Psychosis
Psychosis
| 19 July 2010 (USA)
Psychosis Trailers

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.

Reviews
SunnyHello Nice effects though.
Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good
Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.
Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable
GL84 After moving to a new house in the country, a writer begins to believe the strange visions and hallucinations around the house are all in her head and meant to drive her crazy, but she discovers a history of death and mayhem in the area that may prove to be the actual culprit.This is an admittedly decent film in concept, yet this one here just doesn't really do enough to really differentiate itself from the hordes of similarly-themed films and in the end comes across merely as decent. The fact that this one tends to just meander on about different ideas and topics that aren't in the slightest bit scary, from the constant scenes of the young boy playing soccer to the freak-outs over the gardener and the endless scenes of her breaking down crying and needing to be comforted, it just grows old and never once creates an atmosphere or aura of creepiness, which is somewhat of a let-down considering the fact that nothing much happens. Without many kills for gore-gags and a pretty lagging pace until the finale when the real ploy is revealed and the scares get somewhat more intense, not a whole lot to like here unless this sort of thing fits you.Rated R: Graphic Language, Violence, Full Nudity and sex scenes.
BakuryuuTyranno Apparently the people behind "Psychosis" decided they wanted to focus mainly on drama.Well they succeeded but I'm not sure anybody would be watching a haunted house film expecting it to concentrate on drama thus I don't know whether recommending it is a good idea.The story focuses on Susan Golden, her husband and a creepy man roaming around in the forest. And, apparently, ghosts. Unfortunately there's not much emotional investment in our primary cast. Which causes problems because really, the movie, despite appearing horror-ish, is closer to a supernatural soap.In the finale, turns out these "ghosts" are actually premonitions. Cue massacre. Kinda smart, except it's basically "a bunch of stuff that happened" because again, no emotional investment is there and so audience are unlikely to really care when it's revealed.
AvidLV426 Just saw this a couple of days ago, and am still wondering why this was made. First off the plot for this film could barely of filled a 10 minute short, and yet was stretched to fill the duration of this so called feature. All the layers that the director mentioned he added in the making of made no sense, didn't go anywhere and added nothing to the film. Acting was beyond poor, especially by a certain lead man. Lighting seemed flat. On the upside, some of the special effects seemed pretty well done (a fake head in particular) but are not enough to save the film.The only interesting thing on the DVD was the making of, and interview with the cast. Maybe they should have got that guy to direct instead.Watch at your own risk.
dissolvedpaul 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.