Lord of Misrule - Herr des Schreckens

Tuppence Middleton Ralph Innes.

This film joins a raft of folklore horror films over the years. To be fair though it was pretty well put together and I liked the pace. You don't always have to have action, beautiful actors, gratuitous violence and cgi..this is just an honest and decent sinister film. Special mentions to Tuppence Middleton who I thought was outstanding and very plausible as the vicar. Ralph Innes played his part very well too. People giving this 9 or 10 of 10 are way off the mark, as are those clowns giving it 1s and 2s. It's a decent effort in a saturated market, and while I likely wouldn't watch it a second time I did enjoy it.

We have a vicar who rarely acts very religious (except in church) and drops F-bombs casually on multiple occasions. Her spouse seems like a bitter atheist and will not pray with her. I mean, they seem more like an average mismatched couple - one theistic, one not - than AN ACTUAL VICAR OF A CHURCH and her husband.

People get angry and then calm down within seconds. They don't have much respect for the vicar and treat her more like a random crazy woman than anything else. The children even start chanting in a vulgar way, gleefully, without a hint of fear or embarrassment at acting that way in front a church pastor.

I feel like Lord of Misrule is a patchwork attempt to mimic other, older horror movies. Like mixing 1970s The Wicker Man with 2000s Silent Hill and a random urinating scene like the original version of The Exorcist.

Lord of Misrule does have atmosphere and lovely folk horror aesthetics yet the writing and character development are significantly wanting.

In 2023's Lord of Misrule we are introduced to a woman who moves to a small rural English village to take over the church. After the villagers celebrate the Winter Festival, her young daughter suddenly disappears and therefore her search for her missing daughter begins.

The movie is a pagan horror story with a suspenseful atmosphere and some mysterious characters. But sadly the movie mostly falls into some generic plot lines and has no outstanding strengths. There's not much special to talk about that the movie could use to separate itself from the masses. It is directed by William Brent Bell who directed quite a few horror movies before ranging from pretty good to pretty bad and I think this one just walks the line of being average. It's not terrible but also not great either and the movies biggest strength is probably the casting of Ralph Ineson as one of the villagers. However I did like the ending and therefore I overall don't regret watching this. [5,2/10]

If you ever seen a horror movie, the chances are you know from the start where all this is going. And there will be no surprises.

So the main problem of this movie is the plot, its based on classic folklore stories and follows the path that so many movies (or even child stories) have shown before. Which might be good... but it does not exceed any expectation.

So some might call it a classic, some might call it a cliche. Either way, its not unique, its not new, even the creature - I saw it in dozen other movies, and I can name multiple where its simply executed better ("The Ritual", for example).

In other terms, it is mediocre. Characters are not very likable or believable. The motivation of the antagonist (for example) and his image - I believe they are severly lacking any originality or style, they are so superficial it hurts.

Ending is simply weak - culmination is unsatisfying. It is simple (which is good sometimes), but it ain't smart or fulfilling, or entertaining in this case.

So I'd say the score I've given in generous. It's a mediocre movie. Some might say its okay, some might say its bad, but there is no basis to call it great - that is for sure.

I see multiple ways this could've been a better movie (just add a single thing that isn't a trope), but it is obvious that nobody bothered here to create something new or unique, this is just same old same old once again.

It's not a perfect film, but it does a lot right and is worth your time if you like this type of thing.

In line with what I expected from the director - the story is going to be a rehash and not perfect, but certainly nothing offensively bad.

Casting, Directing, general pace is all fine... I notice a few other reviews complaining about the pace - absolutely nothing wrong with it, it's building tension and the general meh of rural life.

The writing, as others have pointed out, is a bit... well traditional Folk Horror... but where is there to go with it? If you've read a few Folk Horror books you'll notice the same things coming up: Harvests and sacrifices - often unwilling. So... complaining that a Folk Horror contains all the required Folk Horror tropes seems a bit odd to me (which seems to be the running trend here).

It leans heavily into Christianity vs The Old Ways, and treats Christianity with a rare respect - the Vicar is not a overtly double standard kiddie fiddler for once, they're a sympathetic character that you can get behind. Some clever steps here: make it CoE and make the Vicar female. Allows an awful lot of legwork to be done in your head.

Does it want to be The Wicker Man, well obviously.

Is it The Wicker Man, well... course not - but what is? You can't compare a Michellin Movie with a midrange offering - you'd be a fool.

The casting is superb, not only Middleton and Ineson, but the supporting cast as well - they carry the middling story a very long way.