Psychosis

This is not a real review, it should be taken more as a collection of impressions on the film.

Very slow and also quite boring film with a beginning that doesn't have much to do with the rest of the film and an ending that is the only slightly nice thing that the whole film has to offer. So the film is bad even if the ending is nice because even if the final twist is a bit the opposite of what I expected, the rest of the film is meaningless and very boring. Another thing is that the film dates back to 2011 and the way it is shot looks like a B-series horror film from the 1980s. So in conclusion the ending is valid but the rest is rubbish.

I'm a massive fan of this movie, it's a perfectly executed re-imagining of 1983's Scream Time. Charisma Carpenter is a great choice for the lead role of 'Susan' and she successfully pulls off a difficult character arch that sees her transform from a settled, confident woman into a truly tortured soul. Ricci Harnett is also great as the rather creepy groundsman 'Peck' and Paul Sculfor is a very clever choice for Susan's husband - adding a level of credibility and logic to the film that I won't spoil with this review. If like me, you like your horror to be full of suspense, thrills, sex and deception - you should watch this movie.

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.

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.

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.