Beezel

I agree with a lot of the positive and negative reviews on here. I think this film has both elements.

I have a soft spot for low-budget indie horror. Beezel definitely gives that feel. The story spans nearly 50 years (beginning in 1966), but the entire film gives a 70's vibe... even in 2013.

I love a retro horror film. But doing the retro thing seems to be the go-to with a lot of horror films lately... especially set in 70's or 80's. It works when it's part of the plot. But a lot of horror filmmakers seem to use this throwback style of filmmaking even when it's not really relevant to the plot.

The story is told in 4 different chapters, each with different characters. The first 3 build up like a slow burn, each giving us a closer glimpse of the horror that dwells in the cellar of a house... but doesn't give us much more than that. The less is more thing worked for me. It made those glimpses scarier.

By the time Beezel gets to its last (and longest) chapter, it kinda fizzles out into a plot that feels stale... and the characters aren't very likable, which didn't really make me care about what happened to them.

Part of me would've liked to have learned more of the backstory/origin of the evil thing in the cellar. But another part me appreciated the ambiguity. Maybe we'll learn more if there's a sequel.

If you approach this movie understanding it is a low budget project, and don't have expectations of high end CGI etc., it is an enjoyable 80 odd minutes. The acting is passable, if a little clumsy at times, the story is not radical, but original enough. It is roughly split into four segments, but all one story as it develops through the years. I think, of the four segments, I enjoyed the first one, with the documentary maker the most. The last segment, and the longest one, did seem to drag a little, and had the most unrelatable characters, as I really didn't care if they survived or not. The ending was disappointing, and really didn't leave me satisfied. But having said that, I did enjoy, and would definitely check out another movie from the same team.

When I rate a film "7", It means excellence. There are no "10"'s after all, and few "8"s or 9s".

Beezel, operating on a budget level, pulls off the prize: a creative, well-shot, interesting, and frightening movie that puts the big budget productions to shame.

The story is believable due to the actors, and the techniques are great.

I think more movies of this style should be made. A low -key horror film that is stylish and makes sense story-wise cannot be that rare. Yet it is.

Perhaps the film poster is inappropriate for the film, or the studio description is wrong, but the actual movie is better different than what is publicized.

It's about a witch that occupies a home for 60 years, and how the witch haunts the different generations of families who live there.

It's a bit like "Barbarian", yes, only better in that it is less over-the-top.

Enjoy!

The movie consists of three separate stories spanning a timeframe of 60 years, all involving the inhabitants of a house haunted by an evil witch. In the first story, a man whose wife and son died in the house invites a filmmaker to document his account of what really happened. Initially, the police suspected him, but after discovering bite marks that didn't match his teeth, they couldn't find enough evidence to charge him with the murders.

The second story follows a caretaker who has just arrived at the house to care for an elderly woman. The older woman begins behaving strangely, and the caretaker becomes haunted by increasingly terrifying occurrences.

The third story revolves around a couple who move into the house and are tormented by the witch.

I appreciated that the movie was divided into three stories. While it didn't add much to the plot, it was a nice twist that gave the movie more dynamic pacing. The three stories vary in quality: I enjoyed the first and second stories, but I found the third one rather weak. Unfortunately, the third story is also the longest, making the second half of the movie less engaging than the first.

All three stories maintain a creepy atmosphere and are reasonably scary. However, the film relies too heavily on cheap jump scares, which felt unnecessary since the atmosphere was already effectively unsettling. The acting is fine overall but occasionally inconsistent, making it difficult to connect with the characters, especially given the short duration of the stories.

The movie doesn't provide any answers, leaving me somewhat unsatisfied. I would have liked to learn more about the house's backstory and the witch's origins. Fun fact: the movie was filmed in the director's childhood home.

Overall, it's a decent movie and an enjoyable watch with its short runtime, but nothing about it stands out. I mostly liked it, though the first half is clearly stronger. The film loses momentum towards the end, which is disappointing. With a stronger third story and perhaps a slightly bigger budget, this could have been great. [5,6/10]

What an impressive contained horror film! Not unlike Sinister or Barbarian, Beezel takes a single location and succeeds in building out an intriguing, unnerving lore, replete with a badass creature design for the witch (who, in classic Hitchockian fashion, appears only briefly- so much spookier than a ghoulie who's crammed down your throat!).

The use of found footage adds to the atmosphere (very Longlegs) without being overly used or trope-y. And like any horror movie worth it's salt, Beezel has a spine-tingling sound design that will haunt your dreams.

Grateful I don't have a basement-- I would never being going in it again!