Lord of Misrule

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.

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.

Starts off with some promise but quickly outstays it's welcome. Ralph Ineson does a good job of playing brooding local Jocelyn Abney but the plot regarding the disappearance of a vicars daughter at a harvest festival thingy has nowhere particularly exciting to go.

Folk horror with its strange pagan symbols and odd country folk with their odd country ways, it's not actually that scary is it?, not in this movie anyway. And it starts to grate after a time.

It reminded me somewhat of a better and rather underrated movie called The Witches from 1966.

Word around the village is the daughter has been abducted by a harvest spirit called Gallawgog.

The mother of the child is played by Tuppence Middleton and she looks suitably anguished throughout and does a good job I thought.

To be honest this was a hard slog and i started to not particularly care what the outcome was. Young Evie Templeton puts in a good turn as the missing daughter, and maybe if your in to Folk Horror more than me you will enjoy it more.

I found it rather washed out and worse , unintentionally funny at times.

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.

All the pieces are in place here for a decent folk horror, but Lord of Misrule never really takes off. Tuppence Middleton does an okay job but I could never believe in her as a vicar. She, her husband, and their child are just a 'meh' sort of family. And all the pagan elements are things we've seen a dozen times already. A trio of people standing in the mid-distance wearing animal heads. A rambunctious festival hiding something more sinister. Corn doilies and whatnot hanging from trees. And then, of course, a missing girl, and sacrifices, and so on, and so on.

It's not bad, exactly. But none of the characters behave in particularly believable ways, which means that it's hard to get invested in them. This, combined with its lack of originality, makes it all a bit of a slog.