scott8823

McHattie's performance, as well as his real life wife, Houle's carried the film. If you enjoy reading, and enjoy clever word-play, you'll find this movie interesting. If you are only watching for a zombie flick perspective, you'll be less than thrilled. In fact, traditional fans of zombie movies may find themselves disappointed with the twist on the zombie genre. However, that very twist makes the theme interesting intellectually. This movie will cause you to reflect on the power of words. The idea of the movie is creative.

So, this movie is something different, and for that reason, you may want to give it a viewing. You won't need to give it more than one, though. The final post-credit scene with McHattie and Houle, where she is in an oriental fabric, and where he is wearing sun-glasses detracted from the film. Another reviewer commented on this, and that person is correct.

To be fair, this low budget film should be viewed from the prism of its time, but even so, I don't recommend wasting any of yours on viewing it. Frankly, I didn't watch it all the way through, which is something rare for me. 1961 was a pretty repressed time in our country, and I think the main object of the film makers' intent was to titillate with the idea of a naked female character. I have a hard time believing that the protagonist didn't take a change of clothes on his journey, nor could I believe that the bedroom was 18th century. I regret that "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" is no more, as this film would have been great for them to spoof. This movie is worse than Seasonal Affective Disorder. Do yourself a favor and avoid it at all costs.

This is a wonderfully atmospheric film, beautifully shot, with terrific performances all around; veteran actress Gena Rowlands steals the show, but veteran actor John Hurt comes in as a close second. Hurt is best known for his many speaking roles in a stellar career which has spanned decades; his many fans consider his voice to be wonderful, which is why it is striking to find him playing a role with only one brief line. It is no easy thing to give a great performance without using one's voice, which is why we had special appreciation for his facial expressions. My wife is a big fan of his, and she was actually the one who pointed this out... I'm a fan of Saarsgard, and once again, he delivers! The protagonist is well played by an actress who makes her sympathetic. The plot is great. To appreciate the film though, one has to have a mind open to mysticism; if you are deeply offended by "magical thinking," don't bother with the film. However, if you are willing to admit that metaphysical actions are possible, then you'll enjoy this fine work of art! This is not a film on the level of "Rosemary's Baby," in which Ms. Rowland's famous, late husband played, but it is a good film which will get you thinking. Rebecca and I decided to buy it, and we've watched it two or three times in the last four years; it is textured, and we find something new to talk about each time. It is worth more than one viewing!