User reviews

The visual look of Luz is out of this world and has a vibe all its own. If you just happened upon this film on cable one night, you could easily think someone like Dario Argento had a hand in producing this at some point in the mid or late 80's. It has a gritty, 16mm aesthetic that's hypnotizing and makes the film hard to shake once its over. I only wish I could say the same about the threadbare story that does anything but linger with the viewer.

Acting is strong across the board with everyone giving convincingly wild and bizarre performances and there are some great images that will stick with you, but Luz could have used a few more drafts of the script before it went into production. Also, at barely 70 minutes, there are moments of the film that seem endless. It's pretty lightweight in terms of story, but it's a great exercise in style and mood.

... by a self help group from a secure psychiatric asylum to replicate the images they live with when not on their prescribed medication. That, or the cast and crew had discovered and used LSD just before filming began. You may need to do the same to make rhyme or reason of any of this.

Not the easiest film to find, I'd wanted to watch this for a while after the trailer did what all good trailers should do. I'm hooked to start, with a opening shot that's held uncomfortably long, ambitious considering the overall thrifty run time. It's stark with a retro grade and worn VHS look. The minimal aesthetic really appeals, but there's something missing, there's very little warmth or investment in the characters, with a palatable dirt on screen that permeates everything. For all the tension being ramped, the grime, the editing, the hyper scripted dialogue, it all slowly pulls apart. Despite it's stunted plot of a devilish nature and generally undesirable characters, there are some pluses. The score being one, reminiscent of an 80s slasher flick, it's definitely the films strongest asset. The European art house feel makes it feel cinematic, intentionally confusing in nature. Scenes built around slow creeping shots, almost entirely on one set, with often inactive people, waiting. Director Tillman Singer clearly has a thing for Lynch. As things progress it does manage to find its feet, with a second act reminiscent of a small theatre play, time frames overlapping, lines twisting through their own narrative into others, it's wonderfully bonkers, albeit a tad overplayed. It's all precursor to a truly off the wall finale, that although ambitious, really just doesn't work and ends in a bit of a disjointed mess. It really doesn't live up to its trailer, but I'm still pleased I gave it a go.

Suppose to be horror, but the only horror was a few seconds of mouth to mouth exchange of gastric gases (well, suppose to be human essence I suppose, but if you think about it - it makes no sense). The remainder of the movie was a cute attempt at being artsy w/lots of editing & flashbacks of just talking heads both imaginary & real. Even the hypnosis was corny.

I was in the mood for a heavy art flick, so I was already bracing myself for a lot of languid pacing and droning shots. Luz definitely scratched the itch and aesthetically I really enjoyed it. It feels very much like vintage Cronenberg, using 16mm film and a lot of well framed slow pans as well as a wonderfully moody synth score.

The way the narrative is expressed is vague and nonlinear. I realize this is part of the overall style, but can't help but feel it was taken a step too far. I'll admit I lost track of what was going on at points, and it was only through digging online and re-watching scenes afterwards that I was able to piece it all together. It's aim isn't for "anything goes" surrealism, there's actually a cohesive plot that's steeped in horror/sci-fi tradition, you just gotta do some work to put it together. If you enjoy unravelling riddles, this might be up your alley, but I personally prefer films you can decipher on the first watch. At only 70 minutes, there certainly was room to spell things out a little bit without fully loosing the abstract edge.

I've heard this was a student film, if so, great work, keep it up! I love your vibe, but can you help me out and explain things a little more next time?

One word describes this movie. "Bleh". No suspense, no horror, not even a real plot. You start the movie confused, you end the movie confused. Kind of a mystery...... A mystery of why was this filmed at all. I gave it two stars because of the impressive atmosphere and filming. Straight out of the 80s.

An impressive little artsy film. Some really haunting imagery. I personally just needed a little more story. I mean, it's there. There is a narrative thread in there, but I personally would have enjoyed a more flushed out story. Nevertheless, it's a intriguing watch. Definitely some things in here I've never seen before. Enjoyed it.

As the comment title says : all the themes touched by this movie were done better before. Pacing is slow just for the sake of it, you never get invested in the characters and whoever tagged this as "horror" was severely misguided. Calling it "artsy" is also an overstatement- "Luz" is just stingy with its props. All in all - a waste of time

If anyone is like me, you do a small amount of research before going into a film. Check how well received it was by our peers both numerically, and of course, by comments.

I know taste is subjective, you can't make all people happy all the time. If you don't have the proper expectations going into a film, it will not end well. People think horror, and sadly, the western stylized formula is what a lot of loud and unhappy reviewers will show up. They go in with the wrong ideas and end up hating a film.

