Lord of Tears

Director Lawrie Brewster's LORD OF TEARS is the story of James Findlay (Eaun Douglas), who has inherited his family estate in the Scottish highlands. Said estate was the source of many childhood nightmares for young James. His late mother even attempts to dissuade him, via a letter left for him, from moving into the place.

Unperturbed, James moves right in... and the new nightmare begins.

First off, let's talk about the house itself, which is one creepy place! The exterior looks like an ancient asylum crossed with a mausoleum. The interior is a labyrinthine collection of tight hallways, countless rooms, and winding staircases. In a word, it's perfect!

Strange occurrences start almost immediately.

Enter Eve (Alexandra "Lexy" Hulme), an American woman who is eager to help James uncover the truth about his past. Ms. Hulme's Eve is a beguiling, playful woman whose every move seems seductive. Her dance and swimming pool entrance scenes are unforgettable! There's something different about Eve. Something mysterious and somehow foreboding. She undergoes a transformation that almost defies description. Ms. Hulme delivers the terror in spades!

Brewster captures a growing sense of dread, perfectly. His film is fittingly surreal without tumbling into absurdity. It's also scary as hell! The house, the grounds, and the surrounding landscape are characters in themselves. This is for those who enjoy the macabre, the gloomy, and the doom-filled.

And we haven't even mentioned the enigmatic Owl Man...

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.

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.

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

This was a recommendation, it was suggested to me that this looked like it could potentially be scary stuff! It was not, it truly truly wasn't.

Lord Of Tears is one of those horrors that thinks it's a lot smarter than it actually is, an over convoluted plot, an arthouse look and student film level quality.

An English horror I'm surprised just how much I walked away disliking the film, some of the visuals are adequate but there is just no substance, lackluster performances and honestly the plot is a mess.

I like the concept I do, but it was utilized so incompetently it left the film a barely watchable embarassment.

I'm not a great lover of British cinema at the best of times but this is British cinema in the hands of people who have no place in the industry.

Certainly one to avoid.

The Good:

Beautiful scenery

Visual effects are quite good in places

The Bad:

Acting is sub-par

Comes across like a bad arthouse film

Awful scoring

At several points I did actually ask myself what the hell I was watching

Plot is seven shades of awful

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

No accent grinds on me more than a Scottish one

You can stay in the Mansion featured in the film for just under 400 British pounds per night