I was pretty disappointed with this one. The story sounded interesting but after a poor beginning with ridiculous editing and 2 characters I couldn't really care less about I thought about switching it off. I stuck with it to the surprisingly good ending but I certainly wouldn't bother watching it again. I know horror movies are supposed to be far fetched and most of the time it is easy to forget how silly the plots can be but I couldn't do that with The Devil's Chair. I just couldn't believe that a man declared criminally insane and charged with murdering his girlfriend would be let out after just 4 years for a field trip back to the place where the murder is committed. And that 4 other people would voluntarily go with him. Oh and this place seems to be in the middle of nowhere. The acting is decent enough (although I did get distracted sometimes by the fact that the actor playing Nick resembles a potato). The special effects aren't bad either but the pacing is so slow. I really struggled to sit through the first hour. As well as it being boring in places, I found the narration really irritating. Especially when the picture would suddenly freeze and Nick would provide some comment. Were these supposed to be funny? Because they weren't. The only reason I rated it as high as 4/10 was because of the ending. The twist at the ending is predictable but that doesn't stop it being violent, gruesome and disturbing - exactly as horror should be. It was the only part of the movie that provoked a feeling in me other than boredom or irritation. It was pretty uncomfortable to sit through and watch and was extremely well done. But is it worth watching the movie just for the last 15 minutes? Personally I don't think so. If you are into blood and gore the movie delivers on that front but unfortunately not really on any other.
52 Reviews
A poor "Session 9"...
ashmeu116 April 2009
People in an old abandoned asylum ? Going crazy ? Dying ?
We've already seen it all before, and this time, although the production and cast are decent (the overall sound design is actually quite good despite too many squishy noises), I just can't help but think of Brad Anderson's excellent (if flawed in its own ways) "Session 9". Way better.
Sorry, but since braincells don't work on cash, a low budget doesn't excuse a poor script.
So let's make it short : if you want gore & predictable "twists" you might enjoy this one ; if you'd prefer a better film go for "Session 9". My vote is 3 out of 10, however totally unreasonably raised to a 5 due to Matt Berry's appearance (I'm a Boosh fan), and Zoe Keating's beautiful score.
We've already seen it all before, and this time, although the production and cast are decent (the overall sound design is actually quite good despite too many squishy noises), I just can't help but think of Brad Anderson's excellent (if flawed in its own ways) "Session 9". Way better.
Sorry, but since braincells don't work on cash, a low budget doesn't excuse a poor script.
So let's make it short : if you want gore & predictable "twists" you might enjoy this one ; if you'd prefer a better film go for "Session 9". My vote is 3 out of 10, however totally unreasonably raised to a 5 due to Matt Berry's appearance (I'm a Boosh fan), and Zoe Keating's beautiful score.
Unusual but undelivering horror flick
wellthatswhatithinkanyway15 March 2010
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning
Reckless Nick West (Andrew Howard) takes his girlfriend to an abandoned warehouse to drop acid, but when she sits on a weird chair, she is sucked into a demonic hole, leaving Nick traumatized. Years later, he's in a psychiatric hospital run by Dr. Willard (David Gant) who is the first person to give his story any credence. He offers him escape from the asylum if Nick returns with him to the scene of the mystery to conduct an experiment. But as members of the group go missing, it becomes clear something evil is lurking in the walls of this eerie place...
When I first caught sight of this bizarre looking straight to DVD horror film, I soon cleared the sight of it from my mind, but finding it again in the bargain bin at Morrison's, I thought...why not give it a try? While I don't feel I completely wasted my time, it does feel like a wasted opportunity in a lot of respects.
Adam Mason's film is unsure whether it wants to play as a straight out mind fu*k, gore porn horror flick or a self referentializing parody of the genre, with the lead character giving voice overs saying how we'll like it 'if we saw Hellraiser or Pumpkinhead' and at one point lamenting what 'a poorly written, badly acted' film it's become, either the way the writing feels uncertain of itself and in turn loses the audience a bit. The gore factor really kicks in at the end, shocking even by horror standards with all the blood/distress on display. Either way, you're more likely to sit lost on The Devil's Chair than be on the edge of it. **
Reckless Nick West (Andrew Howard) takes his girlfriend to an abandoned warehouse to drop acid, but when she sits on a weird chair, she is sucked into a demonic hole, leaving Nick traumatized. Years later, he's in a psychiatric hospital run by Dr. Willard (David Gant) who is the first person to give his story any credence. He offers him escape from the asylum if Nick returns with him to the scene of the mystery to conduct an experiment. But as members of the group go missing, it becomes clear something evil is lurking in the walls of this eerie place...
When I first caught sight of this bizarre looking straight to DVD horror film, I soon cleared the sight of it from my mind, but finding it again in the bargain bin at Morrison's, I thought...why not give it a try? While I don't feel I completely wasted my time, it does feel like a wasted opportunity in a lot of respects.
Adam Mason's film is unsure whether it wants to play as a straight out mind fu*k, gore porn horror flick or a self referentializing parody of the genre, with the lead character giving voice overs saying how we'll like it 'if we saw Hellraiser or Pumpkinhead' and at one point lamenting what 'a poorly written, badly acted' film it's become, either the way the writing feels uncertain of itself and in turn loses the audience a bit. The gore factor really kicks in at the end, shocking even by horror standards with all the blood/distress on display. Either way, you're more likely to sit lost on The Devil's Chair than be on the edge of it. **
Sit on it, Mason!
BA_Harrison19 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
When Nick West (Jason Statham lookalike Andrew Howard) and his slutty girlfriend Sammy (Pollyanna Rose) decide to explore an abandoned insane asylum, they discover a bizarre looking chair and use it as a prop for a spot of acid-fuelled sex. But as the couple begin to go at it, their pleasurable experience turns into a nightmare: the chair—actually a portal to a hellish realm inhabited by a rapacious tentacled demon—traps Sammy, impales her with metal spikes and tendrils, and then whisks her body away.
