The Fall of the Louse of Usher: A Gothic Tale for the 21st Century

I have loved Russell's films for years, but this one tops it all. It is inventive and stunning beyond belief. Made on a shoestring budget, but with the flair of a Hollywood blockbuster, it has humor, irony, great self-conscious acting and the biggest arsenal of consumerist gadgets since, well, Russell's own masterpiece The Lair of the White Worm. Stunning set-pieces, great visuals and a surprise-a-minute. Russell has turned to underground film-making once again (that's how he got started in the late fifties). The financial restrictions have forced him to be truly creative again. The result is this film, made on digital video. If ever a film was rightfully called mind-blowing, it's this one. There's nothing quite like it, nor is it likely there ever will be. One of the most extraordinary films you are likely to see. Ever. SEE/RENT/BUY IT NOW!

Ken Russell has made some excellent films over a long career. He has also made some bad ones, but we can forgive him for that. This 'film', however, is unwatchable. I am at a loss to explain the positive comments posted on this site.

Let's be clear about what we're dealing with. This film is shot on a hand-held camcorder. The 'actors' appear to be random friends of Mr Russell. The plot is non-existent. Everything about this film is horribly, horribly wrong, from Russell's own heart-breakingly awful acting to the shoddily arranged orgy of inflatable dolls and dinosaurs. Post-modern? Now come on, that's no excuse. Not for THIS. Ironic? Post-ironic perhaps...? let's hope so.

This is not the Ken Russell we know and love; not at all. If you are new to his films, do not start here--start anywhere but here. If you like his films, my advice would be to avoid this like the plague, since it may well spoil your appreciation of his classic works forever.

Claims that the film contains complex symbolism etc. etc. etc. are unfounded. The cultural references, which an intelligent man like Russell should be in complete command of, are lazy and childish. And even to a person such as myself, who adores 'The Devils' and all its spawn in the realms of cult trash film-making, 'The Fall of the Louse of Usher' seems in extremely poor taste throughout. It leaves an unpleasant taste, even were it not for the sad fact of its having been made by one of Britain's greatest directors of the 60s and 70s. And so i have called it unwatchable. I have lent it out twice, and twice i have heard the same---neither could sit through it. I'm sincerely unsure whether i ought to admire those reviewers who have had the patience to watch it through, more than once as it may be.

As i conclude, i am still unhappy. This is because words cannot describe how awful this film is. It is simply beyond my power to explain. If it has found a sympathetic audience amongst some (as it seems to have done), then i suppose i am glad. But Ken, what were you thinking? Obviously this film went straight to DVD and had no general release. If you really wish to see it, try to rent it; buying it at full price is a significant risk, as you may, like me, end up hiding it away in a cupboard so you don't have to see it on your shelf beside classics such as 'The Devils', 'Women in Love' and 'Gothic'.

Even though his work was always wildly indulgent and overblown, I've enjoyed the unique excesses of Ken Russell's cinema, being fond of several films because they're good (if still excessive), flamboyantly bad, or some campy mix of both. He's always done best under pressure from a generous budget and strong studio or producer oversight.

Left to his own devices, and abandoned by the film industry, this farcical goof only tangentially related to Poe themes is silly, shrill, amateurish, sophomoric-ally sex-phobic, and aims to shock in a dated early 80s punk/New Wave cinema mode. Its wit is mostly a matter of horrible puns, community-theater "foreign" accents, and in-joke references. The performers ham in Russell's preferred over-the-top style, albeit without the skill of the professional actors he once used--none worse than Russell himself, who plays a mad doctor with a vaudeville Nazi accent and is not a pretty sight as his face has gone spotty-red and pustule- ridden.

That said, there are some funny touches--as in the "Premature Burial" upending, an early gag involving one of those singing/tail-waggling fishes on a trophy placard, or a late sequence exploiting a huge blowup children's slide--and even on zero budget Russell retains a knack for lending nearly every shot some sort of surreal flash. (Whether that means having an actor in a gorilla suit or utilizing a multicolored plastic Slinky.)

