AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

VividSimon Simply Perfect

Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

craigjpay-146-379244 Nothing like going into something blind and having it blow your socks off. This is some emotionally brutal stuff, the last film to kick me in guts like this was Session 9 (which this shares some DNA with, along with The Babadook, The Shining and, peculiarly, Withnail & I). Leo Bill's performance seemed a little too mannered at first, but I bought into it after a little while, from there on in it felt devastatingly authentic. Bleak as it undoubtedly is, director Simon Rumley balances tragedy and comedy so perfectly that it often blurs the line between the two, had he not nailed that balancing act so completely, I might not have got through the brisk 79 minute running time without wanting to go outside and lay down in the road. Really, really excellent stuff, going to have to give Rumley's follow up Red, White and Blue a look now.

Jacques98 I'm just going to get this out of the way before I trash: I liked The Living and the Dead for what it was. A simple, psychological horror/drama that was brilliant and did exactly what it set out to do. So why the low score? Because as brilliant and disturbing as it was, there was nothing really special about it. It was short film turned into a full-length movie. It fit more into the "that's cute" category than the "I got my entire money's worth here" category. That was the major problem I had with it: it wasn't anything that deserved a full-length movie, necessarily. If the runtime and price were both cut in half, this would have gotten a much higher score for me.I guess I'll just start out with saying that this was one of the few movies I've ever seen that genuinely disturbed me. There was little to no blood, but the subject matter gripped me emotionally and hit home and it disturbed me. Will it disturb everyone? No. Will it disturb most? Maybe, but I doubt it. It's an acquired taste. The movie banks on you being emotionally affected, and if you're not, there really is no point in watching it because you'll be bored out of your mind. The Living and the Dead is relative in every aspect of the word, and I can't give it a definitive "this sucks" or "this was good" because it varies person to person. That isn't true about most movies, unlike what people want to believe, but that does apply here. It's your call.As for the aspects of the film that aren't relative: The acting is pretty good. The story isn't entirely original, but it isn't typical either. The camera-work is well-done for the kind of movie it is. The pacing gets a little bloated, but nowhere near as bad as it could have been. Everything was well-done in the technical stance. The story was borderline brilliant, though I can see why people would disagree.Overall, if you're looking for a psychological movie that will disturb you, this is worth a shot. I haven't seen a truly disturbing movie in years, but this was almost a little too much for me to handle. Almost. But that was based on my emotional engagement, and that is relative. Just watch it and make up your own opinion.2/10

suspiria56 Ignore the previous comment by 'perisho', but I would take something from the others thereafter, both positive and negative. Firstly the negatives - yes there are gaping holes in the plot, seemingly situations that wouldn't happen, possibly too long for its plot subject. Right, the positives - great acting, good use of dialogue (often repetitive and therefore affecting), good use of ambiguity (which helps convey the mental health issues that the family have) and possibly explain the seemingly apparent plot holes (is all we see really occurring?), brilliant cinematography, and it's a brave attempt at a all too often patronised subject matter. Furthermore, it is made on a tight budget in Britain. A rare commodity nowadays. Only a handful of directors in the UK work outside of the mainstream, and Rumley's effort should be applauded. Even the film factory that is the Hollywood machine can't achieve this level of skill (A Beautiful Mind, Rainman...please!). Only say Keane, Devil & Daniel Johnston and Julien Donkey Boy have we seen schizophrenia in the manner with which we see here. Yes, not everything works, but when it does, this film is powerful and touching as anything else in cinema dealing with mental illness. Well done to the director and may your second feature be as strong.

yellowmask73 Joe Hitchcock, that is. One reviewer said Rumley is no Werner Herzog or David Lynch. Hell, he's not even Werner Klemperer or Richard Lynch.In all fairness to "The Living and the Dead," the actors do a fine job in portraying their parts. However, the film suffers from numerous plot holes because it feels like Rumley has absolutely no knowledge of caring for a terminally ill or disabled person. If someone needs a wheelchair to get around or assistance to go to the toilet, you don't put the toilet chair or the wheelchair far from the person that needs them. And what in the hell was the telephone doing on the first floor? In "Sorry, Wrong Number," Barbara Stanwyck had the phone next to her bed, and that was during Hollywood's Golden Age. Had I been in Donald's shoes, I would have made sure the house was more accessible, made it so that there was a phone near my wife's bed and didn't leave for London until Nurse Mary was in the house. However, that's just me.Another problem with this film is that various camera tricks and scenes lead the viewer to think that there will be a twist ending. However, the only thing we are given is seemingly endless and irritating scenes of James running through the house at speeds similar to John Wesley Shipp in "The Flash" television series. At least there was a reason for Shipp running fast. There's no reason for James doing this. Perhaps Simon Rumley confused artistic with annoying and redundant."The Living and the Dead" tries to pass itself off as a film like "Memento" or "The Usual Suspects," but it comes off as something that disappoints the viewer in the end.