I look at movies like anything else in my life, what am I in the mood for? Going into new films I keep all plot related stuff a mystery, I just try to grab a feel for how people received it.

I grew up in the 80s. I've seen a stupid amount of data. After you have seen enough movies, you end up back to where all these other highbrow reviewers like Siskel and Ebert talk about hating. They can get quite passionate. That's a good thing.

Incase most haven't really paid attention, new movie ideas are like kidney stones, so imagine. You can have a really good one, it's rattling around just causes lots of fuss. You keep trying to get it out; but sadly, it will arrive in its own time. So that means there is a lot of wasted, uneventful happenings before you can take notice.

Everything is a re-make, re-imagining, re-monetizing of a property until its been worn out. Wait a few years, then it's re-boot baby. That's why films like this need to be appreciated. To go back to my stone analogy, when you get a great film, it changes you. Now, I'm not talking evangelical hand to head, 'ya-healed!' style of change. No. The change I mean is, it effected you in a very real way. It caused you to feel. Sure, you don't always end up feeling like you wanted, but that's the joy of movies!

If you go in with expectations for whatever braindead Rock and Hart (I love them both, but let's be real. They ain't brought in to reinvent the wheel. They are purely there to show they change ish up.) project we get every couple months. Studios are the devil. They want more and more, so they will George Lucas/Disney the ish out of an idea. Then when it's dead, they go and play around in their toy box of "safe bet" movies, change the lead to a POC or someone that is supposed to embody a minority group, add more females, and strain their o-ring until it gives up.

That's not change. That's not paying attention to the real problems. Yes there are groups under-represented; but that doesn't mean you just take a classic, paste different faces, and expect big box office numbers. Then you're angering the group being used as a prop to show how "woke" they aren't, and then you have the people who don't like all that change and come from a different time, being angry because it just looks like appropriation.

Yes we all have things to learn from one a other, period. Unfortunately you can't force it, because somehow a closed mind gets even more closed than their wallets.

You're wondering what that has to do with this movie, and I get it. It's not just about this movie tho. It's a trend in reviews period. We have a vocal group of people that are very closed minded and don't like different. They think the anonymity of the internet means their "expert" opinion needs heard.

Yes this is a unique movie. No, most won't like it. You have to understand and appreciate films. Yes, films always comes off pretentious, but it is an art form. Not everyone gets it. I'm hoping maybe someone will see this review and give something a real chance, or actually reevaluate their life choices.

If you always do what is safe, you get SW Ep 7. It takes all the cool things we loved growing up with, and tries to copy that. A copy of a copy, isn't as sharp. Multiplicity taught me that long ago. If you just copy, you are doing no effort. You're a lazy c unit that just wants money.

The 80s were the best time for movies because people did coke, and they tried crazy stuff! Sure, they kept trying to bleed the stone in some cases, but they tried different things that worked. It was big, loud, and unapologetic. We have lost that loving feeling.

This film is a movie, told like a play. Chances are, if you got this far, you're the type to watch this film. If you bounced pages back, you are happy in your bubble, so kudos.

It is a small budget independent film, and indi is movie for heart. They are projects someone cares about so deeply, they have to get it out there. Look at vintage Kevin Smith, or Sam "The Man" Raimi. They had a dream. They saw it clearly and they went for it. Sure it could look a bit Velveeta; but they become classics because true believers can always see the heart. Rocky Horror, Marvel and Stan. These dynasties that were a project of love that came from humble beginnings.

So this film is about possession, and they take the most unique way of telling a story. It doesn't hold your hand, as all good movies should not. It's not like next level Nolan mind bending, but it is still out there deep in right field. It is an experience. If you are sitting there going, "wtf?" that is a feeling. That's the movie speaking to you. I look at it like, the more violated and emotionally charged I am coming out, the more successful that story was at being told.

Sure this film feels slow, meandering. Much like my reviews... But it's a crazy ride. It has you off balance the whole time. It is an atmospheric piece. It reminds me of late 70s horror. The music, the way the set pieces made you feel. It was all part of the story, and built that level of suspension of disbelief.

How you tell stories involves how you set the parameters. There has to be rules. Like back in the day sunlight, garlic, stake to the heart. Don't fall asleep. Don't have premarital relations, especially in groups, in school, or out camping.

When we have the rules, we have the parameters to let us get in the headspace needed to fully appreciate and be in the film. Movies like this, or Mr. Weird & son, Cronenberg. The movie plays out in all of like, one location, but the way its framed, it's constantly changing and feels exactly like where you should feel. It plays on the theatrics that made Shakespeare so popular.

