User reviews

(Some Spoilers) Long, even though it's under 90 minutes, and torturous film about a deadly curse that was cast on the Eillot family. For the evil deeds committed by the Matriach of that family Grandmother Eillot, Marj Dusay,in the distant past.

The movie Begins with two persons connected to the Eillot's being murdered. A bagger, David Scott, who hangs out on the Eillot estate and the daughter of the Eillot's gardener Anne Swales, Amanda Scheiner. As the film preceded one by one the Eillot family members are murdered by someone, or something, with a grudge against them until there's no one left, of the Eillot's, to continue the family bloodline.

Were given the lurid background of the Eillot family with stories told to us, as well as actual scenes, in the movie like infidelity murder and madness. The movie introduces us to the Eillot's as their having communion at the church at their estate conducted by father Jerome, Jerry Perna. Father Jerome at first seemed to be the only normal person in the film but even that turned out to be just an illusion. An illusion in the minds of those of us watching and trying to make some sense out of "A Chronicle of Corpses".

The movie has a number of long and drawn out sequences, that last as long as five minutes, that only seemed to be nothing more then extra padding to make the film longer and thus somehow impressive to those of us watching it. The actors in the film read their lines with monotone deliveries and blank stares as if they were on sedatives or suffering from lack of sleep. It's as if they were in the process of being brainwashed by some weird religious cult. There were also a number of scenes of people in the film giving long boring and meaningless speeches about world and local conditions, this in early 19th century America, about slavery religion war integration and the environment that had nothing at all to do with what was going on in the movie that almost ended up putting you,if you were still awake by then, to sleep.

We finally get the truth of what's happening to the Eillot's, and why, from non other then Gradma Eillot herself. This coming from what looked like the comatose Grandma who up until then never said a single word in the film. With that, by letting the cat out of the bag, about her past indiscretions that lead to the deaths and carnage that's happening Grandma Eillot now sits back and relaxes by taking poison and doing herself in.

Mind-numbing and boring movie that you just can't wait for it to finally end. Since everyone in it seems to be in some semi-conscious state of mind and that you, by watching the film, feel that you'll end up just as comatose and brain-dead as those actors and actresses in the movie.

A declining aristocratic family, rife with secrets and sexual intrigue, finds itself being systematically murdered in this utterly pretentious piece of garbage. This film asks many questions like "Who is murdering these people?" and "Why are they being murdered?" but the only question I found myself asking was "How could a New York Times film critic could buy into this tripe?" The title got me interested, but the quote on the box from a New York Times critic made me take a look. After seeing the film all I can say is "Cancel My Subscription!" How a critic from a major publication could take this film seriously is beyond me. The photography has an interesting early- 70's European feel, but that's the only compliment I can muster. While the film makes it plainly obvious that writer/director Andrew Repasky McElhinney has seen a lot of foreign films, it isn't so obvious that he understood them. McElhinney's style is as forced and unnatural as it is laughable. He tends to set his actors in static poses and forces them to disclaim the stilted dialogue the flattest possible manner. This film could be featured in the old Saturday Night Live "Bad Cinema" skit. I can't say for sure whether the acting is bad. The overall effect of the acting is bad, but I believe the actors probably delivered exactly what Mr. McElhinney wanted. I know the list of films I have reviewed here on this website must make me look like the worst kind of cinematic philistine, but, trust me, I went to Film School. I appreciate a good art film. This isn't one. I thought I would be able to say this is the worst, most pretentious piece of crap I have ever seen, but then I saw McElhinney's first film: Magdalen. Geez.

WARNING TO HORROR FANS. Don't be fooled by the title. This is not a horror movie. It is horrible, but it is not a horror movie.

We just finished watching this film and are in the process of poking out our eyes. The only bright part of this movie was the superb acting performance by the baby. Fat bastard's cameo helps, along with Elmer Fudd hunting with Bob Newhart but nothing can redeem this travesty of the silver screen. No, those actors were not in the film, but making fun of the dead script, hollow characters and aggravating plot line was the only way to get through 90 minutes of sheer boredom. Watch for the historical inaccuracies that abound. Director-producer-editor Andrew Repasky McElhinney need not worry that anyone would ever copy or redistribute his masterpiece. We have just signed up for electro-shock therapy - please pray for us!