Unable to adequately explain his girlfriend's disappearance, West is declared criminally insane and spends four years residing in a mental hospital, after which he is eventually released into the care of Dr. Willard (David Gant), who, along with assistant Melissa (Louise Griffiths) and psychiatry students Brett (Matt Berry) and Rachel (Elize du Toit), unwisely takes his patient back to the scene of the crime to face his demons.
According to the opening waffle from West, his story will be worth our while, but as the film ultimately reveals, he's not a man to be trusted: The Devil's Chair is a massive waste of time.
After over an hour spent building a fairly intriguing story around the premise of a supernatural chair, writer/director Adam Mason attempts to pull the rug from under the viewer's feet in the film's closing moments by revealing that virtually nothing that we have seen has actually happened, but has instead only taken place in the warped mind of Mr. West.
It's a hackneyed, over-used plot device from a director desperate to make sense of his very muddled movie; matters are made all the more irritating thanks to the smug nature of the script, which positively delights in the fact that us horror fans have once again been shafted by a film-maker with no ideas of his own (even his visual style is trite and unimaginative, with an over-use of nasty editing techniques—particularly freeze-frame).
As well as displaying utter contempt for his intended audience, Mason also fails to deliver on a more superficial level: the movie's supposedly ultra-graphic outcome is quite bereft of satisfyingly nasty gore (there's loads of blood, but the film shies away from showing us too much juicy detail); and rather inexcusably, neither busty ex-Hollyoaks babe Elize du Toit nor tasty brunette Louise Griffiths get nekkid (du Toit strips down to her bra, but reveals nothing she hadn't already shown in the Sunday morning soap).
When all is said and done, however, I should probably thank Adam Mason for making The Devil's Chair: now, rather than waste my time explaining exactly what it is that I loathe about much of today's horror output, I can simply point in the direction of this film and say 'there you go'.
Unable to adequately explain his girlfriend's disappearance, West is declared criminally insane and spends four years residing in a mental hospital, after which he is eventually released into the care of Dr. Willard (David Gant), who, along with assistant Melissa (Louise Griffiths) and psychiatry students Brett (Matt Berry) and Rachel (Elize du Toit), unwisely takes his patient back to the scene of the crime to face his demons.
According to the opening waffle from West, his story will be worth our while, but as the film ultimately reveals, he's not a man to be trusted: The Devil's Chair is a massive waste of time.
After over an hour spent building a fairly intriguing story around the premise of a supernatural chair, writer/director Adam Mason attempts to pull the rug from under the viewer's feet in the film's closing moments by revealing that virtually nothing that we have seen has actually happened, but has instead only taken place in the warped mind of Mr. West.
It's a hackneyed, over-used plot device from a director desperate to make sense of his very muddled movie; matters are made all the more irritating thanks to the smug nature of the script, which positively delights in the fact that us horror fans have once again been shafted by a film-maker with no ideas of his own (even his visual style is trite and unimaginative, with an over-use of nasty editing techniques—particularly freeze-frame).
As well as displaying utter contempt for his intended audience, Mason also fails to deliver on a more superficial level: the movie's supposedly ultra-graphic outcome is quite bereft of satisfyingly nasty gore (there's loads of blood, but the film shies away from showing us too much juicy detail); and rather inexcusably, neither busty ex-Hollyoaks babe Elize du Toit nor tasty brunette Louise Griffiths get nekkid (du Toit strips down to her bra, but reveals nothing she hadn't already shown in the Sunday morning soap).
When all is said and done, however, I should probably thank Adam Mason for making The Devil's Chair: now, rather than waste my time explaining exactly what it is that I loathe about much of today's horror output, I can simply point in the direction of this film and say 'there you go'.
Pretty interesting sleight of hand horror flick fun
kafkandy7 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This flick borrows heavily from a lot of other sources, and isn't exactly as clever as it thinks it is. It's okay through the middle and loses steam for a bit. It gets interesting toward the end, some of it reminded me of Silent Hill or Hellraiser. The narration seems annoying, until you realize that the entire time the film is playing a game with you. I wish I had have seen it at TIFF last year but I'm happy with what I went to. This is worth the rental, and the dude from Snuff Box being in it is nice as well. All in all I'd say it's good, and at times a very brutal horror flick. I enjoyed the lead guy, he was good. It's nice to see horror that plays with the conventions of the genre like this.
This film doesn't belong in the genre
jhpstrydom12 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The best way to describe this film is totally, absolutely, positively crap, why? I'll tell you, it is one of those horror films that has one of those stupid plot twist in the end, the kind that doesn't put anything into perspective, the kind that leaves you with such a feeling of disappointment at the fact that they had a good concept in their hands and they ruined it completely, only with this film it felt like it was more deliberate, because you have this nice little "B" movie monster thing going for while and well into the film, guess what, it was never real it was all in his head and the rest of the movie doesn't make sense.
Frankly I think considering the mood the ending left me in, this film is a disgrace to the horror genre, I saw a quote on this film stating "It turns the genre on its head" this film doesn't belong in the genre, the world would be spared if the makers of this thing would not consider to do a sequel.
Frankly I think considering the mood the ending left me in, this film is a disgrace to the horror genre, I saw a quote on this film stating "It turns the genre on its head" this film doesn't belong in the genre, the world would be spared if the makers of this thing would not consider to do a sequel.
......What????? (there's a "kind-of" spoiler in this)
museofmusic921 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I just found this movie on my "on Demand" function for my TV.... I finished watching it about an hour ago, and I am STILL sitting here wondering what in GOD's NAME happened at the end. The last twenty minutes or so, I kept thinking "What??? When did this happen?" I feel totally stupid for saying it, but I just didn't get it. At ALL. if someone would please explain why in god's name he axe-murdered everyone t the end of the movie (well, maybe not so much why, more of how in the world the filmmakers got there from the alternate dimension of blood-eating demons) I might think better of the movie, but for now, i give it three stars for leaving me utterly confused...