To tell a story you have to connect with the audience. By making the movie play out like theater, it grounds it in a reality that's perfectly normal, and yet very odd.

Not a large ensemble, a handful of characters. The story is the one trying to be a star, and it uses whoevers body to tell it.

If you go in looking for Exorcist, you'll be disappointed. If you are a student of story; and/or appreciate set pieces instead of flashy effects, you should come away appreciating what they did. It's not some game changer, but there aren't that many of those that happen often. It's that rarity that makes it such a winning high. It still takes a story we've all seen and heard before, and it owns it. It grabs the idea and makes it manifest.

Just because it isn't something I'll be thinking about long after, like It Follows, Antlers, Hereditary, Serbian Film, or Human Centipede, but it was more than adequate as an adventurous watch to be enjoyed.

This was incredibly boring and just plain bad. The beginning was sort of interesting only in the way that there was a sense of intensity but then the long and I do not exaggerate, long pointless shots destroyed my patients. long shots of the entry room with some guy at front desk that had no point. Long shots of guy setting up chairs On and on. Felt like I spent an eternity in just 20min. of this film which was all I could take before i started to hit fast forward.

I adore Simon Waskow's score - persistent, tense, and slowly building in the background. I love the performances, all filled with a quiet, nuanced intensity. And I greatly appreciate the way that these words also describe 'Luz' as a whole. This is very low budget, very low key, and very out of the ordinary - and brilliant in the way it organically integrates into the narrative the sidestep of its limitations. Built on extremely subtle implementation of supernatural horror, the feature relies on the power of suggestion - in the story, but also in how the story is told.

This is absolutely extraordinary - taking place mostly within the setting of a single room, yet through its incredible, underhanded approach, nonetheless taking us to many different places. The film is short in duration, yet huge in scope. It's deeply minimal in appearance - and at first blush, seemingly disordered - yet nonetheless crafts an astounding, unsettling atmosphere, and conveys a complete, coherent, cohesive, and masterfully compelling tale that far exceeds its basic construction. Why, given the nature of the production, in some ways this feels like an experimental stage play, executed with utmost refinement. Major feature films with substantial financial backing have achieved much less with far more, and have been far less successful in communicating a very real and awe-inspiring sense of horror.

It's hardly possible to single out just one person in the cast, because everyone gives a phenomenal performance well beyond what their few collective credits would portend. The effects in the movie are bare-bones, but the blood, fog, and a few other minor visuals look great, more than what one may expect of such a picture of such humble origins. This is accordingly the first feature of writer-director Tilman Singer, and moreover it apparently began as a student film. Especially with that in mind, I very much look forward to seeing what Singer makes in the future; this is an exemplary debut of exquisite, delicate film-making and storytelling. The screenplay is outstanding in all ways, and as a director Singer likewise shows a capability transcending his inexperience, arranging scenes of far greater sophistication than what they appear on the surface.

It's difficult to write further without broaching plot points, and I would soon begin to repeat myself. I can certainly appreciate that this isn't necessarily the sort of movie for a wide general audience - it's pointedly understated in its approach to both craft and narrative, and delightfully, deviously sneaky and cryptic in exploring that approach to its fullest. Yet the great joy the movie represents is in its defiance of the superficially uneventful, disjointed presentation to weave a tale of supernatural horror that stands tall with the best known and most well acclaimed features of the genre. Ultimately, no matter how I try to explain, this is a picture you just need to see for yourself. As far as I'm concerned, 'Luz' is one of the most remarkable horror films I've seen - absorbing, captivating, satisfying, and rewarding, and deserving of significantly more attention and praise than I alone can provide. Wherever you can watch it, this earns my highest recommendation!

If you require a cohesive story to enjoy a movie, just skip this. It's fully abstract, surreal, and non-linear, through and through. I still don't know what happened but I'm glad I watched it once. The movie is only 70 minutes long, so really it's no longer than a long episode of series programming. It goes by very quickly thanks mostly to very striking and atmospheric visuals, downright bizarre dialogue, AND some effectively creepy performances from nearly the entire cast, ESPECIALLY red-headed Julia Riedler who really stole the show, managing to give her intriguing character some serious complexity with not much to even work with, story wise. The music and photography were also both fantastic! Really, the main flaw is simply that... I have no idea what any of it is supposed to mean, in any manner, whatsoever. LOL. But, hey, it sure beats this years other surreal horror option, IN FABRIC. :)

It is a 2018 German thriller film. I was very excited when I saw the movie with a rating above 5 points, but after watching it, I didn't know what to rate it. It would be unfair to the audience if I gave points for the music played at the end. There is neither plot nor horror elements in the movie. You know, I barely finished it by taking 4 breaks in 2 days. Even though it was 1 hour and 10 minutes, it was never ending. Then I looked at the reviews that gave it such high ratings that for some viewers it was the best movie of their life. It was just empty talk. The movie doesn't say anything. He can't even develop a logic within himself. Close your eyes for 1 hour and 10 minutes and you will have a much better time.

