch for anyone that enjoys a tribute to the bygone age of film making.