A Journey Into Madness and Pain
claudio_carvalho1 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Nick West (Andrew Howard) brings the easy and filthy Sammy (Polly Brown) to the abandoned Blackwater Asylum for using acid and having sex. They find a weird chair and Nick proposes kinky sex to Sammy; however the device traps and kills Sammy. Nick is arrested and considered insane, being sentenced to the Hildon Mental Institute in spite of claiming that supernatural forces killed Sammy. Four years later, the honorable Cambridge professor Dr. Willard (David Gant) proposes Nick's psychiatric Dr. Clairebourne (Nadja Brand) to release him under his custody for an experimental treatment, exposing the truth to Nick bringing him back to the crime scene. Dr. Clairebourne opposes, explaining that Nick still has severe delusions, but in the end she accepts, with Dr. Willard assuming full responsibility for Nick. Dr. Willard, his assistant Melissa (Louise Griffiths) and the students Rachel Fowles (Elize du Toit) and Brett Wilson (Matt Berry) head with Nick to the Blackwater Asylum finding the dreadful truth about the devil's chair.
"The Devil's Chair" is an original and extremely gore horror movie that explores a dark journey into madness and pain. The story is disclosed in an environment of a nightmare and has an awesome plot point. Andrew Howard gives a magnificent performance in the role of a man considered clinically insane and delusional that believes that fights against demons and supernatural forces. The gorgeous Elize du Toit is also excellent in the role of a student that intends to help Nick and finds the truth of the devil's chair. The graphic bloodshed in the end is visually impressive and gruesome. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "A Cadeira do Diabo" ("The Devil's Chair")
"The Devil's Chair" is an original and extremely gore horror movie that explores a dark journey into madness and pain. The story is disclosed in an environment of a nightmare and has an awesome plot point. Andrew Howard gives a magnificent performance in the role of a man considered clinically insane and delusional that believes that fights against demons and supernatural forces. The gorgeous Elize du Toit is also excellent in the role of a student that intends to help Nick and finds the truth of the devil's chair. The graphic bloodshed in the end is visually impressive and gruesome. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "A Cadeira do Diabo" ("The Devil's Chair")
Not worth fast-forwarding alone.
gregkae29 July 2011
I do appreciate the effort but a pair of suspenders have more suspense than this rotten egg of death. The story evolves around an evil chair adorned with a skull and placed conveniently (probably by some deranged carpenter) in a desolate building, a former asylum. To top it off the main character - a mental patient - continuously delivers a voice-over with a lisp which I believe he suffers from, listening to which is as thrilling as a boat ride on dry land.
Believe me you've seen it done before and better (Session 9 anyone?), don't punish yourself by watching the "Chair". I dosed off countless times which was about the most refreshing thing about the whole experience.
Believe me you've seen it done before and better (Session 9 anyone?), don't punish yourself by watching the "Chair". I dosed off countless times which was about the most refreshing thing about the whole experience.
Clever
eyecandyforu1 November 2008
The Devil's Chair is not what it seems. This alone should intrigue most and it succeeds in pulling off a kind of fun scam. Add all the trappings of British sophistication and wit, throw in some Lovecraft and Barker (there's even a little Kubrick) and stir slowly. The film spins many of horror's classic scenarios and weaves them together to fool the viewer. An insane man who may not be crazy played (very, well) by Andrew Howard is taken by a team of psychiatrist/investigators back to the scene of a death that may have been murder, or some sort of supernatural occurrence having to do with a bizarre chair. The scene happens to be a spooky old abandoned building that morphs throughout the film to suit a variety of atmospheres. Totally empty, filled with decayed equipment, surreal alternate reality and finally,.... The Devil's Chair is several films rolled into one and for all it's far-fetchidness, it comes off well. I had high hopes at the beginning, some doubts toward the middle, then BOOM, satisfaction. The film manages to be light and almost funny in the midst of it's scares. I'd recommend this to horror fans, but be warned, this movie is like a magic trick, try not to get fed up with it and stop halfway through.
terrible, terrible film, don't waste your time
craigclark430 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
During the opening sequence of this film I had a very bad feeling. There was too much blood and gore too soon, almost like a preview of the rest of the film. Now come on, we all know that the scariest films are the ones that don't reveal the 'monster' until the end of the movie, or at all. I suppose there is an argument for the fact that the true 'monster' isn't revealed until the ridiculous ending, but I think the opening sequence of the movie prepared me too much for what was to come.
In short this movie had some very poor performances, some totally predictable twists and some of the worst monster effects I have ever seen (one guy in the forum describes it as a skull in a bin bag, very accurate). But for me the worst thing of all was the terribly annoying voice over, which I had hoped to God would only last the first few minutes, but continued right the way through the film, getting more and more irritating as it went.
Whatever you do do not watch this movie, its not scary, its not original, and its 87 minutes of your life you'll never get back. You have been warned!
In short this movie had some very poor performances, some totally predictable twists and some of the worst monster effects I have ever seen (one guy in the forum describes it as a skull in a bin bag, very accurate). But for me the worst thing of all was the terribly annoying voice over, which I had hoped to God would only last the first few minutes, but continued right the way through the film, getting more and more irritating as it went.
Whatever you do do not watch this movie, its not scary, its not original, and its 87 minutes of your life you'll never get back. You have been warned!
An Interesting Spin on the Classic Horror
vivisected12 September 2007
I just got back from seeing this movie at the TIFF and I will start out by saying that if you are the type of person who likes to have everything clearly spelled out for you in a movie, this film is not for you. Likewise, if you are looking for a non-stop gorefest, you are likely to be disappointed. All of that aside, I thought the movie to be very interesting and certainly worth the watch. I've never been a fan of movies with narration, but this one executes it quite nicely. The narrative dialogue is witty and often injects a bit of humor into the film. The main story follows a man (Nick) in a mental facility for the criminally insane after he and his girlfriend enter an abandoned asylum and she dies. Nick insists that she was taken by a demonic chair. 4 years later, a doctor has him released, so that Nick, the doctor and his team can explore the scene of the murder and thing quickly go down hill from there. The cinematography in this film is interesting and the sound effects give the movie a lot more edge considering the gore is minimal aside from the liberal use of blood. Overall, this movie was definitely worth watching and I look forward to its release on DVD so I can watch it again!
