ViewGuide

Created Jul 05, 2014 09:29AM PST • Edited Jul 05, 2014 09:29AM PST

1. Quality

2. Summary

   Great 4.0

   Independent film can very well be its own sordid horror tale, let alone the world of independent horror. For every Ti West or Adam Wingard out there creating original, genre defying, and altogether inspired films that leave salivating fans of genre wanting more, there are innumerable dollops of “wtf am i watching?” currently festering in dollar bins. For every time that a filmmaker uses 50,000 and creates art, there is an 18 year old “auteur” with a handheld camera and a cliche-ridden zombie film. It takes extra effort, then, to make a quiet, calm, thought-provoking and “old fashioned” (a term i hesitate to use, but the sensibilities are older-skewing) horror film such as “Lord of Tears.” Directed by Lawrie Brewster, the film is a complicated watch that feels at home with such films as “Wicker Man” and possibly even “House of the Devil.” If you’re looking for a conventional film featuring monsters/zombies/stalk and slash serial killers/jump scares, you will be sorely underappreciating a film that basks in its subtlety to present an homage to the timeless past of what fear can be. For that I can honestly say that I couldn’t recommend it to all of my horror fans do to its subtle nature. But for those who are patient and wish to be rewarded rather than exhausted, “Lord of Tears” is a fantastic and original entry into a genre that tends to rest on its laurels when it finds a niche and ails because of it.

   BONUS: my copy was purchased from the “lord of tears” website in a box set that came complete with an autographed booklet, a soundtrack, and the film in bluray format. The case itself is limited edition, with artwork of the infamous “owlman” (from mythology of the film) and came complete withe custom wrapping and feathers. A very cool deal and proof that they take care of their fans.

4. Acting

   Very Good 3.5

   The acting in this film is phenomenal, if not occasionally a bit over the top in places (but this is a smaller film with lesser known actors in a gothic horror film, amends can be made). Uean Douglas plays an easily likable teacher that inherits a mansion in Scottland and does a good job for his subtle work, even at the end. There are many scenes that allow facial tics and the body language to describe the “drenched in atmosphere” asthetic of the film. not a lot of less seasoned can carry the weight of a nuanced performance and he does it very well. Alexandra Hulme (who plays eve in the film) as a potential love interest who with every scene allows as many secrets to be revealed as she does continue to seemingly hide more. Her words and actions, while in light, feel shadowed as the tension continues to build. I use the word nuanced once again, because these are not boisterous or “look at me” performances. every movement and word is there to serve a greater story and for that the actors desreve kudos.

5. Male Stars Very Good 3.5

6. Female Stars Very Good 3.5

7. Female Costars Very Good 3.5

8. Male Costars Very Good 3.5

10. Film

    Great 4.0

    The film itself is very well written and directed, with even the most grand artistic flourishes blending in seemlessly to make the experience original, psychological, and in a sense…challenging. The cinematography of the Scottish backdrop, with the natural lighting and usage of a simple yet deliberately stated color palette made the film almost feel like it wasn’t of this world. Ethereal, if you will. That quality added a cerebral unease to even the most serene and beautiful scenes, never letting you to forget the potential inherent dread. Above i stated that the actors and words serve the greater purpose of the story itself, and the same goes for the production quality. Every camera movement, change in tone, alteration of color and scene- all work to the benefit of the greater whole without ever feeling overdone (a lot of hollywood productions suffer from “too many cooks in the kitchen” disorder, with everyone wanting their time to shine.)

11. Direction Great 4.0

12. Play Great 4.0

13. Music Great 4.0

14. Visuals Great 4.0
15. Content

16. Edge

    Risqué 2.4

    To define the edge of a horror movie is tough. Horror is as subjective (if not more) than comedy. For a movie like “Saw”, which many find intensely disturbing and violent, some find cartoonish and chuckle-worthy (especially the later chapters.) “Lord of Tears” follows the ideology of “less is more”. Whilst not entirely bloody or gory, the film has an underlying dread, a psychological order that for those who are frightened by their own psyche moreso than a musical crescendo and a blood splatter, this film is quite intense.

17. Sex Titillating 2.5

18. Violence Brutal 2.7

19. Rudeness Salty 2.0

21. Reality

    Surreal 2.9

    This movie deals with mythology and legend as well many other ideas that one may not exactly find “realistic”, but grounding the film in a real locale with subtle, real performances and injecting the slightly less natural elements gradually is a nice touch. Doing so allows for the audience to immerse into the film feeling grounded by a reality and then gradually allowing the more fantastical elements to haunt the frame. Byt the time the movie is over, any and all fantasy felt natural to the point where it mostly runs off of the more jaded filmgoer.

22. Circumstantial Supernatural 3.5

23. Biological Surreal 2.5

24. Physical Surreal 2.6