Home > Horror >

Psychosis

AD:This title is currently not available on Prime Video
Free Trial
View All Sources

Psychosis (2010)

July. 19,2010
|
3.6
| Horror Thriller Mystery
AD:This title is currently not available on Prime Video
Free Trial
View All Sources

A serial killer unleashes his blood lust at a remote environmental-camp. Years later a horror novelist relocates to rural England and is plagued to the point of madness by horrific hauntings of a massacre.

...

Watch Trailer

Free Trial Channels

AD
Show More

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Micah Lloyd
2010/07/19

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

More
Logan Dodd
2010/07/20

There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

More
Mehdi Hoffman
2010/07/21

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

More
Asad Almond
2010/07/22

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

More
one-nine-eighty
2010/07/23

Reg Traviss directs this 2010 suspense/thriller film which features Charisma (the brunette from 'Buffy' the TV series) Carpenter, Paul Sculfor and even features a turn by Justin Hawkins from the band 'The Darkness'. In 1992 some anarchist environmentalist protesters are butchered in the middle of the English countryside while trying to prevent the construction of a motorway. Flash forward 15 years into the future and Susan Golden (Carpenter) is a top selling novelist, she moves into the country estate with her husband where the butchering previously occurred. After some time she starts seeing things and is slowly driven mad. A massive plot twist at the end shows how and why the madness occurred but don't worry, it made for another best selling novel that her husband could sell for his own gains. The acting is wooden and unconvincing, at no point did I feel that Carpenter and Sculfor were close let alone married. The plot was predictable, after about 15 minutes of the visions I'd worked out what would occur at the end. This felt more like a low budget Hammer House film which is an insult to Hammer more than this film. There was occasional nudity and gore but not enough to write home about. I've read some of the reviews on here which suggest the twists and turns are deeper than they appear on the surface and therefore are brilliant but I strongly disagree, I found this film duller than dishwater and won't be in a rush to watch it again or recommend it. I'm awarding this 3 out of 10 and even that I feel is a big more generous that it deserves. More drama than horror, more yawn than thrills. Happiest when the credits rolled.

More
kosmasp
2010/07/24

I really wanted to love this movie. I just can't though. For all its good intentions and all the nice ideas, it is too flawed in the end. While obviously not a big production, it does feel bad from the get go. Poor editing choices and cinematography do not help the case either. It's not badly done, but you can see that it was rushed and therefor not much care has been given to some shots and performances. There are a few occasions where Charisma seems out of it. And while some may call it a nice addition to her role it is obvious that this was not meant that way.Charismas husband (in the movie that is) is even worse than any other player in the film. There is the gardener, but you almost don't care about his performance (especially during a dinner scene). But the husband does a good job at being bad. Which is a bad thing for the movie. The ending might feel like a saving grace (and I don't know the movie another reviewer who's ecstatic about it, raves about), but don't let that fool you.

More
cobbler88
2010/07/25

I didn't find this movie as slow-moving as most, but it WAS as pointless as they've written. At first the ending was marginally surprising until I thought about it for five seconds. The only reason it was surprising is because of the misdirection of the movie's first 10 minutes. Remove that and the lease ingenuous viewer will know what the deal is after about 30 minutes.Very linear and predictable with extra characters that really do nothing to advance or even influence the story. It really could have been told with about five characters.Very little was done to explain why the lead sees what she sees other than a few vague words from a medium, but even at that there is no explanation as to why she sees things now, but apparently never did the first 35 (or so) years of her life.Still, it's decent enough for ambient viewing while loading a dishwasher or doing some paperwork. You've seen it enough times to not have to pay rapt attention, but it's not some obviously cheap, horribly acted flick that shoots entirely in day-for-night blue.

More
dissolvedpaul
2010/07/26

EDIT- At the time I was writing I was not aware that it was in fact a "Remake" of the second story in the 1983 film "Screamtime". Therefore you can understand why I thought that it was a direct rip off of this particular movie. Being very fond of that particular short, I was a bit upset because I thought someone was ripping it off! Amusing in hindsight I suppose. For your enjoyment here is my original review and feelings written before knowing it was a 'remake':: I will keep this review short but I'm still in shock after seeing this movie. Not because it was scary, not because it shocked me, not because I was bowled over by its brilliance. No, simply because I've never shook my head in disbelief at such outright plagiarism in a movie.Clearly the Director was really really hoping that no one had ever seen the fantastic little anthology horror film "Scream time" from 1983, more specifically, the second story in this film "Dream house". Now the stories in "Scream time" are relatively short since it's an anthology movie so in order to pad out "Psychosis", the director had at least to attempt to introduce some other little elements to attempt to keep things interesting before the scene for scene stealing begins. Unfortunately these elements are dull, lots of sex which is not thrilling in the least and flat acting. The movie falls flat very quickly overall to be honest and towards the end and dotted throughout, the 'hallucinations' of Charisma Carpenter are about the most interesting thing happening. Her name is the most charismatic thing about the movie, it's never scary due to some dull direction, predictable soundtrack and characters that are never in the least bit likable at any point. It starts off initially with a "slasher film" type prologue which really does nothing for the rest of the film, only serving to confuse and then we watch as Carpenter slowly descends into the "Psychosis" of the title. On my first viewing I already picked up on how much it was stealing from the "Dream house" episode of "Scream time" to the point where I was pointing out things before they even happened. I could not believe it. The director should be rightly ridiculed for such stealing and I'm sure more and more people will pick up on this as they see it. It's a shame because movies like this will get lots of exposure and acclaim from people none the wiser where as "Scream time" remains unreleased on DVD anywhere in the world and is a far more scary and interesting little 80's film. Spoilers------ Charisma's Hallucinations are wholesale lifted from "Dream house". This will make sense if you've seen it. She constantly see's someone in black playing with a football outside in her garden but when she goes out to tell him off she's gone. 'Dream house' -The main actress constantly see's a little boy riding on a bike outside in her garden but when she goes out to tell him off he's gone. In "Psychosis" the husband calls a Psychic to the house to investigate after Charisma has complained about all the visions she's been seeing and the psychic tells Charisma that there is nothing there at all. Almost exactly the same scene happens in 'Dream house' and the Psychic tells the husband she is possibly mad. Towards the end, when the murders start to play out more extended, the madman stabs the victims repeatedly and at one point, charisma grabs a telephone and throws it at the vision, (the madman is strangling the victim using the telephone) which promptly vanishes. In "Dream house", the murders are playing out and the actress grabs a telephone and throws it at the vision of the man stabbing and strangling the victim with the telephone wire which promptly vanishes. At the end, Charisma's husband (Charisma is in a mental hospital after all this) greets the "new owner" and we are introduced to the new people moving in, all of whom we've seen previously in the visions like the kid playing with the football etc. In "Dream House", exactly the same thing happens. The husband welcomes the new owners, says they hope they will be happy there and all around him, the people we have seen being murdered are working around him, like the decorator painting the window and the boy riding the bike. The husband gets into his car and is attacked from behind, has his throat slashed and goes into a fit, holding his foot down on the accelerator. The radio announces that a crazed murderer has escaped from a mental hospital and is on the loose. It's quite sad that it's so obvious really. Clearly this director though he would get away with it but I reckon it's going to come back on him at one point or another. Watch "Scream time" and the "dream house" episode if you can get a copy. It's infinitely better than this poor excuse for a copy of a movie.

More