I missed this film at the 2002 (2003?) Philadelphia International Film Festival and being a fan of horror film-- and always fond of the local arts-- I was excited to see this made it onto DVD. Sadly, this film managed to put me to sleep. Twice. I'm sorry to say there isn't a single good thing about this film. The acting is atrocious; every character speaks in the same drunken, wispy tone, and none of them speak to each other, instead giving high school grade monologues that drone on indefinitely. The photography and editing are lackluster, and it seems that no one bothered to think about consistency of color. No matter, though, because this film did remind me that M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village" is due out soon and is of a similar theme.

The kid who made this movie shows films at the public library every week. It's as if he's been spending the last ten years showing his favorite films so we'd understand his. A Chronicle of Corpses is unlike anything else, it is spectactually gorgeous and deeply haunting while the mystery and ambiguity is terminal and exactly the point. More like music than cinema.

A brilliant effort by a young director and writer. The cinematography is superb, with each transitional scene reminiscent of a major painter, such as Vermeer, Caravaggio, Da Vinci, or Goya. While the story itself is relatively simple, the telling probes the psyches of its characters with a masterful insight into their collective anxieties about their pending fates, and a thematic breadth superb in its brevity. Even if one were to take issue with the writing, the visuals alone are worth the viewing. It was also refreshing to hear a well-selected choice of master composers accompanying each major scene. It is to be hoped that Mr. McElhinney will develop his style and become a major force in new cinema.

People who hate this seem to be disappointed that it fails as a graphic horror film, despite its serial-slaying storyline. People who like it take it for what it is: An art film in the most slow, minimalist, rigorously formal, non-naturalistic mode, closer to "Last Year at Marienbad," "Bitter Tears of Petra Von Kant," et al. than any regular genre flick. I'm not saying films of this nature, which apply a very abstract technique to narrative cinema, can't be dull as dishwater or inexcusably pretentious when they fail. But for me, "Corpses" really does cast a hypnotic spell, its disconnections from period accuracy and melodramatic norm enigmatic rather than just arbitrary and annoying. Though I can understand why some folk would think it has exactly those last qualities. This movie is like an Andy Milligan bloodbath directed by Terence Davies--which is a wonderful combination by my taste, but naturally would be off-putting or simply incomprehensible to others. Regardless: Amidst several very stiff (yet nonetheless effective) amateur performances, soap opera veteran Marj Dusay is amazing in her long, stock-still late monologue about the family's sinful past. I can't believe this was made by a 22-year-old director; it's got the astringency of 70-year-old Dreyer or Bresson. Not to say it's an achievement equal with theirs--but I am very fond of it.

The decline and fall of the Elliott family (of Virginia?) is rendered completely uninteresting in this pretentious distortion of colonial era norms. McElhinney's bygone art film style evidences contempt for his audience -- those who don't admire wooden performances, high-school costume drama dialogue and dorm room allusions to cultural relativism, are simply not hip.

And yet, many technically well executed scenes do impress, considering the project's micro-budget, and McElhinney does not lose sight of his narrative objective. If you are interested in taking a look, try to focus on "whodunit?"

(Here is an extra line of filler so that my submission will reach the minimum required 10 lines.)

The aesthetic is great; Between the costumes, makeup, set, and the shots, the fog ;; the Antebellum/Gothic/Victorian style is nearly fully realized from scene to scene to scene. Sound is used to good effect, by way of ambient noise like beds creaking, insects chirping, shoes dragging along, etc. It feels authentic and soulful.

The sound work doesn't always work however. Sometimes the house feels echoey and unlived in, and birds chirping during a tense morning meeting of the family dampens the anxiety. Audio cues are either rare or too loud, music trumpets in and ends as abruptly as it begins. And at another point an actually bloodcurdling scream is softer than the big bassy tom tom drums in the background.

