Search
Amberley Yvonne Mackenzie (9 KP) rated American Horror Story - Season 2 in TV
Nov 27, 2018
Gripping tension (2 more)
Flashback to insanity in the 60s
Psychological twists and turns
Lanabananafofana
Welcome to Briarcliff Sanitarium, ran by the Catholic church this Asylum is the last stop for the damaged souls society has decided it doesn't want to save. Lana, our sapphic heroine, wants the scoop of the century, the man behind the mask. Bloodyface. Sentenced to be held in Briarcliff to await trial for the serial killings of Bostonian women. To get to him however, Lana must get through the fearless sister Jude and the devil herself wants to play.
By far one of the top seasons of American Horror Story, Sarah Paulson portrays each character she plays with grace and dignity and Lana is no exception. The cast are incredible, Jessica Lange as Sister Jude cracking the whip, Lily Rabe proving what a talented actress she is playing the split Sister Mary Eunice, Evan Peters as Kit Walker, the misguided fool who really isn't all he seems.
Thrilling from end to end and really worth a watch.
By far one of the top seasons of American Horror Story, Sarah Paulson portrays each character she plays with grace and dignity and Lana is no exception. The cast are incredible, Jessica Lange as Sister Jude cracking the whip, Lily Rabe proving what a talented actress she is playing the split Sister Mary Eunice, Evan Peters as Kit Walker, the misguided fool who really isn't all he seems.
Thrilling from end to end and really worth a watch.
The Woman in White
8.1
Rate It
Book
The Penguin English Library Edition of The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins 'In one moment, every...
Raising Cain (1992)
7.5
Rate It
Movie Watch
From master-of-terror Brian De Palma comes this stylish psychological thriller that will keep you on...
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Session 9 (2001) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Gordon Fleming specializes in removing asbestos, but is having a hard time finding work while him and his wife just had a baby. That is until he's contacted by Bill Griggs, the owner of an abandoned mental hospital. The hospital needs a lot of work and Gordon brings his second, Phil, along with him to check it out. What is originally a three week job gets negotiated down to one week that includes a $10,000 bonus for every man involved. Gordon leads a five man team that will have to work their hardest to get the job done on time, but what starts out as a great job slowly snowballs into the most horrific thing any of them could have imagined. The crew begins turning on each other as heated arguments seem to escalate as quickly as they began. Each man begins to act strangely and differently than when they first arrived. Something that used to be in the hospital still resides deep within its darkness infested corridors and is beginning to plague Gordon's team. Some would even say that fear isn't a feeling or an emotion. It's a place that preys on the weak and the wounded.
The atmosphere in this film is just brilliant. The setting puts you on edge to begin with since it takes place in an abandoned mental hospital, but even deserted there's just something about the building that doesn't seem right. It's like something has infected the structure down to its core. The setting seems to rely heavily on luminescence or the lack thereof. Even when a room in the hospital is illuminated, it still feels dark. Darkness still overwhelms it like it's hiding something. In addition to that, there's the Mary Hobbes subplot that makes the film that much more disturbing. But the less you know about that going into the film, the better.
While the film has a fantastic atmosphere, it seems to be lacking something to make it a superb film. Everything seems to be there as the script is good, the writing is top notch, can't complain about the acting, there's a bit of a twist in the ending that's really well done, and the film stays with you long after you watch it. The best explanation is that it had all the elements of a superb film, but it dropped the ball slightly in its execution. The pieces of the puzzle weren't put together in exactly the right way, but were put together in a way that still resulted in a good psychological horror film.
Session 9 is the perfect horror film for people who like films that mess with their head. It gets beneath your skin and stays there. While the film is practically a cult classic and contains all the elements of a great horror film, it seems to be lacking something. The best way to explain it is to say Session 9 is a superb psychological horror film that just wasn't as good to this reviewer as it is to others, but that could always change with repeat viewings of the film.