Take a seat, sunshine.
morrison-dylan-fan28 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Originally planning to view Ju-on: The Curse (2000) I was disappointed to find the Eng Subs not working. Scrambling round for a replacement, I found a flick my dad has recently picked up,which led to me sitting in the chair.
View on the film:
Put together in just over two weeks, the limited time to write and cover pre-production feeds into co-writer/(with Simon Boyes) co-editor/(with Hasse Billing) director Adam Mason & cinematographer Ole Bratt Birkeland giving the flick a frantic, angry atmosphere of freeze frames for cynical narration to play above, and jolts of gore. Showing real ambition, Mason links the Devils Chair to an excellent Lovecraft-style monster, made up of a mix of practice and CGI, which gets axed by burning red cuts into torture horror.
Firing a Guy Ritchie-style gangster in the middle of a Horror movie, the screenplay by Boyes and Mason leans too heavily on the "Mockney" narration, which ends up as sounding more obnoxious than angry. Swiftly nailing a macabre mythology with puzzles, the writers aim for the "Meta-Horror" sub-genre of the early 90's with the mix of Gothic chills and 4th wall breaks, but miss by the smash into reality not explaining why everyone is there with Nick West (what a memorable name!) Carrying himself with the style of fellow Guy Ritchie actor The Stath,Andrew Howard gives a very good turn as West,thanks to Howard pushing West to be above the gangster dialogue with shaking nerves of terror from sitting in the devils chair.
View on the film:
Put together in just over two weeks, the limited time to write and cover pre-production feeds into co-writer/(with Simon Boyes) co-editor/(with Hasse Billing) director Adam Mason & cinematographer Ole Bratt Birkeland giving the flick a frantic, angry atmosphere of freeze frames for cynical narration to play above, and jolts of gore. Showing real ambition, Mason links the Devils Chair to an excellent Lovecraft-style monster, made up of a mix of practice and CGI, which gets axed by burning red cuts into torture horror.
Firing a Guy Ritchie-style gangster in the middle of a Horror movie, the screenplay by Boyes and Mason leans too heavily on the "Mockney" narration, which ends up as sounding more obnoxious than angry. Swiftly nailing a macabre mythology with puzzles, the writers aim for the "Meta-Horror" sub-genre of the early 90's with the mix of Gothic chills and 4th wall breaks, but miss by the smash into reality not explaining why everyone is there with Nick West (what a memorable name!) Carrying himself with the style of fellow Guy Ritchie actor The Stath,Andrew Howard gives a very good turn as West,thanks to Howard pushing West to be above the gangster dialogue with shaking nerves of terror from sitting in the devils chair.
Utter crap
Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki7 July 2011
Stoned idiot and his hot girlfriend break into an abandoned insane-asylum, take a hit of acid and then decide to have sex while sitting in a demonically possessed electric chair (!) Said chair then comes to life(! again) and burns the hell out of the girl, as the excuse for disgusting effects. Four years later, we see this stoner, now being released from a hospital for the criminally insane and forced to return to the scene of the incident by a Cambridge doctor who arranged his release, Dr Willaird, who looks like a cross between older Sean Connery and Mick Fleetwood, with a bit of Christopher Lee thrown in.
Melissa (Louise Griffiths) and Rachel (Elize du Toit) are hot; and the rambling, stream-of-consciousness voice-overs of the lead actor are amusing to a point, but too much contempt for the audience quickly becomes tiresome. Everything else about this fourth-wall-breaking commentary on people who watch horror flicks to see gore and mayhem is either pretentious, overly gory, or just boring. And in the end, it tries to get away with its own nonsensical plot by claiming to take place in the twisted little mind of its lead character. But the producers claim that they left the film up to people to interpret their own answers. No, you put out a film which makes little sense and tried to put it off on us, the viewers, to make sense out of it.
F*ckin' yawn.
Melissa (Louise Griffiths) and Rachel (Elize du Toit) are hot; and the rambling, stream-of-consciousness voice-overs of the lead actor are amusing to a point, but too much contempt for the audience quickly becomes tiresome. Everything else about this fourth-wall-breaking commentary on people who watch horror flicks to see gore and mayhem is either pretentious, overly gory, or just boring. And in the end, it tries to get away with its own nonsensical plot by claiming to take place in the twisted little mind of its lead character. But the producers claim that they left the film up to people to interpret their own answers. No, you put out a film which makes little sense and tried to put it off on us, the viewers, to make sense out of it.
F*ckin' yawn.
Not the best nor the worst...pretty interesting at points.
innocuous3 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
As usual, opinions are all over the place regarding this film. It IS quite gory, though not unduly explicit. (The camera cuts away from an ax striking flesh, for example.) And while there are plot holes, you have to keep in mind that much of the story is from the POV of a person who has just been released from a mental asylum. I would be surprised if the story held together at all.
The overall production values are superior to most direct-to-video releases, though some of the low-light scenes are grainy. The actors are professionals (thank God!) and do a reasonable job with the material. There's some CGI that's a bit too obvious, but remember that many of the sequences are taking place in a demented mind.
The overall effect is pretty creepy. Throw in some false endings (at least two) and you have a fairly satisfying horror film. Based on the descriptions of the film I had read and comments on Netflix, I did not expect a film as good as this one is.
The overall production values are superior to most direct-to-video releases, though some of the low-light scenes are grainy. The actors are professionals (thank God!) and do a reasonable job with the material. There's some CGI that's a bit too obvious, but remember that many of the sequences are taking place in a demented mind.
