User reviews

What were they thinking? Gothic horror can be dreary but something has to happen eventually. And if you decide to have a literal monster in your film, use something real, something genuinely unnerving, instead of an extremely poor cgi asset from a rejected PS2 game, that can barely even move.

The film also cannot justify its runtime. It might have made a half decent short film, but this is a long, boring sleep-enhancer. Watch The Others to see how a tense single mother period drama can be done effectively.

There are good ways to have a character wander around the same corridor over and over again to build tension. But not here.

Flatly acted and at the bottom of a very long list of better spooky movies. Sadly, this was dry, lifeless nonsense.

What's the point of making such a movie You have no idea what was the monster You have no idea why this monster was in that basement What was the connection between the maiden and the monster Why the monster wants the mother not the kid or father I mean there should be a connection when you have a literal monster in your basement with the owner of the house not the wife from other towns or cities And for the love of god why this movie was so long My brother said he will never watch a horror movie again and I feel the same after this movie.

And let's not talk about poor CGI , I'm sure you can find better artists in freelancing websites to do your CGI but still it's not the point the movie wouldn't be any better even with that To be honest you could make a short movie with the first and the last ten minutes and it would be much better thank you so much for wasting our time on this artistic peace of art .

This beautifully shot film is: pointless, witless, as motionless to the eye as air (i.e., glaciers seem rapid in pace), without a soul, more cryptic than Sasquatch, an empty hot air balloon that lands nowhere, and just positively knickers. It is like reading the first and last page of an H. P. Lovecraft novel over and over and over. I am so glad that someone has given this a decent rating because it is clear that the filmmakers have expended tremendous energy in gestating this project that in my opinion is stillborn. As someone with a film degree, I think a class discussion on this would be quite like discussing American politics on Reddit. Cheers!

This is simply a gem of a production...and what's not to love about a nineteenth century horror set in olde Yorkshire!

The cast are fab, as is the setting and lighting.

Horror normally, probably not one of my fave genres either and so it has to be a great story, well acted, and sufficiently suspenseful to keep me engaged.

Hopefully going to take the Mrs to see this one too and looking forward to seeing what she thinks of it as well. I think she will love it, as will most fans of the genre.

Here's hoping for more new films like this going forwards instead of pointless remakes and super hero saturation.

A Review of an Extremely Weak Horror Movie

If we want to talk about one of the worst films in the horror genre, The Monster Beneath Us is definitely a top contender. This movie is a disaster in every aspect: a nonsensical plot, terrible acting, laughable special effects, and most importantly, it is not scary at all.

The story is supposedly about a haunted house, but the screenplay is so scattered and incoherent that it feels like the writer changed direction halfway through. The characters have no depth, and their actions make no sense, so much so that the audience doesn't care about their fate at all.

The acting in this film is on the level of a school play. The dialogues are artificial and exhausting, and even in scenes that are supposed to be the peak of horror, the actors react as if they are reading a promotional text message! In one so-called scary scene, the main character stares in terror at a chair, but absolutely nothing happens.

The special effects are so weak that they look like they were made with a free mobile app. The monsters (if they can even be called that) are so poorly designed that they resemble characters from an old video game. The sound design doesn't create any sense of tension and only serves to annoy the audience.

And the most important point: this movie is not scary at all. There are no proper jump scares, no chilling atmosphere, and not a single scene that makes the audience feel uneasy. In fact, the only feeling viewers will have after watching this film is frustration over wasted time.

In the end, The Monster Beneath Us is not just a bad horror movie-it's a bad movie in any genre. If you're looking for a disappointing cinematic experience and want to waste your time, this is the perfect choice!

I had high hopes for The Monster Beneath Us, but it turned out to be one of the weakest horror films I've seen in a while. The story feels half-baked from the beginning, with no proper setup or explanation for the events that unfold. The pacing is painfully slow, and instead of building suspense, it just drags. When the ending comes, you're left more confused than scared-there's no real payoff or resolution. Worst of all, it's not even scary. There's no atmosphere, no tension, and the "monster" is barely even present. It feels like a film that didn't know what it wanted to be. Sadly, a waste of time.