The atmosphere in this film is just brilliant. The setting puts you on edge to begin with since it takes place in an abandoned mental hospital, but even deserted there's just something about the building that doesn't seem right. It's like something has infected the structure down to its core. The setting seems to rely heavily on luminescence or the lack thereof. Even when a room in the hospital is illuminated, it still feels dark. Darkness still overwhelms it like it's hiding something. In addition to that, there's the Mary Hobbes subplot that makes the film that much more disturbing. But the less you know about that going into the film, the better.
While the film has a fantastic atmosphere, it seems to be lacking something to make it a superb film. Everything seems to be there as the script is good, the writing is top notch, can't complain about the acting, there's a bit of a twist in the ending that's really well done, and the film stays with you long after you watch it. The best explanation is that it had all the elements of a superb film, but it dropped the ball slightly in its execution. The pieces of the puzzle weren't put together in exactly the right way, but were put together in a way that still resulted in a good psychological horror film.
Session 9 is the perfect horror film for people who like films that mess with their head. It gets beneath your skin and stays there. While the film is practically a cult classic and contains all the elements of a great horror film, it seems to be lacking something. The best way to explain it is to say Session 9 is a superb psychological horror film that just wasn't as good to this reviewer as it is to others, but that could always change with repeat viewings of the film.
The Merry Spinster: Tales of Everyday Horror
5.0
Rate It
Book
A collection of darkly playful stories based on classic folk and fairy tales (but with a feminist...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Dead Ringers (1988) in Movies
Sep 15, 2020 (Updated Sep 15, 2020)
Whats The Difference Between Us
Dead Ringers- is a decent movie, its the last movie david cronenberg did in the 80's. So his 80's streak ending on a low ball/a dispointment. I really liked Jeremy Irons he was really good. And the psychological espect was good as well. Other than that it was a okay movie.
The Plot: Elliot (Jeremy Irons), a successful gynecologist, works at the same practice as his identical twin, Beverly (also Irons). Elliot is attracted to many of his patients and has affairs with them. When he inevitably loses interest, he will give the woman over to Beverly, the meeker of the two, without the woman knowing the difference. Beverly falls hard for one of the patients, Claire (Geneviève Bujold), but when she inadvertently deceives him, he slips into a state of madness.
In his DVD commentary, Irons claims that Robert De Niro declined playing the Mantles due to his unease with the subject matter and portraying gynecologists, while William Hurt decided to reject the parts because "it is hard enough to play one role".
Irons was given two different dressing rooms with two sets of costumes for playing his two characters. However, given the fact that he said "the whole point of the story is you should sometimes be confused as to which is which", he chose to use only one of the rooms and combine different costume items intended for different characters. Irons also developed an "internal way" to portray each character, employing the Alexander technique for "different energy points", giving each character his own appearance.
Like i said before the psychological espect is good in this. Jeremy Irons was excellent. I wouldnt really recordmend this film, rather davids other 80's films instead.
The Plot: Elliot (Jeremy Irons), a successful gynecologist, works at the same practice as his identical twin, Beverly (also Irons). Elliot is attracted to many of his patients and has affairs with them. When he inevitably loses interest, he will give the woman over to Beverly, the meeker of the two, without the woman knowing the difference. Beverly falls hard for one of the patients, Claire (Geneviève Bujold), but when she inadvertently deceives him, he slips into a state of madness.
In his DVD commentary, Irons claims that Robert De Niro declined playing the Mantles due to his unease with the subject matter and portraying gynecologists, while William Hurt decided to reject the parts because "it is hard enough to play one role".
Irons was given two different dressing rooms with two sets of costumes for playing his two characters. However, given the fact that he said "the whole point of the story is you should sometimes be confused as to which is which", he chose to use only one of the rooms and combine different costume items intended for different characters. Irons also developed an "internal way" to portray each character, employing the Alexander technique for "different energy points", giving each character his own appearance.
Like i said before the psychological espect is good in this. Jeremy Irons was excellent. I wouldnt really recordmend this film, rather davids other 80's films instead.
Discordant Cultivation
8.0
Rate It
Book
Romance that rhymes with ruin; obsession's a song they're both fluent in. Vale tastes potential...
