Beezel
- 2024
- 1h 21m
IMDb RATING
4.9/10
1.5K
YOUR RATING
Over 60 years, three guests of a cursed home discover an eternal witch who lives beneath it with an insatiable thirst for living souls.Over 60 years, three guests of a cursed home discover an eternal witch who lives beneath it with an insatiable thirst for living souls.Over 60 years, three guests of a cursed home discover an eternal witch who lives beneath it with an insatiable thirst for living souls.
Victoria Fradkin
- Nova
- (as Victoria Fratz Fradkin)
Misha Reeves
- Charlotte Hodges
- (voice)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
I agree with a lot of the positive and negative reviews on here. I think this film has both elements.
I have a soft spot for low-budget indie horror. Beezel definitely gives that feel. The story spans nearly 50 years (beginning in 1966), but the entire film gives a 70's vibe... even in 2013.
I love a retro horror film. But doing the retro thing seems to be the go-to with a lot of horror films lately... especially set in 70's or 80's. It works when it's part of the plot. But a lot of horror filmmakers seem to use this throwback style of filmmaking even when it's not really relevant to the plot.
The story is told in 4 different chapters, each with different characters. The first 3 build up like a slow burn, each giving us a closer glimpse of the horror that dwells in the cellar of a house... but doesn't give us much more than that. The less is more thing worked for me. It made those glimpses scarier.
By the time Beezel gets to its last (and longest) chapter, it kinda fizzles out into a plot that feels stale... and the characters aren't very likable, which didn't really make me care about what happened to them.
Part of me would've liked to have learned more of the backstory/origin of the evil thing in the cellar. But another part me appreciated the ambiguity. Maybe we'll learn more if there's a sequel.
I have a soft spot for low-budget indie horror. Beezel definitely gives that feel. The story spans nearly 50 years (beginning in 1966), but the entire film gives a 70's vibe... even in 2013.
I love a retro horror film. But doing the retro thing seems to be the go-to with a lot of horror films lately... especially set in 70's or 80's. It works when it's part of the plot. But a lot of horror filmmakers seem to use this throwback style of filmmaking even when it's not really relevant to the plot.
The story is told in 4 different chapters, each with different characters. The first 3 build up like a slow burn, each giving us a closer glimpse of the horror that dwells in the cellar of a house... but doesn't give us much more than that. The less is more thing worked for me. It made those glimpses scarier.
By the time Beezel gets to its last (and longest) chapter, it kinda fizzles out into a plot that feels stale... and the characters aren't very likable, which didn't really make me care about what happened to them.
Part of me would've liked to have learned more of the backstory/origin of the evil thing in the cellar. But another part me appreciated the ambiguity. Maybe we'll learn more if there's a sequel.
The movie consists of three separate stories spanning a timeframe of 60 years, all involving the inhabitants of a house haunted by an evil witch. In the first story, a man whose wife and son died in the house invites a filmmaker to document his account of what really happened. Initially, the police suspected him, but after discovering bite marks that didn't match his teeth, they couldn't find enough evidence to charge him with the murders.
The second story follows a caretaker who has just arrived at the house to care for an elderly woman. The older woman begins behaving strangely, and the caretaker becomes haunted by increasingly terrifying occurrences.
The third story revolves around a couple who move into the house and are tormented by the witch.
I appreciated that the movie was divided into three stories. While it didn't add much to the plot, it was a nice twist that gave the movie more dynamic pacing. The three stories vary in quality: I enjoyed the first and second stories, but I found the third one rather weak. Unfortunately, the third story is also the longest, making the second half of the movie less engaging than the first.
All three stories maintain a creepy atmosphere and are reasonably scary. However, the film relies too heavily on cheap jump scares, which felt unnecessary since the atmosphere was already effectively unsettling. The acting is fine overall but occasionally inconsistent, making it difficult to connect with the characters, especially given the short duration of the stories.
The movie doesn't provide any answers, leaving me somewhat unsatisfied. I would have liked to learn more about the house's backstory and the witch's origins. Fun fact: the movie was filmed in the director's childhood home.
Overall, it's a decent movie and an enjoyable watch with its short runtime, but nothing about it stands out. I mostly liked it, though the first half is clearly stronger. The film loses momentum towards the end, which is disappointing. With a stronger third story and perhaps a slightly bigger budget, this could have been great. [5,6/10]
The second story follows a caretaker who has just arrived at the house to care for an elderly woman. The older woman begins behaving strangely, and the caretaker becomes haunted by increasingly terrifying occurrences.
The third story revolves around a couple who move into the house and are tormented by the witch.
I appreciated that the movie was divided into three stories. While it didn't add much to the plot, it was a nice twist that gave the movie more dynamic pacing. The three stories vary in quality: I enjoyed the first and second stories, but I found the third one rather weak. Unfortunately, the third story is also the longest, making the second half of the movie less engaging than the first.
All three stories maintain a creepy atmosphere and are reasonably scary. However, the film relies too heavily on cheap jump scares, which felt unnecessary since the atmosphere was already effectively unsettling. The acting is fine overall but occasionally inconsistent, making it difficult to connect with the characters, especially given the short duration of the stories.
The movie doesn't provide any answers, leaving me somewhat unsatisfied. I would have liked to learn more about the house's backstory and the witch's origins. Fun fact: the movie was filmed in the director's childhood home.
Overall, it's a decent movie and an enjoyable watch with its short runtime, but nothing about it stands out. I mostly liked it, though the first half is clearly stronger. The film loses momentum towards the end, which is disappointing. With a stronger third story and perhaps a slightly bigger budget, this could have been great. [5,6/10]
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.
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 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!
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 do agree with others... these 8+ reviews on here are totally planted.
Did you know
- TriviaBEEZEL was shot in the director's childhood house and he used nightmares from childhood as scares in the film.
- GoofsWhen Nova and Lucas move in, the house has been empty for ten years, and Lucas comments on teenagers breaking in. Despite this, the house is completely furnished and clean, with no apparent broken windows, no dust, no evidence of vandalism (other than the ridiculously neat graffiti), and the bed still made up.
Details
- Runtime1 hour 21 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content