Beautiful location and sets, but completely empty ending. No explanation as to what happened or is happening throughout the movie. Mildly spooky but not scary and used poor CGI. Lastly, the "son" is quite obviously a girl actress and so I assumed it would play into the story by the end, no luck. Nothing against Trans but this was like having Wesley Snipes play Cinderella, very distracting. So much potential to create a Gothic movie with excellent scenery and editing but a tot lack of plot and character development or at least explanation makes the movie come up way short of feeling like a complete production.

It 's good if you want to sleep easily after a horror movie. I never understand why 1 or 2 persons come and live in a mansion where 10 people can be easily living without even contracting with each other.

Mom always has 1 candle in her hand even in the rooms full of light. Constantly looking for Charly and Monster which Charly the little kid calls friend is not even visible or be seen by no one and again how come a kid make it a Friend?!!!!!In the Basement.

Movie and plot you better watch yourself but always have 1 candle ON especially in the rooms that are bright enough, and remember she is not looking for her ring, she is looking for a person who can be seen even in a little light.

BTW the son says no wonder why dad liked it here because it's quiet and whatever, but no one cares he committed Suicide here and why again such a big mansion in the woods for 1 adult and 1 kid would be proper and logical after a death in the same house. Honestly Based on the kid clothes and conversations with the mom , I thought they are girl and the daughter of family for the first 20 mins😂😂

If I can give it a 0 I would.

It only makes you angry for how stupid their choices during the movie and specially at the end. They didn't even try to make it a little okay.

I wasted my time watching it really. Nothing makes sense at all. And boring.

They should be ashamed of this movie honestly.....

I can't even review the story, the cast was too distracting for me to get into the movie. I guess the filmmakers wanted to take the idea of colorblind casting one step further, all the way into everything-blind casting. It was just too silly. One blond parent and one Indian parent produce a pale, blond child. A family of traditionally pasty English aristocracy have one Black daughter. A Victorian tutor is Asian. The cast is almost entirely female. Most bizarrely, the young boy appears to be played by a girl.

Personally, I don't care what performers play what characters as long as they do it convincingly. Race, gender, none of it matters as long as the person on the screen comes across completely as who they are in the story. Otherwise, instead of the story, the viewer is asked to pay attention to the artifice - the way the movie is made becomes as important as the plot, and that just doesn't interest me. I want to be immersed in a fantastic experience, not reminded that these are actors pretending.

The character of Charlie, the young son, is a perfect example. I fell down a rabbit hole trying to work out whether the actor (Marshall Hawkes) was female, and I discovered that he's listed as male and has only ever played male characters. Is he trans? No idea, but it's not relevant. That's not the issue, because, again, it's the character that matters, not the actor. It's not even his casting that's weird, its his wardrobe. If a movie wants to have a prepubescent girl play a boy, great, as long as they can pull it off. But in this case, a young, well-to-do Victorian lad had long hair pulled up in a bun. Hawkes has extremely feminine features and mannerisms, but might have been a convincing young boy if not for the hair. Not only was it distractingly anachronistic, it went unmentioned by any of the characters, and it only emphasized the performer's clear femininity. When an actor plays a role, they don't get to choose their own hairstyle. Why was this decision made? More baffling still, Hawkes has had the same hairstyle in every single role, all male, regardless of era or context. How does that happen? Is it in the contract? Is it a statement? Is the audience being challenged not to notice? Take a look at the confused reviews for the movie Prototype, in which Hawkes plays a boy named Andy, again with long hair, this time with a pink turtleneck and unmistakably female mannerisms. I can understand a director being interested in making a social statement through casting, but five directors all making the same statement with the same actor? It makes me worry this kid is being used as a pawn by the adults. That being none of my business, though, it's simply a massive distraction from this story, and a simple haircut, ordinarily a prerequisite for any actor in any role, would have avoided it. As it is, between Hawkes and the rest of the cast, the story ends up as a sacrifice to whatever statement the filmmakers were trying to make, if any, while the viewer's attention is divided trying to figure out what it is.