DARK Contemporary MM Horror Psychological
Housewife of Horror (12 KP) rated The Canal (2014) in Movies
Aug 25, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Canal (2014)
Platform: Shudder
Genre: Horror
Country: Ireland (IFB)
Running Time: 92 minutes
Written and Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Release Date: April 18th 2014 (Tribeca Film Festival)
Cast: Rupert Evans; Steve Oram; Antonia Campbell-Hughes; Hannah Hoekstra
After found footage, psychological horror films are a favorite of mine. I love how they pull you into the story, how up is down, left is right, I love to be enveloped by the plot. That tingly feeling I get on the back of my neck, the hairs standing up, I know then it has me in it’s clutches. I had that feeling with The Canal.
David (Rupert Evans) works as a film archivist, he is given a reel of footage from the police archives to watch and subsequently archive by his work colleague and close friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), which turns out to be old crime scene footage of he and his wife’s current home. It was the scene of a shocking crime in 1902, the brutal murder of a cheating wife, their children and the nanny by the enraged father.
David suspects his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) of having an affair, so he decides to follow her one night, only to unfortunately confirm his suspicions. He watches Alice while she is with her lover, and then picking up a hammer, he appears to mull over the idea of using it, only to quickly come to his senses. Walking away, he throws the hammer in to the canal on the way back to their marital home, where he has left their young son asleep in bed, alone in the house.
David, feeling sick from what he witnessed, as well as what he had considered doing about it, runs into the (quite dirty) canal-side public toilets. He hears something or someone coming in after him, and then see’s them, their feet, under the stall door, followed by fingers appearing to creep over the top of the door. He then proceeds to suffer from quite nightmarish visions that include the man, the husband, from the 1902 crime scene footage. He seems to be taunting David, whispering things to him. David, in a state of distress, manages to crawl outside, where he then witnesses what appears to be his wife being thrown into the canal; he just can’t see it very clearly or coherently. He later comes round on the floor of the bathroom, unnerved and disheveled, and makes his way home. The next morning, when he realises that Alice has not come home that night, David goes to the local police station to report her missing. Obviously, the police suspect David, “It’s always the husband” says the (inept) detective on the case.
The plot twists and turns, is it David? Is it the entity? Some great revelations about the grim history of the house come up throughout. It’s an interesting watch that comes to a disturbing conclusion.
A great little scene, that made me believe David was the killer, was during one of his viewings of the old footage. He stood up, in front of the projector, silhouetting him in front of the screen, making him appear to be a dark shadow. To me, this was the directors’ nod to David’s darkness within.
The Canal is a great psychological horror; it does very well to dig itself under your skin as you watch, and drag you in to this nightmare that David’s life has turned into. I was really impressed with the performance of Rupert Evans, tormented and devastated, he made David’s pain almost tangible. Watching him seemingly fall further into madness as the story progressed was quite frightening. I really felt for the nanny, she is a totally innocent girl who just wants to protect David and Alice’s son Billy, and can’t leave even when she knows she should. She gets dragged deeper and deeper in to the madness; everyone close to David is brought into this waking nightmare.
The ending is well, quite creepy and rather disturbing as I have said earlier. The story feels to me to have come full circle, and you can envision that it is a tormenting nightmare that will repeat itself over and over with future residents of the house for years to come.
4/5 – It’s rather worth a look if you like a good psychological horror
Lesley-Ann (Housewife of Horror)
Platform: Shudder
Genre: Horror
Country: Ireland (IFB)
Running Time: 92 minutes
Written and Directed by: Ivan Kavanagh
Release Date: April 18th 2014 (Tribeca Film Festival)
Cast: Rupert Evans; Steve Oram; Antonia Campbell-Hughes; Hannah Hoekstra
After found footage, psychological horror films are a favorite of mine. I love how they pull you into the story, how up is down, left is right, I love to be enveloped by the plot. That tingly feeling I get on the back of my neck, the hairs standing up, I know then it has me in it’s clutches. I had that feeling with The Canal.
David (Rupert Evans) works as a film archivist, he is given a reel of footage from the police archives to watch and subsequently archive by his work colleague and close friend Claire (Antonia Campbell-Hughes), which turns out to be old crime scene footage of he and his wife’s current home. It was the scene of a shocking crime in 1902, the brutal murder of a cheating wife, their children and the nanny by the enraged father.