The overall effect is pretty creepy. Throw in some false endings (at least two) and you have a fairly satisfying horror film. Based on the descriptions of the film I had read and comments on Netflix, I did not expect a film as good as this one is.
amateur and unoriginal
megamuirs29 March 2009
I am a big fan of English film and have been excited by recent films like The Descent, and Dead Mans Shoes in the horror genre; and I hope that filmmakers with the sort of vision that makes these films possible get all the accolades and funding that they require to continue taking English film forward.
however, this film and its director Adam 'I'm a t**t' mason, makes me embarrassed to have been born in the same country. To say this film is conceited would be a massive compliment, it attempts the self aware horror take a la 'Man Bites Dog' where the protagonist psycho talks to the audience and even at one point says 'is this what you want, this badly written, terribly acted horror movie' or something of the sort and I agree whole heartedly. The acting is shallow, the 'big plot twists' are tedious and I found it difficult to care about the characters at all.
I implore that you do not watch this movie unless you are staving off suicide with terrible self involved movies
however, this film and its director Adam 'I'm a t**t' mason, makes me embarrassed to have been born in the same country. To say this film is conceited would be a massive compliment, it attempts the self aware horror take a la 'Man Bites Dog' where the protagonist psycho talks to the audience and even at one point says 'is this what you want, this badly written, terribly acted horror movie' or something of the sort and I agree whole heartedly. The acting is shallow, the 'big plot twists' are tedious and I found it difficult to care about the characters at all.
I implore that you do not watch this movie unless you are staving off suicide with terrible self involved movies
This film thinks it's cleverer than it is....
cashiersducinemart13 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Oh, my brothers, let me tell you the story of a film that thinks it's far too clever for its own good. By talking directly to the audience and acknowledging the obvious similarities between it and other films it wants to seem smarter. And, my brothers, by using a voice-over that recalls little Alex in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, then that brings the irony up to such a level that can not be overlooked, yes?
SPOILERS: Let's just boil down this blood-drenched little film into its basic elements: supernatural thriller turns out to not be supernatural but the drug-addled delusions of a maniac. There's no subsequent twist at the end to say, "But, wait, maybe it *was* supernatural!" Add a voice-over to make the audience sympathetic with the low-rent Jason Statham clone playing the lead (Andrew Howard) and give him complete control over the narrative (the film stops for his pithy comments with maddening irregularity) to make the big switch even more of a surprise. Surprise for whom? For anyone not paying attention to the film, I suppose. Otherwise, this HELLRAISER / PUMPKINHEAD meets SESSION 9 film will shock and delight you, my brothers.
SPOILERS: Let's just boil down this blood-drenched little film into its basic elements: supernatural thriller turns out to not be supernatural but the drug-addled delusions of a maniac. There's no subsequent twist at the end to say, "But, wait, maybe it *was* supernatural!" Add a voice-over to make the audience sympathetic with the low-rent Jason Statham clone playing the lead (Andrew Howard) and give him complete control over the narrative (the film stops for his pithy comments with maddening irregularity) to make the big switch even more of a surprise. Surprise for whom? For anyone not paying attention to the film, I suppose. Otherwise, this HELLRAISER / PUMPKINHEAD meets SESSION 9 film will shock and delight you, my brothers.
Don't take it too seriously, isn't the worst film ever made but it's no classic either
Bifrostedflake11 May 2009
I only bought this film because it was on sale for £3, I didn't expect much from it but strangely I enjoyed it. That's not to say I thought it was a good movie, to be honest I thought it was a pretty bad movie but I still got a kick from watching it.
I think as long as you don't expect a brilliant plot, you can enjoy this film. There's a couple of overblown gore scenes but it kinda feels like a cheap 80's horror film which, if you're a fan of those, is nicely nostalgic.
Because they haven't over thought the plot in an attempt to seem clever, you can tell what's going to happen from about five minutes in, but the acting in the film is surprisingly decent & the effects are pretty good to boot. I liked it a whole lot more than the likes of 'Shrooms' but then this film was never going to be as good as 'Severance'. Although if you consider they only had 2 weeks to prepare this film, with only 3 days to write the script, then they did a great job.
I'll be interested in seeing the other films these guys have made to see if they can do any better.
I think as long as you don't expect a brilliant plot, you can enjoy this film. There's a couple of overblown gore scenes but it kinda feels like a cheap 80's horror film which, if you're a fan of those, is nicely nostalgic.
Because they haven't over thought the plot in an attempt to seem clever, you can tell what's going to happen from about five minutes in, but the acting in the film is surprisingly decent & the effects are pretty good to boot. I liked it a whole lot more than the likes of 'Shrooms' but then this film was never going to be as good as 'Severance'. Although if you consider they only had 2 weeks to prepare this film, with only 3 days to write the script, then they did a great job.
I'll be interested in seeing the other films these guys have made to see if they can do any better.
Andrew Howard (Nick West) carries the movie on his back
xillib30 September 2014
I was on the fence whether I should vote 4 or 5 on this. While this horror flick is interesting and has some good effects in regard to the chair itself it definitely lacks in some areas around acting and story. (For example, the main character is in an asylum. He's released to a professor who wants to write a book on what happened when Nick's girlfriend was killed. Probably not such a smart idea.) However, the lead actor, Andrew Howard, really is the lynch pin that keeps the movie together. If he hadn't been as good in the lead role I would definitely have rated this lower. He enables the movie to have enough interest for you to want to see it through to the end. There is the usual blood and guts but overall it happens in the right places and isn't done without advancing the story. If you're a fan of B horror I think that you'd like this. If you only watch horror occasionally I'd pass on this one.
Ever seen a movie proud of its own badness? Sure you have. Here's another one.
fedor821 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
TDC is a movie that shows refreshing honesty by admitting to its own incompetence half an hour before the end, but then berates the viewer for wanting to watch the film in the first place!