It gets better as it goes along, but there's still a feeling of glorified home-movie indulgence by an attention-hungry old man only further caricaturing his image as a filmmaker who never should have been taken seriously. That's unfortunate, because (skipping his TV work as a separate issue) from "Women in Love" through at least "Lair of the White Worm" he made strikingly distinct if always flawed contributions to the art form. (Russell will never get a Knighthood, unlike just about anyone else who's got a long high-profile career in British cinema, because he's just made too many movies HRH couldn't be associated with.)

This is nothing more than a cheap ass home movie done by a director who should have known better.Its not that there is anything wrong with this being made but the look and feel of it is that of a goof made among friends over a weekend for their own amusement. Regrettably someone though the rest of the world would find it equally enjoyable and released it on an unsuspecting world.

The plot has Roderick Usher ending up in a asylum for murder where goth and allegedly racy things are going on. There music and jokes and tasteless stuff. Mostly there is an undying urge to turn the DVD off and put on one of Ken Russell's other films...anyone of them.

I'm a Ken Russell fan. I've always liked that fact that no matter what he did there was always something interesting to look at or see somewhere in the movie. Here there is nothing. Its a complete waste of time.

Oh how one of the cinema's great directors has fallen....

I've just had the pleasure of seeing the premiere of this extraordinary movie in London - it's a trashy, hallucinatory riot that just proves what can be done with a shoestring budget and lots of enthusiasm.

It's rare to see any movie these days without having been exposed to a large amount of hype, reviews etc, before even entering the cinema. Here, I had no idea what to expect. In some ways it's a shame that this film is likely to receive the critical acclaim and cinema release it deserves: but this also helps to keep it a delicious underground secret. Search it out and enjoy.

The rarest thing of all is to see a cinematic genius and artistic visionary like Ken Russell take full command of a movie, shooting it at home on digital video without interference (or budget) from a studio.

There are several ways that people have attempted this in the past: we have Lars von Trier's Dogme manifesto that used video to create a documentary-style gritty realism. Then there was the Blair Witch, which was more an exercise in clever marketing than a real innovation: the video medium was used - as in von Trier's movies - to convince the audience of the reality of the situation. Alan Cumming and Jennifer Jason Leigh's recent 'Anniversary Party' was shot on DV but pretended to be celluloid, showing that a low-budget video could look like a much more expensive affair.

But with the Louse of Usher, Russell goes with the video grain, revelling in the cheap nasty look of DV, and creates a hallucinatory world from deliberately cheapo blow-up toys, joke-shop props and even bouncy castles. The ugly, contrasty look of DV enhances the crumbling white makeup and tombstone teeth of the characters. Far from the documentary-style realism of Dogme, Russell creates moments of decadent synthetic visual madness that fully suit the video medium.

It's hard to imagine that this project was initially intended to be a studio-funded, medium budget film: the whole concept is so suited to the bargain-basement production values. The deliberate use of cheap blow-up plastic toys reminds me of how John Carpenter used a beach-ball for the alien in 'Dark Star'... instead of trying for something a bit more realistic and expensive looking, both directors choose to use their low budget to humorous effect by exaggerating the cheapness of the props.

Then there's the plot... oh yes, the plot.. umm... poaching Poe's plots and themes and whipping them up alongside fetishy gore-trash and terrible double-entendre jokes hardly makes for coherency. Other wild Russell films have much in common with this movie in its crazed mess of a plot... but that's not what we're here for. In fact, the disorientation is deliberate - we're being shown the muddled state of a crazed musician's mind, in great style and humour.

The cast (an a-z of 'underground') and all who took part were contributing their free time at weekends, and clearly having a huge laugh in the process. Tulip Junkie as Nurse ABC Smith stood out especially- a gorgeous, kinky, trashy presence. Russell's own performance as the deranged Dr. Caligari is, of course, hilarious - and central to the manic feel of the film.

Essentially an art movie put together with all the enthusiasm and messy imagination of a home movie, the fusion creates something entirely new, totally tripped-out and hopefully a great inspiration to any film-makers who worry that DV can't be used artistically, stylishly. Bravo Ken.