As for the plot, the tension and anxiety of the characters mounts too little and too late. Any urgency on the part of the family to solve the murder mystery is swallowed up by monologues that often read like journal entries (Grandma's is good), and momentum is often lost this way from one scene to the next. The characters who are most fully realized all do so without needing much (or any) dialogue at all (Swales, Thomas, Grady, The Killer, Grandma).

In any case, that's when Chronicle of Corpses is its strongest ; watching Thomas stumble drunkenly in his mourning, Grady swaggering around with his gun - Swales carrying Anna into the church --- The characters feel like they live in the world shown on the screen. So watching them get picked off should be more fun. It's just a shame that we rarely get to actually *see* it.

A Chronicle of Corpses is set in 19th century America and tells the story of the Elliott family. From the opening scenes, we know this will be a dark tale; indeed, much of that opening sequence is shot in almost complete darkness. This will set the scene perfectly for what is a story of illicit love, repression, and redemption. You can feel and see the Elliotts crumbling under the weight of the anxiety and torment over what will likely be their ultimate fate. This is not a slasher horror film; the viewer is not handed a tidy package containing all the answers but, rather demands one to ask why and what if. More art film than true horror, A Chronicle of Corpses displays excellent cinematography, an almost too lovely soundtrack for such a dark story, stark but beautiful scenery, including the chapel where the story starts and comes to its perhaps inevitable end. The acting and directing were solid. A well done, impressive independent film definitely worth watching.

A Chronicle of Corpses is not a movie for those looking for big scares or gore-filled killings. Rather, the movie provides its audience with long takes that border on making the audience feel uncomfortable or unsettled with light musical cues. The film relies on building tension through scenes that feel like vignettes of a dysfunctional and unattached family. Overall, I found slow panned shots through the woods and scenes framed like paintings to be reminiscent of David Lynch's style of slowly building tension and confusion until the climax where one is unsettled and yet still left with some grander questions. That said, while the family is supposed to be out of touch some of their performances seem wooden and uninspired and as the body count increases I felt neither a sympathy for the victims nor was I interested in cheering on the "mysterious presence."

This is an artistic film with excellent cinematography and lighting design. While there are many scenes that are shot in the dark or low light, the viewer never struggles to see what is meant to be seen. That can't be said for a lot of newer, higher budgeted films. I found the slow and quiet pace unsettling which I think was intended and adds to it.

One of the only examples of "slow cinema" from Independent Film boom in the USA of the 1990s, AR McElhinney's A Chronicle of Corpses deconstructs the summer camp slasher movie into a sequence of vignettes and tableaus that plays something like Days of Heaven crossed with Day of Wrath.

There are no other American films like this. This is a singular visceral immersive experience that you will treasure if you are a fan of art film that has something to say and bleeds to say it.

A Chronicle of Corpses is a truly artistic film, capturing the attention of the viewer with striking monologues, fascinating character interactions, and secrets that only deepen as you go. The lighting and sound effects only build on the emotion that you feel while watching. You will truly get a sense of the tension in the air, and even playfulness as the characters develop. It transports you to a different time period, making every moment unique. I would absolutely recommend this movie if you enjoy artistic films.

I love period piece movies as well as mysteries and this was a great combo! I loved how the awkward silences heightened the intensity of each scene as well as the growing fear of the whole movie. I also really appreciated the use of natural noises like the creeks in the floors and the rustling of clothes. Loved this!

I recently had the opportunity to see A Chronicle of Corpses for the first time and the version I saw was a new 20th anniversary restoration. I was impressed by the ambition and execution of this feature film made by a writer-director-producer then in his early 20s. As other reviewers have commented, the film is a clever mashup of the arthouse period dramas and popcorn teen slasher films popular in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The director does such a good job of deploying the signifiers of a particular strain of arthouse cinema--location shooting, long takes, dramatic interior lighting, period costume work, lyrical dialogue-that the slasher plot conventions, usually so predictable, actually manage to build suspense. By combining the two, A Chronicle of Corpses highlights the parallels between the moralizing and melodrama of nominally highbrow costume dramas and those of the slasher film. Like many low-budget films, there are obvious constraints to the production but the director, cast, and crew manage to deliver something unique and satisfying in a high concept frame. Newly restored, the film looks and sounds great. Having not seen the previous version, I cannot compare the two, but the restoration is well done and will hopefully help make the film more widely available.

