Beezel

It's a straightforward enough story enhanced by the smart direction of Aaron Fradkin and the creepy cinematography by Keelan Carothers. With one location a handful of actors and a musical score akin to Kubrick's The Shining, Fradkin and his team weave a mystery surrounding the house and the thing that lives in the basement in a manner that pulls you in and keeps you guessing.

I also need to give props for Beezel's design which was unsettling to say the least.

The only complaints I can manage is the latter half of the story isn't as interesting as the first with the movie veering into more predictable territory with the final couple which causes the well-earned energy of the opening and second act to fizzle out a bit.

What an impressive contained horror film! Not unlike Sinister or Barbarian, Beezel takes a single location and succeeds in building out an intriguing, unnerving lore, replete with a badass creature design for the witch (who, in classic Hitchockian fashion, appears only briefly- so much spookier than a ghoulie who's crammed down your throat!).

The use of found footage adds to the atmosphere (very Longlegs) without being overly used or trope-y. And like any horror movie worth it's salt, Beezel has a spine-tingling sound design that will haunt your dreams.

Grateful I don't have a basement-- I would never being going in it again!

The story of Beezel is told over the course of 60 years, the film broken into four acts, each taking place in a different decade. The setting is a suburban house, the basement of which is home to a hideous flesh-eating witch, whose victims are provided by the owner of the property.

The premise is a good one, and the first three segments do a great job in building the atmosphere and tension as people investigate the gloomy basement or poke their noses into dark recesses, with the threat of Beezel suddenly emerging from the shadows to rip off their head. And that one jump scare involving the care nurse and the old woman is a belter.

Unfortunately, instead of building to a suitably crazy climax, the film fizzles out in the final act, with a very disappointing ending that fails to do the rest of the film justice. It's not helped by the fact that the acting in this final part of the film isn't the best. It's a shame, because director Aaron Fradkin's handling of his film is, for the most part, very good, an impressive mix of standard storytelling and found footage, with great sound design and a wonderfully unsettling creature.

Fradkin is definitely a talent to keep an eye on, but this one fails to live up to the hype.

5.5/10, generously rounded up to 6 for IMDb.

I just don't understand all the hype around this movie. Social media influencers pushing this movie ecerywhere as "scary AF". First off.. it had a good start that got me intrigued, but it was so slow, and had you hanging into suspense waiting for something to happen, and it was just meh. I can put partial blame on the overall editing here. They needed more story line with scenes ending in a payoff vs. Lots of suspense, weird music, and disjointed story telling. Acting wasn't good, and has confusing characters. The opening sequences are the best with very little good after.

I do agree with others... these 8+ reviews on here are totally planted.

I haven't enjoyed such a mediocre film this much in a long time. Aaron Fradkin is truly a skilled filmmaker. He understands the material he has and is aware of the kind of film he can create with it, doing his absolute best within the given framework. The end result isn't a high-scoring, blockbuster masterpiece with a massive budget, but rather a mid-level film with a limited budget and even limited chances of theatrical release... And within its genre, the film is truly a cult classic.

Please watch this movie and similar movies with this logic... And please appreciate such cinema workers.

I hope this movie gets a chance to be sold on blu-ray or at least on itunes.