Psychosis

Just saw this a couple of days ago, and am still wondering why this was made. First off the plot for this film could barely of filled a 10 minute short, and yet was stretched to fill the duration of this so called feature. All the layers that the director mentioned he added in the making of made no sense, didn't go anywhere and added nothing to the film. Acting was beyond poor, especially by a certain lead man. Lighting seemed flat. On the upside, some of the special effects seemed pretty well done (a fake head in particular) but are not enough to save the film.

The only interesting thing on the DVD was the making of, and interview with the cast. Maybe they should have got that guy to direct instead.

Watch at your own risk.

'Psychosis' is an example of a movie that I'm sure read brilliantly on page. The story is there, old English house, horror writer retreat; descent into madness, at times it reminded me of the Demi Moore film 'Half Light' although that's an example of how it should be done. The setting of 'Psychosis' is spot on creating a country atmosphere similar to 'Watcher in the woods'. However hampered by wooden acting (save for its two leads) and stilted dialogue, it's hard to warm to the characters or become engaged in the story.

Charisma Carpenter and Paul Sculfor are both easy to watch and had they been given a slightly bigger budget, tweaked dialogue and better surrounding actors then this could have been a winner. There is some chilling vision in the film (notably the tent scene at the start with the man licking the feet, cryptic I know but I don't want to spoil anything) but that vision seems to fade into clichés very quickly. There is a twist, it's a small one but unique and again showed potential for something better.

I watched this because I am a Charisma Carpenter fan so to other fans out there I will say its better than Scyfy's awful 'House of Bones', so if it comes down to the two watch this one.

Just terrible. Bad acting, bad script, pacing was 100% predictable and there was not one cliché left uncopied. The only press this is going to get is from extraneous, irrelevant tabloid schlock. Once the film is seen by more than just the makers of the movie, its going straight to the bargin bin. There were a few redeeming special effects but tossed in but with the nonsensical storyline, it hardly saves the movie. To add a twist convincingly, you have to make us care about the protagonist, there was no one in this movie that didn't look like they just walked out of a spray tan booth and teeth whitening salon. Just aged actors who seem to think by flashing a smile and looking pretty, they can compensate for their plastic personas. Did not enjoy this one bit sad to say. Funny that almost all of the 20 something votes for this film are 10/10, wonder where that came from? I would suggest avoiding.

I really wanted to love this movie. I just can't though. For all its good intentions and all the nice ideas, it is too flawed in the end. While obviously not a big production, it does feel bad from the get go. Poor editing choices and cinematography do not help the case either. It's not badly done, but you can see that it was rushed and therefor not much care has been given to some shots and performances. There are a few occasions where Charisma seems out of it. And while some may call it a nice addition to her role it is obvious that this was not meant that way.

Charismas husband (in the movie that is) is even worse than any other player in the film. There is the gardener, but you almost don't care about his performance (especially during a dinner scene). But the husband does a good job at being bad. Which is a bad thing for the movie. The ending might feel like a saving grace (and I don't know the movie another reviewer who's ecstatic about it, raves about), but don't let that fool you.

I didn't find this movie as slow-moving as most, but it WAS as pointless as they've written. At first the ending was marginally surprising until I thought about it for five seconds. The only reason it was surprising is because of the misdirection of the movie's first 10 minutes. Remove that and the lease ingenuous viewer will know what the deal is after about 30 minutes.

Very linear and predictable with extra characters that really do nothing to advance or even influence the story. It really could have been told with about five characters.

Very little was done to explain why the lead sees what she sees other than a few vague words from a medium, but even at that there is no explanation as to why she sees things now, but apparently never did the first 35 (or so) years of her life.

Still, it's decent enough for ambient viewing while loading a dishwasher or doing some paperwork. You've seen it enough times to not have to pay rapt attention, but it's not some obviously cheap, horribly acted flick that shoots entirely in day-for-night blue.