The movie begins with the narrator - the "berater" - looking rather gloomy and depressed, in a dark room, apparently the victim of evil forces (and in-breeding, but that's another story), a story which he is about to convey. The snag is that he will LIE to the viewer for the next 90 minutes, until he finally 'fesses up to his own killing spree, but not before hassling the viewer for being a fan of splatter horror films. (Apparently, the writer/director Mason is a staunch proponent of NOT practicing what you preach.)
West (the berater) does a bit of a Jason Statham impersonation, through the narration mainly. He even looks somewhat like a watered-down version of Statham, sort of if we took the original Statham, compressed him, starved him, and prevented him from working out for a year. The narrator is also a pause-fetishist. He keeps stopping i.e. pausing the projection in order to tell us things, not trusting our ability to watch and listen simultaneously (sort of like Mason can't chew gum and walk at the same time). So huge is the influence of the berater/liar on the director that Mason stops the movie every time the narrator wishes it. Now that's what I call intimidation.
The berater's narration, which starts off decently, gets increasingly silly. One example is when he jokes about how he easily he got Rachel to take her clothes off, while they're both sitting in Hell, drenched in blood. It is at this point, at the latest, that TDC loses any viewers that were still taking any of this half-seriously (provided the viewer in question had a semblance of taste). Then, just minutes later, he goes into a soon-to-be legendary brief rant in which he actually trashes the movie, then turns against us, the viewers, almost as if blaming US for the film-makers' ineptitude. Yeah, that's right, Jason clone, blame the viewer that you guys couldn't put together a solid horror film without resorting to moronic characters and cretinous plot-twists.
The plot-twist being that he had been lying to us all along. He IS the killer. There is no demon. It's all been made up. Nye-nye nye-nye nyeh nyeh. What an ingeniously written script. How difficult it must be to lie to the viewers. I guess hardly anyone can do that! Must take enormous talent to provide false information for 90 minutes. The director reminds me of a 5 year-old kid who'd been lying to his pal and then admits to it much later, shouting "ha! gotcha!". (That's where the nye-nyeh nyeh-nyeh comes in, if you hadn't guessed it.)
And what a moronic ending, one that has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. We have been lied to by the narrator (i.e. the writer/director) because suddenly this switches from supernatural demon-horror to insane serial-killer on-the-loose butcher-rama. Why make an effort to write a clever screenplay with intelligent plot-twists when you can simply cheat the viewer from the first minute onwards and then bombard him with nonsense in the last minutes, hoping to turn this Z-movie crap into a talked-about cult item. Keep dreaming, Mason.
Yes, Mason, a Z-movie. You referred to it as a B-movie in one your rants, but I guess you over-estimated your little horroric turd a tad. The only message I can take away from this poorly executed joke of a movie is to never trust the narration again.
Oh yeah. And to never again watch a movie made by this incompetent clown.
The blond actress playing Rachel is beautiful. The only positive aspect to this big fat mess.
The movie begins with the narrator - the "berater" - looking rather gloomy and depressed, in a dark room, apparently the victim of evil forces (and in-breeding, but that's another story), a story which he is about to convey. The snag is that he will LIE to the viewer for the next 90 minutes, until he finally 'fesses up to his own killing spree, but not before hassling the viewer for being a fan of splatter horror films. (Apparently, the writer/director Mason is a staunch proponent of NOT practicing what you preach.)
West (the berater) does a bit of a Jason Statham impersonation, through the narration mainly. He even looks somewhat like a watered-down version of Statham, sort of if we took the original Statham, compressed him, starved him, and prevented him from working out for a year. The narrator is also a pause-fetishist. He keeps stopping i.e. pausing the projection in order to tell us things, not trusting our ability to watch and listen simultaneously (sort of like Mason can't chew gum and walk at the same time). So huge is the influence of the berater/liar on the director that Mason stops the movie every time the narrator wishes it. Now that's what I call intimidation.
The berater's narration, which starts off decently, gets increasingly silly. One example is when he jokes about how he easily he got Rachel to take her clothes off, while they're both sitting in Hell, drenched in blood. It is at this point, at the latest, that TDC loses any viewers that were still taking any of this half-seriously (provided the viewer in question had a semblance of taste). Then, just minutes later, he goes into a soon-to-be legendary brief rant in which he actually trashes the movie, then turns against us, the viewers, almost as if blaming US for the film-makers' ineptitude. Yeah, that's right, Jason clone, blame the viewer that you guys couldn't put together a solid horror film without resorting to moronic characters and cretinous plot-twists.
The plot-twist being that he had been lying to us all along. He IS the killer. There is no demon. It's all been made up. Nye-nye nye-nye nyeh nyeh. What an ingeniously written script. How difficult it must be to lie to the viewers. I guess hardly anyone can do that! Must take enormous talent to provide false information for 90 minutes. The director reminds me of a 5 year-old kid who'd been lying to his pal and then admits to it much later, shouting "ha! gotcha!". (That's where the nye-nyeh nyeh-nyeh comes in, if you hadn't guessed it.)
And what a moronic ending, one that has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. We have been lied to by the narrator (i.e. the writer/director) because suddenly this switches from supernatural demon-horror to insane serial-killer on-the-loose butcher-rama. Why make an effort to write a clever screenplay with intelligent plot-twists when you can simply cheat the viewer from the first minute onwards and then bombard him with nonsense in the last minutes, hoping to turn this Z-movie crap into a talked-about cult item. Keep dreaming, Mason.
Yes, Mason, a Z-movie. You referred to it as a B-movie in one your rants, but I guess you over-estimated your little horroric turd a tad. The only message I can take away from this poorly executed joke of a movie is to never trust the narration again.
Oh yeah. And to never again watch a movie made by this incompetent clown.
The blond actress playing Rachel is beautiful. The only positive aspect to this big fat mess.
Theatre, Horror and Reflective Personality Disorder!
e-Liza115 March 2011
If you listen to the lyrics of the song during the closing credits it says: "You must learn to love your demons and your demon's name is yours!"
