mistela67

Saint Maud is one of those movies that will only appeal to those who are willing to appreciate it. Now, that my sound a bit snobby, but I back my opinion up by reading the IMDB reviews of this movie. People either like it and understand its intent, or dislike it, not absorbing what it was trying to do.

I am not going to go over all aspects of this movie; it's quite old and often reviewed. I will say that for those of us who like our horror manufactured in the mind and not at the end of a machete, you should enjoy Saint Maud, as, to me, it ranks right of there close to The Babadook and Hereditary.

And like Saint Maud, you'll either appreciate my review or you won't. Regardless, Saint Maud is brilliantly acted, shot, written, and directed, so give it a try.

8/10 - one of the best in this genre.

The Exorcist: Believer is a competent film compromised by poor acting and subpar directing.

I don't fault the writing; there was not much to the script, but for this sort of movie, not much was really needed. The viewer should have relied on the performance of the actors so that a sense of dread and hopelessness can be appreciated. That did not occur with this movie.

I'll give one specific example of poor acting: One of the fathers, who lost his wife during childbirth, was incredibly ineffective at conveying much of anything. His performance was terrible. No sense of any timely or situationally-appropriate emotion at all, nothing; not via facial expression, action/reactions or dialog. Why the director failed to get anything out of him is beyond me. I assume they were watching daylies, so they have to have seen that actor's impotent performance. I don't get how the ball was dropped at all.

After the acting, the directing was a problem. The use of the priest in some sort of religious zealot tag-team vs the demon was pathetic. And there was absolutely nothing dreadful about the possessed girls. And why Ellen Burstyn's character casually and completely walks alone into a room of an unrestrained demon is beyond me. In fact, the director consistently failed to convey any sense of fear for the audience. Nothing about this movie was frightening; no jump scares, no lingering moments, no shock images, no crabwalking, no buildup. Nothing.

The ending also made no sense. We never truly understood what or how the two girls became possessed, but we do know that the demon was virtually unstoppable, thus making the entire exorcism thing a mute point.

The only saving grace to this movie was the depiction of how a missing child event would take place, and it's during this part of the movie that the acting is above average. The feeling of anger and urgency was cleanly portrayed. Unfortunately, beyond that, there is nothing but pure disappointment.

4/10- had potential, but poor acting and directing ruined this movie.

House on Elm Lake is sort of like a Frankenstein of B horror movies. It's not scary, so calling it a horror is a bit of a stretch. The movie does borrow bits and pieces from other true horror movies that did what they did much better than what House on Elm Lake attempted.

The cinematography is actually good, and you can tell the film stock is of better quality than most indie horrors.

The direction is baseline, at best, and the acting is at the beginner level. The actors are an interesting bunch; the male seems a bit too young for the lead actress, and he did overact more than a few times. The female lead is attractive enough to be the movie's eye candy, but she seems more interested in doing that than actually acting. And the daughter is, well, not to be mean, but a little too chubby to be in the movies.

The writing is the true let down, with the plot being all over the place except where the viewer needs it to be. The movie also drags on and really does get boring at times.

All in all, House is a subpar horror movie that is only good for one viewing, but at least you can finish that viewing and not feel cheated.

4/10- a little bit of this that and the other but none of it works.