The Little Stranger

What can you say about a film that feels hours longer than it actually is? One thing I would declare without apology is that it better have a powerful resolution. In other words, a film that feels so arduous to get through better be that way for a good reason. Because if it doesn't have a solid payoff, then what was the point of making the audience sit through endless stretches of nothingness? That's what is done here too often.

A film that is sluggish, dour and interminable is not going to get much recognition for anything, even if the cast does a decent job. Here, Domhnall Gleeson is a British doctor who comes to an old estate owned by a wealthy aristocratic family, one that he came to know as a child. Gleeson does his best with the sandpaper-dry screenplay, but his efforts are for naught. Director Lenny Abrahamson appears to have taken too deliberate an approach. There's nothing wrong with a film relying on subtle horror, as this is based on a novel. The problem is, a big chunk of the film is so sedate that one will either be starved for interest by the time things pick up or will just plain want the film to end as I did. The film's lethargy made me check the time, something I never do anymore. It simply took too long for anything to happen here.

Notwithstanding my respect for the talent involved in this film, I decline to recommend it as it had me begging for the closing credits to run. An ending to a film has rarely felt so far away as it did here.

This movie about a haunting may disappoint a lot of fantasy and horror buffs; no special effects, no appearance of a ghost, no gore (or so little) .Essentially an atmosphere movie, where a force (perhaps stemming from a child dead well before his age ) is slowly but inexorably doing away with the members of a doomed family; the son, a maimed disfigured fighter in the war,is broke and has to sell acres of his properties .

A doctor,a scientific mind ,does not believe in a curse ;when he was a child,he used to come to the castle in its heyday ; in love with the daughter,he tries to save her from a doomed fate ;the mother (a wonderful Charlotte Rampling,who really ages gracefully ) seems to live in another age .

Close to Henry James ' world, it's a movie which grows on you ,but it demands your undivided attention.

The Little Stranger is a little stranger than most horror films: It's more psychological drama and less shock. It's an understated nerve racker that eats away at your anticipation till you're a part of the haunted house that captures most entering it. A pleasant summer thrill.

Post WWII 1948, Dr. Faraday (Domhnall Gleeson) takes a call at Hundreds Hall, where mom was a maid and where the Ayres family is on its way to extinction, slowly and horror-film ominously. Yet there are no jump scares, no ugly beings, just the sense that things are not right, with a strange sound or rabid dog to keep the fans on edge.

As in Poe's Fall of the House of Usher, the Hundreds Hall's decay is figurative for the decline of family as well, no better example being the scarred and crippled Roderick (remember Roderick Usher?) from war, who is on the brink of letting the estate go to sale while he feels a bad karma in the house.

At the same time, faraday is telling us in flashback about his strange attachment to the estate from an early childhood party on its lawn after WWI, where celebrating the end of the war to end all wars introduced his working class sensibility to high class and a little girl who doesn't go away after she dies.

She seems to be the little stranger who still haunts Mrs. Ayres (Charlotte Rampling). At any rate, the film suggests an almost abnormal attachment by Faraday and a death struggling attachment by the rest of the family including his love interest, daughter Caroline (Ruth Wilson). From here the story takes some formulaic turns, no surprises.

Yet, The Little Stranger has a Brit restraint that lends itself some nice horror moments. Especially effective is director Lenny Abrahamson's, and his writers,' unwillingness to show too much or give answers even at the end. Classy little film.

This is one of those films I wish I liked more than I actually did. The Little Stranger is a tough one to recommend because I'm unsure who exactly it would play well to. Personally, I'm a big fan of slow-paced, melancholic character studies with psychological themes. Sprinkle in some horror elements too? Yes please! If there's an audience for this, it definitely should've been me. But somehow, despite all the things I appreciated-the gothic sets, thick atmosphere, subtle storytelling, restrained chills, psychological focus-the film just failed to fully engage me.

It's unfortunate because of the clear attention and care that went into making this. The acting is strong, the story taken seriously, and the themes rich. What I appreciated most was the way in which the film takes the concept of a "ghost" and re-purposes it to explore how a seminal childhood experience can profoundly impact personality development and future, potentially pathological decision making. The film is constructed to force the audience to question Faraday's motivations in his uncanny attraction to the manor and its heirs. As more about his childhood is revealed, one event in particular, those motivations slowly gain focus: does he want to make amends? transcend his own social class? resolve an unconscious conflict? make his mother proud? Probably all of the above, to some degree. And the final twist at the end of the film is quite intelligent, giving a literal, supernatural explanation for the figurative way in which Faraday's childhood self has been sabotaging his adult life.

Even still, with all of the things the film has going for it, something is amiss. I think part of the problem is that it feels like a film with an identity crisis. It's part gothic romance, part dramatic character study, part mystery, part supernatural horror, and all of these disparate elements don't quite coalesce into a harmonious whole. In trying to do so much, it ends up feeling scattered. It also doesn't do a particularly good job at creating a sense of forward momentum in its narrative. It feels plodding and inconsequential for much of its runtime and sadly just fails to compel despite the strong final moments. As much as I appreciated the themes and the craft, the experience of actually watching the film isn't as entertaining as it could or should've been. Still, I'd give it a mild recommendation if any of the above sounds appealing. If you end up bored, don't say I didn't warn you.

Solid 3/5

One of the only things that was good about this film was the scenery. The scenery was stunning in practical all the scenes. The set desgins were also lovely. The sets looked like some out of the the 1940s. Domhnall Gleeson who plays Faraday also did his best in this film. He and Ruth Wilson were the only people in this film, in my opinion that were giving it their all. They don't have much emotion to give but they did stand out jobs. Now like I said before this movie is boring. Thank God the film had something nice to look at in the background because the dialogue in this is so bland and boring. Before watching this movie I read some articles on it and apparently this film was supposed to be three and a half hours long and I could tell. There were so many awkward and terrible transtions that made no snese, like there should of been a scene there but they cut it out. I can understand cutting it down but they could of made it so it was a different time length just so we can understand the story better. Also the story was so hard to follow. It was hard to follow because they have no backstory what so ever, like I said this is based off a book. And I couldn't figure out who and or what the main villain was, and I still don't know. I don't want to go on with how bad this movie was because I could. In the end this movie is really beautifully shot and the sets look gorgeous. So if you like well shot movies and or if you read the book then I recommend you see this movie but if not avoid this movie at all costs.