There is plenty of sexuality and nudity in the movie.

Pros:

• Good atmosphere
• A decent retro-like background score
• Decent Direction

Cons:

• Sub Par Acting Performances
• A confused script
• Unnecessary long sequences of nothing happening (more like watching paint dry)
• A very low budget, which shows

Conclusion: A lot of hollow style over substance.

I recently watched the German 🇩🇪 film Luz (2019) on Shudder. The story revolves around a woman recounting the tale of her old friend, Luz, to a police psychologist. What unfolds is a unique love story of sorts, centered on a demon that is obsessed with Luz and will stop at nothing to possess her. As the psychologist listens, he becomes entangled in the story in unimaginable ways.

Luz is written and directed by Tilman Singer (Cuckoo) and stars Johannes Benecke (Cuckoo), Jan Bluthardt (Cuckoo), along with Kate Dervishi and Keshav Purushotham.

This is a very distinctive take on the possession genre. For a film that's only 71 minutes long, the setup is surprisingly detailed. The backstory involving a Catholic school is particularly well-done, adding depth to the narrative. The scenes where the demon passes between characters are executed impressively, with the makeup, blackened eyes, and possessed mannerisms enhancing the eerie atmosphere. The acting across the board is strong, and I especially appreciated the film's use of lighting and smoke to heighten the tension.

In conclusion, Luz is a unique and compelling possession film that I thoroughly enjoyed. I'd rate it a 7/10 and highly recommend it.

Interesting little movie about demonic possession. The pacing is a little slow, and some of the sequences are deliberately confusing (unnecessarily, I think). But the attempt to make a real mind-eff movie ultimately fails because it's not coherent OR confusing enough to be really compelling (if that makes sense).

I did enjoy the story and the lead actress's performance. And I also enjoyed the woman who played Nora.

It's short, so if you've got 70 minutes to kill, it's not the worst thing you can watch.

Someone wrote a review saying that they can see both sides of the coin when it came to this movie and then proceeded waffling with this long winded speech as boring as this movie. When I watch horror movies I don't have any expectations. As far as I know, every horror movie is stupid until proven otherwise. This movie never proved me otherwise. 30 minutes into the movie I paused it to go to sleep. It made my eyes heavy and it made me weary. An absolute snoozefest. However, I woke up and the show must go on. People said this movie is confusing and it is. It jumps straight into it and with no prior research there's no backstory. Even if this wasn't a horror movie and it was a psychological thriller, it still would be boring. It doesn't matter what genre this movie is, it is boring. As far as I'm concerned, the producer is just another writer with a pen and too much money to burn.

So when a movie is nominated and wins awards and also has quite a nice review score, does that mean that if you (and/or I in this case) think otherwise, would that mean that you/I would be in the wrong? I would argue that is not the case. The thing is whatever you feel while watching a movie is yours and you should own it.

Own it as the makers of this own their (bad) trip, which is actually quite stationary. It is also trying to impress by throwing a lot of things into the mix. It does try to visualize certain things and yes there are analogies. The question is at what rate does the viewer care and how much will the lack of acting (or rather the talent thereof) play a role when it comes to the viewing pleasure? As stated above and as of this monent, the movie has a rating well over 6 (out of 10), which is quite high. Will it change once this comes out in cinemas tomorrow? Maybe, especially because it won't just stay with festival audiences and more importantly it will be seen by more people who'll understand and can detect .. let's call them flaws in the script and dialog. Friends actually were talking about pseudo intellectualism, but then again the joke is on them (and me), since this is an awarded film after all (no matter if it was at places were german dialog might not have been understood)

I see how this film could be a near perfect little film, or a complete bore, depending on the viewer, so to qualify my comments let me make two observations right up front: this is a film about the supernatural - not the ghostly or the horrifying or the bloody, but the mystery and menace of something that is beyond the natural as we know it. That moment when you realize you might be part of something you never thought was "real" as opposed to being chased by monsters (although there is some blood, and some violence to be fair). And if you are not a viewer who is attuned to the sense of disquiet, or who can find suspense in seeing something not quite right and wondering why or where it may lead, then this movie will not resonate. Do not bother. You'll get impatient or be bored. But if you find yourself intrigued and captivated when, say, someone's behavior in a bar seems weirdly unnatural, then drop everything and gives this film a chance! It is like the best of the early David Lynch before he become a terrible parody of himself; when he could imbue a doorway or a radiator with menace by the intensity of his gaze and the music and sound that accompanies it. In this film, more often then not, it is in the eyes of the characters and how long they stare before they speak. If you are attuned to such nuance this movie will creep you out from the very first shot.