David suspects his wife Alice (Hannah Hoekstra) of having an affair, so he decides to follow her one night, only to unfortunately confirm his suspicions. He watches Alice while she is with her lover, and then picking up a hammer, he appears to mull over the idea of using it, only to quickly come to his senses. Walking away, he throws the hammer in to the canal on the way back to their marital home, where he has left their young son asleep in bed, alone in the house.
David, feeling sick from what he witnessed, as well as what he had considered doing about it, runs into the (quite dirty) canal-side public toilets. He hears something or someone coming in after him, and then see’s them, their feet, under the stall door, followed by fingers appearing to creep over the top of the door. He then proceeds to suffer from quite nightmarish visions that include the man, the husband, from the 1902 crime scene footage. He seems to be taunting David, whispering things to him. David, in a state of distress, manages to crawl outside, where he then witnesses what appears to be his wife being thrown into the canal; he just can’t see it very clearly or coherently. He later comes round on the floor of the bathroom, unnerved and disheveled, and makes his way home. The next morning, when he realises that Alice has not come home that night, David goes to the local police station to report her missing. Obviously, the police suspect David, “It’s always the husband” says the (inept) detective on the case.
The plot twists and turns, is it David? Is it the entity? Some great revelations about the grim history of the house come up throughout. It’s an interesting watch that comes to a disturbing conclusion.
A great little scene, that made me believe David was the killer, was during one of his viewings of the old footage. He stood up, in front of the projector, silhouetting him in front of the screen, making him appear to be a dark shadow. To me, this was the directors’ nod to David’s darkness within.
The Canal is a great psychological horror; it does very well to dig itself under your skin as you watch, and drag you in to this nightmare that David’s life has turned into. I was really impressed with the performance of Rupert Evans, tormented and devastated, he made David’s pain almost tangible. Watching him seemingly fall further into madness as the story progressed was quite frightening. I really felt for the nanny, she is a totally innocent girl who just wants to protect David and Alice’s son Billy, and can’t leave even when she knows she should. She gets dragged deeper and deeper in to the madness; everyone close to David is brought into this waking nightmare.
The ending is well, quite creepy and rather disturbing as I have said earlier. The story feels to me to have come full circle, and you can envision that it is a tormenting nightmare that will repeat itself over and over with future residents of the house for years to come.
4/5 – It’s rather worth a look if you like a good psychological horror
Lesley-Ann (Housewife of Horror)
Suswatibasu (1703 KP) rated Split (2016) in Movies
Oct 19, 2017 (Updated Oct 19, 2017)
A little better from M Night Shyamalan, but still not spectacular
By far, James McAvoy steals the show in this psychological thriller, in which he plays 23 different personalities. Suffering from the condition Dissociative Identity Disorder, McAvoy reveals a dark side, where he kidnaps three girls and holds them hostage to his whims, while attempting to seek help from a psychiatrist. In between, we see one girl in particular engage with him, the trauma also bringing out her own demons. And of course a mandatory cameo from the director himself.
While the story has potential, and his acting is flawless - it lacks substance somewhat. Apart from his 'transformation', the film seems to have been created mainly on the premise that there will be a sequel, so you're left in limbo at the end with a small clue of what's next.
It's not particularly scary, so I wouldn't deem it a horror movie as such. The girls' kidnapping also seems slightly pointless, like tools in the movie so that they can showcase Kevin's (the main personality) different sides and what a 'monster' he is. Disappointing, but better than Shyamalan's recent terrible films.
While the story has potential, and his acting is flawless - it lacks substance somewhat. Apart from his 'transformation', the film seems to have been created mainly on the premise that there will be a sequel, so you're left in limbo at the end with a small clue of what's next.
It's not particularly scary, so I wouldn't deem it a horror movie as such. The girls' kidnapping also seems slightly pointless, like tools in the movie so that they can showcase Kevin's (the main personality) different sides and what a 'monster' he is. Disappointing, but better than Shyamalan's recent terrible films.