Spoilers because honestly, knowing what happens in this film won't make the experience any worse for you.
This is a slog. According to this page it's 80 minutes long, but feels like a full two hours with the various subplots involving various cliched horror characters. The suspect countryside folk, the jovial Australian, the warring couple and the creepy definitely-did-it-oh-wait-no-he-didn't guy.
I only watched this, as most people did I'm sure, because the title, branding and style tricked me into thinking it had anything to do with the older, but far better 'Eden Lake'. I guess the shameless gambit by whoever made the decision to veer towards copyright infringement, only to wink at the audience in the final act by ripping off 'Psycho', paid off. And about that - who rips off 'Psycho'? How stupid do you have to be to think inverting the plot of the most famous, genre-defining horror movie of all time is a good idea? Not nodding to it, not borrowing some of the tropes as many other films have done, inevitably, because of the importance of the Hitchcock movie, but just doing the exact same plot but reversing the key roles? Probably as stupid as you would have to be to give your British low-budget horror a near-identical name to one of the best British low-budget horrors of the past generation.
I'm angry at this film because its elements are perfectly fine for a b-movie distraction. It's badly put together in a way that makes it less than clear who the killer actually is, and shifts your attention away so fast from murders of people you've barely got to know that it's a struggle to care, even at a point where infanticide is invoked, but neither of these things is unique in this genre. If it decided which film it wanted to wholesale rip off, and dropped the weird side story of the mindless, half-written sex interest character, it could have been a tight if uninspired thriller. As it is, all it's really possible to recommend about it is that it reminds you 'Eden Lake' exists, which luckily was also on the same streaming service I watched this half-realised idea.
This is a slog. According to this page it's 80 minutes long, but feels like a full two hours with the various subplots involving various cliched horror characters. The suspect countryside folk, the jovial Australian, the warring couple and the creepy definitely-did-it-oh-wait-no-he-didn't guy.
I only watched this, as most people did I'm sure, because the title, branding and style tricked me into thinking it had anything to do with the older, but far better 'Eden Lake'. I guess the shameless gambit by whoever made the decision to veer towards copyright infringement, only to wink at the audience in the final act by ripping off 'Psycho', paid off. And about that - who rips off 'Psycho'? How stupid do you have to be to think inverting the plot of the most famous, genre-defining horror movie of all time is a good idea? Not nodding to it, not borrowing some of the tropes as many other films have done, inevitably, because of the importance of the Hitchcock movie, but just doing the exact same plot but reversing the key roles? Probably as stupid as you would have to be to give your British low-budget horror a near-identical name to one of the best British low-budget horrors of the past generation.
I'm angry at this film because its elements are perfectly fine for a b-movie distraction. It's badly put together in a way that makes it less than clear who the killer actually is, and shifts your attention away so fast from murders of people you've barely got to know that it's a struggle to care, even at a point where infanticide is invoked, but neither of these things is unique in this genre. If it decided which film it wanted to wholesale rip off, and dropped the weird side story of the mindless, half-written sex interest character, it could have been a tight if uninspired thriller. As it is, all it's really possible to recommend about it is that it reminds you 'Eden Lake' exists, which luckily was also on the same streaming service I watched this half-realised idea.