Sexylocher Masterful Movie

ScoobyMint Disappointment for a huge fan!

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

jacobjohntaylor1 I have seen a lot of movie like this one. A a lot of them were better.I can not believe it got a 5.8 is this so awful. The story line is awful. The ending is awful. There are some good actors in this movie but they wasted there talent. Ken Russell was an awful writer and an awful director. Peter Capaldi is a great actor. Amanda Donohe is a great actress. It is to bad they ended up in this crap. It not porn because of few nude scenes. But is not good. It is not scary at all. Do not see this movie. It is a wast of time. It is also a waste of money. It is very stinky. Ken Russell has not talent. Bram Stoker had talent the book is probably better. Do not see this movie. Pooh pooh that is what this movie is I tell you pooh pooh.

malmborgimplano-92-599820 I always thought that "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" was the best Ken Russell film ever made without the actual involvement of Ken Russell, so I was terribly disappointed when this film came out, as it was so clearly meant to be Russell's chance to capitalize on the sensational success "Rocky Horror" was having as a midnight movie, but just not making it. It's "Lisztomania," which came out the same year as "Rocky Horror," not "Lair," that turned out to be the closest Russell ever got to making his own version of the cult film that imitated his unique razzle dazzle style so profitably. It's even got Nell Campbell in it. But that was just Russell being Russell, of course.I recently snagged "Lair" again as part of my "Doctor Who" hiatus summer of Capaldiwatching and found that I like it a lot better now that I'm 27 years older and have seen a lot more of both Russell's work as well as the classic Hammer horror films that both "Lair" and "Rocky Horror" pay tribute to. It used to drive me up the wall that Amanda Donohoe's Lady Sylvia failed to be as sensational a sex villain as Tim Curry's Dr. Frank-N-Furter. Now I think she's pretty sensational in her own right. And of course her mission isn't to give herself over to absolute pleasure, but to bring the evil ways of paganism back to Christian-era Britain. In that way she's closer to Willow MacGregor in "Wicker Man" than to Frankie. And the climax of "Lair" is very much like an Art Deco version of the "Wicker Man" sacrifice. Maybe that's why Russell sent in the Glaswegian Peter Capaldi in his tartans and hand grenade-filled sporran to save the day and restore the "Wicker Man"-besmirched honor of the land of John Knox. The fact that Hugh Grant's Lord D'Ampton is completely upstaged by Capaldi's Angus Flint, I now realize, is not a fault at all but an intentional strategy of Russell's to make the intrepid Scotsman with literal dirt under his fingernails the true hero of the piece, while the handsome filthy rich young English nobleman is just literally a tosser (notice the girly magazine on his bedside table.) I recently read the never-produced screenplay of Ken Russell's adaptation of "Dracula," which Russell had hoped to make as part of a package deal with "Lair," and it gave me a lot more insight into this film. It's a surprisingly good script, definitely the highest quality "Dracula" adaptation I've run across. Russell clearly knew how to structure a good Hammer-style Gothic story that's stronger on character, plot development and atmosphere than juvenile cheap thrills, and though "Lair" is no classic it's as entertaining and absorbing as the average Hammer film (i.e., incredibly.) Russell also wrote an unproduced sequel to "Lair," "Revenge of the White Worm," as yet unpublished. There aren't many details out there about it but I have to believe Russell brought Angus Flint back in it. You'd miss him if he wasn't there.

Warren Swaine "I think we probably have another reptile loose on the premises."My mistake in approaching this film was to start watching it as a serious horror film. I blame that on having just seen a good documentary about Bram Stoker and it appearing on the Horror Channel.As a horror film it's pretty poor: terrible acting; dated video effects inserted into film; cliché ridden plot......but once you twig that it was Ken Russell having a laugh, it became very entertaining. The acting is all part of the joke; the video effects provide over the top kitsch; the cliché ridden plot is deliberate and the script full of fnarr fnarr moments to make you giggle.The cast clearly were in on the joke. Amanda Donohoe is deliciously camp; Hugh Grant can be seen honing that stiff upper lip that would make his fortune and Peter Capaldi hit the Scottish stereotype perfectly twirling a reel on bagpipes for no real reason other than to give you a sly wink as to the true nature of the film.It makes a fine companion piece to 'Carry on Screaming' in the British comedy horror genre.I've rated it 5/10 as a film because that is how I unfortunately had watched most of it, but it has far higher entertainment value... as long as you start in the right frame of mind.

BA_Harrison Before Hugh Grant hit the big-time playing floppy-haired fops in rom-coms, he mostly played floppy haired-fops in costume period dramas; an exception to this was Ken Russell's The Lair of The White Worm (1988), in which Hugh went against type by playing modern-day floppy-haired fop Lord James D'Ampton, who teams up with archaeologist Angus Flint (played by the new Doctor Who, Peter Capaldi) and B&B owner Mary Trent (Sammi Davis) to defeat a pagan snake-woman (Amanda Donohoe) who worships a giant, ancient, subterranean wyrm (another name for dragon).This being a Russell movie, there is plenty of surreal weirdness on offer, with psychedelic dream sequences, Christian-baiting blasphemous imagery, phallic symbolism, and cheap titillation courtesy of Donohoe, who spends a lot of her time naked, and Catherine Oxenberg, who is stripped to her undies as a sacrifice for the creature. However, what could have been extremely controversial actually proves to be rather amusing thanks to the director's tongue-in-cheek B-movie approach (some might call it 'camp') and the tacky special effects; ultimately, this is silly, harmless fun for the cult movie crowd.6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for the Concorde dream sequence, which is downright trippy.