Psychosis

This is not a real review, it should be taken more as a collection of impressions on the film.

Very slow and also quite boring film with a beginning that doesn't have much to do with the rest of the film and an ending that is the only slightly nice thing that the whole film has to offer. So the film is bad even if the ending is nice because even if the final twist is a bit the opposite of what I expected, the rest of the film is meaningless and very boring. Another thing is that the film dates back to 2011 and the way it is shot looks like a B-series horror film from the 1980s. So in conclusion the ending is valid but the rest is rubbish.

I didn't find this movie as slow-moving as most, but it WAS as pointless as they've written. At first the ending was marginally surprising until I thought about it for five seconds. The only reason it was surprising is because of the misdirection of the movie's first 10 minutes. Remove that and the lease ingenuous viewer will know what the deal is after about 30 minutes.

Very linear and predictable with extra characters that really do nothing to advance or even influence the story. It really could have been told with about five characters.

Very little was done to explain why the lead sees what she sees other than a few vague words from a medium, but even at that there is no explanation as to why she sees things now, but apparently never did the first 35 (or so) years of her life.

Still, it's decent enough for ambient viewing while loading a dishwasher or doing some paperwork. You've seen it enough times to not have to pay rapt attention, but it's not some obviously cheap, horribly acted flick that shoots entirely in day-for-night blue.

Just saw this a couple of days ago, and am still wondering why this was made. First off the plot for this film could barely of filled a 10 minute short, and yet was stretched to fill the duration of this so called feature. All the layers that the director mentioned he added in the making of made no sense, didn't go anywhere and added nothing to the film. Acting was beyond poor, especially by a certain lead man. Lighting seemed flat. On the upside, some of the special effects seemed pretty well done (a fake head in particular) but are not enough to save the film.

The only interesting thing on the DVD was the making of, and interview with the cast. Maybe they should have got that guy to direct instead.

Watch at your own risk.

Charisma Carpenter does a reasonable job here as Susan Golden, an American crime writer who relocates to England (Somerset?) with her English husband, David, played by Paul Sculfor. He's not so convincing though and, if this film were to work, he would have needed to be. However, the script writers have a lot to answer for in giving him such rubbish dialogue.

Glossing over the first five minutes which features a bunch of eco-warriors getting slaughtered (and that's not a reference to the Special Brew they drink), the pace here is just too slow. The wooden acting, predictable plot through the middle of the film and unsparkling dialogue all conspire to make this hard work to get into.

Ricci Harnett, as Peck the cock-flasher, has been in some better things than this. He just needs a bigger part (ahem!…).

I was interested to watch Justin Hawkins in a straight part, as I only know him as a rock star. Guess what he appears as here? Yep. And is he any good in that part? What do you think?

This could be edited into a half-decent 30 minutes, maybe 45. The last few minutes, tying everything together, were well done, which gets the film a second star. But as it stands, it's really not very good.

'Psychosis' is an example of a movie that I'm sure read brilliantly on page. The story is there, old English house, horror writer retreat; descent into madness, at times it reminded me of the Demi Moore film 'Half Light' although that's an example of how it should be done. The setting of 'Psychosis' is spot on creating a country atmosphere similar to 'Watcher in the woods'. However hampered by wooden acting (save for its two leads) and stilted dialogue, it's hard to warm to the characters or become engaged in the story.

Charisma Carpenter and Paul Sculfor are both easy to watch and had they been given a slightly bigger budget, tweaked dialogue and better surrounding actors then this could have been a winner. There is some chilling vision in the film (notably the tent scene at the start with the man licking the feet, cryptic I know but I don't want to spoil anything) but that vision seems to fade into clichés very quickly. There is a twist, it's a small one but unique and again showed potential for something better.

I watched this because I am a Charisma Carpenter fan so to other fans out there I will say its better than Scyfy's awful 'House of Bones', so if it comes down to the two watch this one.