Take this trip of a movie and you may discover the meaning of those words.
There is theatre in this movie that is definitely my way of thinking - and surrealism and eccentric imaginative villains, and an innocent way of telling a story that reminds me of "The Avengers" with Diana Rigg when she was at her most sexy and inspiring, and the witty and charming Patrick McNee; or perhaps, for another example of what I mean, "The Prisoner" with and made by Patrick McGoohan when he was dishy!
From such British 60's theatrical antecedents come the characters in this story - charming, theatrical, existential, seeking the meaning of their existence whilst trapped in a surrealist story - is it an adventure or a dream?!
"By the pricking of my thumb, something wicked this way comes!" ... what is it? What on EARTH!
Venture into the rabbit hole, but only if you are prepared for the butcher's knife when the plot turns sour. That's the only thing I didn't like. But I recognized the truth that was being expressed - "when the White Knight is talking backwards" is the White Knight really you? ... is it what it seems ... or is everything the reverse of however you think it is? Is the mad person sane and the sane person a demon? ... Or has the film-maker become lost in their own labyrinth of reversal-of-reality and turned the story into their own demonic reversal of the truth in one way, and the truth in another way?! If so, then it is the film-maker who has turned, in a final twist, insane and the movie become their demon that they do not love! Why, oh why, did the film-maker not embrace the reflective - reversed - or Looking-Glass "Gandalf the Wizard's" oh so important question: "Is the mad person sane" and, conversely - as implied, by the truth being the reversal, and in the consistency of a mirror's reflection - "Is the sane person mad"?!
But he copped out and semi-opted for the status-quo, nouveau-riche, family values view of "reality". He could have flipped-entirely, but unfortunately he lost his thread in the mirror-maze and couldn't get out again!
Take this trip of a movie and you may discover the meaning of those words.
There is theatre in this movie that is definitely my way of thinking - and surrealism and eccentric imaginative villains, and an innocent way of telling a story that reminds me of "The Avengers" with Diana Rigg when she was at her most sexy and inspiring, and the witty and charming Patrick McNee; or perhaps, for another example of what I mean, "The Prisoner" with and made by Patrick McGoohan when he was dishy!
From such British 60's theatrical antecedents come the characters in this story - charming, theatrical, existential, seeking the meaning of their existence whilst trapped in a surrealist story - is it an adventure or a dream?!
"By the pricking of my thumb, something wicked this way comes!" ... what is it? What on EARTH!
Venture into the rabbit hole, but only if you are prepared for the butcher's knife when the plot turns sour. That's the only thing I didn't like. But I recognized the truth that was being expressed - "when the White Knight is talking backwards" is the White Knight really you? ... is it what it seems ... or is everything the reverse of however you think it is? Is the mad person sane and the sane person a demon? ... Or has the film-maker become lost in their own labyrinth of reversal-of-reality and turned the story into their own demonic reversal of the truth in one way, and the truth in another way?! If so, then it is the film-maker who has turned, in a final twist, insane and the movie become their demon that they do not love! Why, oh why, did the film-maker not embrace the reflective - reversed - or Looking-Glass "Gandalf the Wizard's" oh so important question: "Is the mad person sane" and, conversely - as implied, by the truth being the reversal, and in the consistency of a mirror's reflection - "Is the sane person mad"?!
But he copped out and semi-opted for the status-quo, nouveau-riche, family values view of "reality". He could have flipped-entirely, but unfortunately he lost his thread in the mirror-maze and couldn't get out again!
Not worth your time
basushaunak-276-86502517 December 2022
If you have absolutely nothing to watch on a lazy evening, you can watch it.
The major problem with the movie is too much reliance on dialogues. It is ok for a movie to be driven by dialogues, but the quality of dialogue should be at least average. Here the dialogues are poorly written and for some reason the writer / director thought that using the F or C word every minute makes for good dialogue.
Another major problem the movie is that it is extremely slow paced, and by slow paced I mean just slow. It does not add any quality to the movie. This is not a slow burner, it is just slow, because probably the director had make the movie of at least a certain length!
The major problem with the movie is too much reliance on dialogues. It is ok for a movie to be driven by dialogues, but the quality of dialogue should be at least average. Here the dialogues are poorly written and for some reason the writer / director thought that using the F or C word every minute makes for good dialogue.
Another major problem the movie is that it is extremely slow paced, and by slow paced I mean just slow. It does not add any quality to the movie. This is not a slow burner, it is just slow, because probably the director had make the movie of at least a certain length!
Calmly leads you down the road by the hand, then throws you in-front of a semi...
The_Brew16 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I was not expecting much going into the film when I first picked it up. I originally remembered it from when it was passingly mentioned in another review of a horror film, and merely stumbled across the title when looking for a movie to pass the time with. It will not disappoint.
The narration is the first thing in the film that will strikes one out of the ordinary, it does a good job of precisely dictating the mood of the film, explicitly comparing it with others like Hellraiser and Pumpkinhead, and creating a sense of insincerity and humor to the outstretched plot (note the solo cello closely referencing Ozzy Osbourne's "Crazy Train" as they get in and ride in the car). As the narration goes on you rightfully think it's all just another splat-stick monster movie walking in the footsteps of the ones it conveniently compared itself to from the get-go, and it should be a semi-interesting ride to see exactly what the climactic reveal will be to the light-hearted adventure that has transpired over the past hour.
This is explicitly what the movie tells you it is going to do, and also explicitly where it breaks down the 4th wall and lays into you for deciding you were going to take the time to "enjoy" it.
The narration verbally assaults you, leaving you questioning what is going on as the plot crashes off the tracks in what is soon to be a fiery (sic. bloody) mess. The change is confusingly quick and equivalent to a mental sucker-punch as you shift from Hellraiser/Pumpkinhead straight to The Shining (this reference is pretty obvious too). As you try to piece together what's left of the plot it doesn't refrain from hitting you with a few cheap shots in an unexpected flashing montage as well.
