The Canal

This is definitely a more familiar sort of slow-paced, atmospheric horror, but like so many of its kind, when done right they really work. This isn't a slam dunk or anything, but it's pretty effective for what it is. If you really don't overthink everything, you sort of know everything that is going on, but it doesn't matter. It has some truly strong performances here, and the atmosphere allows for some really creepy scenes to ensue. The climax could use from even more outlandish material, but as it is it makes its point and is pretty effective. For horror fans this is recommended, and for everyone else, well, look as to what types of films you like.

The family man David (Rupert Evans) and his pregnant wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) buy an old house nearby a canal to raise a family of their own. Five years later, their son Billy is the pride and joy of the family. David works archiving and editing films for his partner and friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes). When she gives a reel of a 1902 footage to work, David learns that his house was the place of a violent murder. This discover haunts David that sees a stranger inside his house threatening his son. When he finds that Alice is cheating on him with her client Alex (Carl Shaaban), David sees the stranger killing Alice and becomes obsessed to find who the suspect might be. Meanwhile he becomes the prime suspect of the police with his disturbed attitudes.

"The Canal" is an ambiguous horror movie with the story of a man that has a breakdown after learning that his home was the place of a brutal murder in 1902 and that his beloved wife is cheating on him. The story of haunting, obsession and madness has a confused screenplay and slow pace. But the acting and the dark cinematography make worthwhile watching this movie with low expectation and have a surprise. The creepy conclusion is the ambiguity of the story. Was David really insane? My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Canal" ("The Canal")

Not overly inspired, but worthy of a watch. It meanders between supernatural and psychosis. Nothing wrong with any one aspect but just seems like it never really gripped me enough to really enjoy.

The Canal is basically a ghost story mixed with a whodunit. David's wife is missing and, when he sees a mysterious man on the same night as her disappearance, he begins to suspect the man is responsible. However, his suspicions lead him to believe the man is actually the ghost of a former murderer who once lived in his house.

It's not the most original idea for a film, but it unfolds in such a way as to feel quite different. The visual aspects of this movie are very memorable, as is the performance from its lead, Rupert Evans and, combined with a simple but compelling story, the film as a whole is very effective.

For those of you tired of the dreaded jump-scare-wins plague that infests this genre at the moment (Haunting in Connecticut 2 being a prime example), The Canal is the cream that floats to the surface, as per The Woman In Black or (the good parts of) Sinister. It concentrates on David's deteriorating state of mind and the effect this has on those around him, to drag the viewer into his crumbling world, thus making his visions of the supernatural more believable. Supporting actress Kelly Byrne is also very good, bringing an unusual amount of realism into her role as the babysitter and, more importantly, the relationship she has with David.

Stealing at times from classic scenes in The Ring and The Grudge leaves it open to some likely accusations of it ripping off the Japanese classics but I think that would be a narrow-minded criticism. For the most part, The Canal has a refreshingly quirky feel to it, but in a Kubricky rather than Lynchy style and that is arguably its greatest strength because it's a shiny finish on an already polished script and screenplay.

To say that The Canal is this years "The Conjuring" is true - if you found the Conjuring scary. But The Canal feels wholly different; it sits firmly in the independent camp yet has the potential to be a runaway mainstream hit, due to its efficient use of effects and, quite frankly, ability to instill dread in the viewer.

I tweeted this as being a horror masterpiece after I walked out of the cinema. I don't think I was being too unrealistic.

A pretty effective thriller even if the script uses the usual old clichés of ghost movies. I had a good time watching it and wasn't disappointed. However, I deplore the use (around 43 or 44 minutes of film) of the real photographs of Sharon Tate's crime scene after she was brutally murdered by Manson's followers. I think that is not respectful. The director could have avoided that.