A Chronicle of Corpses is a true work of art. Anyone looking for a cliche slasher horror film will simply not understand this movie. There is little to no gore, no violins screaming at bad guys jumping out from behind the protagonist, and no scantily clad teenagers covered in blood.

What Andrew McElhinney does offer is gorgeous cinematography shot on a beautiful location with period costumes. The remastered version reverts back to the original soundtrack which features harpsichords, simple drums and harps all of which add to the time period in which the movie is set.

But my favorite part of this film is the screenplay. It often times sounds like poetry or a Victorian novel allowing the viewer to add his or her own imagination to the visuals on the screen.

The deliberately slow pace clearly symbolizes the gradual rot of the estate, its inhabitants and of this society in general. Yet it builds to a teeth clenching climax as the viewer wonders what will become of the only truly good and pure character in the entire film.

The acting is good but Grandmother Elliot's final monologue is definitely worth watching.

So I say give your brain a break from the typical film that tries to offer a jolt of adrenaline every 30 seconds, grab a glass of wine, strike up a cigar and allow this movie to weave it's spell of suspense. You won't be disappointed.

An astonishing early film by director Andrew Repasky McElhinney, who was only 22 at the time of release. The look and style of the film hint at 70s European cinema, classical Hollywood and even the great Edgar G. Ullmer, although ACoC stands firmly on its own. No, it isn't a fast-paced slasher, nor is it "boring" as a few other reviews have suggested. With a lean 83 minutes of running time, the pacing of individual scenes is slower than "average" but with good reason. The story concerns the slow death of a once thriving plantation, ushered along by a creepy bald-headed, hammer-wielding maniac. It's pretty interesting if you actually pay attention! The cinematography, blocking, set design and (newly restored) soundtrack are all very impressive, especially when you consider the film was made on a small budget. Drawing from diverse influences across the history of film (and literature), ACoC is the odd independent production that still holds up 20 years later.

A Chronicle of Corpses is a beautiful, contemplative, and chilling art film that elicits strong feelings of horror and apocalypse throughout. I also sensed a hint of allegory and was slightly reminded of The Seventh Seal by Ingmar Bergman. Overall, a fantastic piece of cinema and highly recommended!

The languor of a failing plantation family is captured in loving, unrushed shots that allow you to revel in pictures alternatingly beautiful and ugly. In some shots you can count the pores and beads of sweat on the actors' faces; and other shots resurface and vanish as quickly as memories. The director cites various influences, but aspects of the cinematography remind me of John Waters--if he weren't obsessed almost entirely with ugliness and if he'd taken a bottle of Xanax. Kudos in particular to Marj Dusay as the matriarch.

This movie is more slow and methodical than the typical slasher film. It uses its more deliberate pace to inhence the tension from scene to scene. The setting goes hand and hand with the pace of the movie. The whole film takes place on a plantation in the American Gothic Period. The family use to be rich but has fallen on hard times. Their interpersonal relationships are a mess. This leads to a lack of communication at first, making them easier to pick off. One of the more unique things about this film is the way it deals with the kills. As stated before, I would definately classify this as a slasher. Although, it does not revel in the murder like most of them do. The kills are either off screen or so quick that I barely had time to react. This also added to the sense of tension and dread thoughout the film. The music is used sparingly and to great effect. As long as some of the scenes go, I did not get a great sense of many of the characters. However, Sara is a standout amongst the charachters. I would have liked a touch more with her though. Another drawback is that I do not believe there was a single person of color in the cast. Given the setting, I can understand why this choice was made but it is still disappointing. The identity of the killer could have been foreshadowed better. Overall, A Chronicle of Corpses was really worth the watch.

A lovely and haunting film...I have a feeling it will stay in my mind for quite a while. Planning to watch it again soon as I'm sure I missed some allusions and imagery the first time around! Would certainly recommend.