The bait-and-switch trick of the film is delightfully fresh; it's best if you have no knowledge of the film to begin with, but still effective even if you have an idea of what it's up to. The premise is admittedly cliché at the start but attempts to wrap up what it started with in the end. It does a competent job, but I couldn't help but feel it could have been a little more fulfilling and developed and answered some more details after it tore the plot to shreds. The visual work is nicely above average, and the plot change is marked by a phenomenal change and use of color that brings a great visceral impact and realism to the film. I didn't feel the audio had the same effect, but it is not lacking.
Overall 8/10: A unique film that pays homage to a number of great predecessors in an original and unexpected way. Not the best you will find, but above average and well worth the time to watch.
The narration is the first thing in the film that will strikes one out of the ordinary, it does a good job of precisely dictating the mood of the film, explicitly comparing it with others like Hellraiser and Pumpkinhead, and creating a sense of insincerity and humor to the outstretched plot (note the solo cello closely referencing Ozzy Osbourne's "Crazy Train" as they get in and ride in the car). As the narration goes on you rightfully think it's all just another splat-stick monster movie walking in the footsteps of the ones it conveniently compared itself to from the get-go, and it should be a semi-interesting ride to see exactly what the climactic reveal will be to the light-hearted adventure that has transpired over the past hour.
This is explicitly what the movie tells you it is going to do, and also explicitly where it breaks down the 4th wall and lays into you for deciding you were going to take the time to "enjoy" it.
The narration verbally assaults you, leaving you questioning what is going on as the plot crashes off the tracks in what is soon to be a fiery (sic. bloody) mess. The change is confusingly quick and equivalent to a mental sucker-punch as you shift from Hellraiser/Pumpkinhead straight to The Shining (this reference is pretty obvious too). As you try to piece together what's left of the plot it doesn't refrain from hitting you with a few cheap shots in an unexpected flashing montage as well.
The bait-and-switch trick of the film is delightfully fresh; it's best if you have no knowledge of the film to begin with, but still effective even if you have an idea of what it's up to. The premise is admittedly cliché at the start but attempts to wrap up what it started with in the end. It does a competent job, but I couldn't help but feel it could have been a little more fulfilling and developed and answered some more details after it tore the plot to shreds. The visual work is nicely above average, and the plot change is marked by a phenomenal change and use of color that brings a great visceral impact and realism to the film. I didn't feel the audio had the same effect, but it is not lacking.
Overall 8/10: A unique film that pays homage to a number of great predecessors in an original and unexpected way. Not the best you will find, but above average and well worth the time to watch.
not as good as "Broken" but still enjoyable
movieman_kev13 October 2008
Ex-mental patient Nick West (Andrew Howard) narrates the story (pausing every now and then to drop his two cents on the characters or to verbally berate the viewers of the film) of what happened when Dr. Willard, his colleague and 2 students bring him back to an abandoned asylum where Nick had seen his easy druggie girl die in a 'devil's' chair years before. Never a good idea and needless to say, it isn't too long before the spit hits the fan.
The film wasn't that original and hearkens back to hellraiser, Session 9, Pumkinhead, and a few others. However it was still a lot of fun to be had with the film and the performances for the most part were pretty good (the ones that weren't could very well have been by design). The ending could be seen coming by anyone paying attention, but it still seemed to pack a punch none the less. I'm glad I choose to view this even if it wasn't as good as Mason & Boyes previous "Broken".
My Grade: B-
DVD Extras: Commentary with Writer/Director Adam Mason & Writer Simon Boyes; a 57 and a half minute Making-of documentary; (the always annoying) corporate schilling for Blu-ray; and trailers for "Anaconda 3", "the Lazarus project", "Tortured", "Resident Evil: Degeneration", "Zombie Strippers", "Insanitarium", "Impact point", "the Tattooist", "Cleaner", "the Cottage", "Linewatch", "Burried Alive" Seasons 1-6 of "the Shield", & a promo for Fearnet.com
The film wasn't that original and hearkens back to hellraiser, Session 9, Pumkinhead, and a few others. However it was still a lot of fun to be had with the film and the performances for the most part were pretty good (the ones that weren't could very well have been by design). The ending could be seen coming by anyone paying attention, but it still seemed to pack a punch none the less. I'm glad I choose to view this even if it wasn't as good as Mason & Boyes previous "Broken".
My Grade: B-
DVD Extras: Commentary with Writer/Director Adam Mason & Writer Simon Boyes; a 57 and a half minute Making-of documentary; (the always annoying) corporate schilling for Blu-ray; and trailers for "Anaconda 3", "the Lazarus project", "Tortured", "Resident Evil: Degeneration", "Zombie Strippers", "Insanitarium", "Impact point", "the Tattooist", "Cleaner", "the Cottage", "Linewatch", "Burried Alive" Seasons 1-6 of "the Shield", & a promo for Fearnet.com
incredibly poor
Shaitforbrains2 August 2014
Warning: Spoilers
After watching this movie, i actually feel angry. The movie not only is an UTTER waste of time, but it also pisses on horror fans, and uses the oldest, most unimaginative plot-twist in the book.. that any director feels he can get away with this is a crime against every fan out there.
the acting is horrible, the directing even worse, and the wannabe "scary" narrative is totally destroyed by the main characters apparent lisp. the movie uses way to long to build up tension and when stuff FINALLY starts happening, it flops on its belly and dies wriggling.
if you liked this movie, you are either A: a pre-teen who has never watched a horror-flick or B: (sorry) an idiot! Peace out!
the acting is horrible, the directing even worse, and the wannabe "scary" narrative is totally destroyed by the main characters apparent lisp. the movie uses way to long to build up tension and when stuff FINALLY starts happening, it flops on its belly and dies wriggling.
if you liked this movie, you are either A: a pre-teen who has never watched a horror-flick or B: (sorry) an idiot! Peace out!
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