A comment by another reviewer perfectly sums up the difference between potential viewers: they said that one scene was a man "pointlessly" setting up chairs; however if you are the kind of viewer who would immediately notice he is arranging the chairs like a taxi cab for some sort of re-enactment, and start wondering how any role-playing is going to tie in and where will it lead, then this is definitely your kind of movie.

I loved every minute of it and I was greatly impressed by the increasingly clever manner in which a simple set-up was being developed. I don't want to spoil any surprises by even hinting at what I mean by that statement; for the right audience the best way to experience this film is in complete ignorance of where it is going and how its going to get there. I had heard only that it was frightening, but it is more of the disturbing uneasy variety as opposed to the jump-scare traditional fashion and I, for one, found it legitimately suspenseful throughout (and that even includes the lengthy single take set-up at the very beginning). Excellent performances, assured direction, effective use of limited locations - this film has everything going for it in addition to a familiar concept developed in a completely original and stimulating fashion.

For the right audience, that is.

I don't know who and why does this, but 5.5 is a rating this movie should never get. I. EM. DEE. BEE became an unreliable source because of fake reviews and it is a huge problem. I remember how we could rely on rating and enjoyed the movie, but last few years idi**ts make reviews and we get good ratings for crap movies. Millennials ruin everything, and they managed to ruing as well.

Watching water boil is more intense than this movie!

I give Luz a 5 out of 10. I do this because I at least owe the makers of this movie their due. I think they did what they set out to do. The problem is that they didn't include the audience. A movie can be a lot of things; smart, angry, dijointed, simplistic, action packed, erotic, whatever.... But doesn't it still have to be appealing? Otherwise what's the point?

Trust me. Whatever underlying tones or metaphors are present with this movie will not be reached by hardly anyone. And I would contest that those who claim to understand what's going on with this movie are fooling you and themselves.

These art movies can continue to be produced the way they are. That's fine and even great, but give the audience a payoff, or something. Anything at all. This movie doesn't deliver anything for the effort you will put into watching it.

This is a disjointed mess. I honestly have no idea what I just watched. Absolute rubbish. I love horrors and mad films, but this was just a mess.

Most of reviews will say this is boring. I agree.

Even though the beginning feels intriguing, the slow pace and the incoherent structure quickly turns into an absolute pain to watch.

Even being a very short run of 70 minutes, it felt it was dragging and I was begging it to end, only to see if there was anything worth the wait, but there wasn't.

The cinematography is interesting at points, hence the few points I gave to the movie, but it's definitely not anything new or mind-blowing.

Calling this artsy is a bit of an overstatement, that's where I disagree with a lot of people in the reviews. It abuses this late trend of going "retro", using film to show grain automatically setting people's minds into the feeling of "wow, how cool is this", but it's been a while for me that's become old (again), it's overdone and it's even starting to annoy me when there isn't a real point to film in this way besides self-indulgence. Some times there's a point, and it adds up to the whole content of the movie, here it seems to be the only thing, along with the "retro" score, which was quite good at the beginning, given intensity to the atmosphere of the first scenes, but going quite bland after the first act.

The story is simplistic and broken in a way to make it seem to be complex, but it isn't. It's also very disjointed and confusing, not in a way that's enjoyable and requires thinking, but in a way that's incoherent, clumsy and boring.

The acting isn't great at all, and even if it creates some atmosphere at the beginning, it turns into a lack of connection with all the characters.

It feels quite pretentious to me, there's a lack of focus and a solid script and it abuses the "retro" trend to look cool.

There're some people complaining about the low budget showing, I don't think this script would have done better with a higher budget, the lack here was in creativity and skills.

The language diversity thing didn't make a point as far as I can think of, and it was really hard to understand when they spoke Spanish, which is my mother language. Another pointless aspect of the movie.

Can't think of much good on this one, I liked the very first 10-15 minutes and the poster. That's it.

Wouldn't recommend watching it.