The Chair (II) (2007) User Reviews

Loses it's steam in the second half, but the first half was great.

[The_Dead_See · 5/10 · 27 July 2009]

At the 30 minute point of The Chair, I was truly getting enjoyably creeped out. It was relatively standard "strange phenomena in creepy old house" fare, but it was done with just the right combination of discomforting lighting and sound to get under my skin. The lead actress was extremely appealing too, both easy on the eyes and approaching her character from a refreshingly intelligent standpoint. The quote on the case that led me to rent it said something along the lines of "achieves the same atmosphere as the Changeling or Amityville"... and for those first 30 minutes or so, it really did. There's one scene with a chair in a hallway that is frankly terrifying.

But then a possession-style plot kicked in which, while still fairly entertaining, was nowhere near as powerful as the opening. The final half of the movie fell into a more mundane indie movie style, lost almost all of its creepiness, and sadly got a little unbelievable too. If the director had had the restraint to follow the tone of the first half through to the end it could have been a masterpiece in the haunted house genre. As it stands it's just another indie - far above average at first, then just average after that...

Spoilt by the final part.

[kjjames81 · 4/10 · 14 September 2020]

To me this is a film of two halves or really should I say a film of three thirds, whichever way you look at it, this film had a lot of potential. The story, a haunted house, which I liked and the director played this really well. The idea about he history of a chair found in the attic, not bad, still a good story. Then the film leaves the house to carry on with it's story, not so good. Now this is what I mean by a film in thirds. Also let's see about the other things that dipped in the film. The acting, every now and then it went into a b - movie zone but this can happen with a low budget film. The story when it left the house, the tension went out the window and I felt it spoilt the movie as a whole. The two main actors, who played Danielle and Anna did a very good job at the film. A good film overall but I dropped some stars because the film dipped when the story left the house. Worth a watch.

I liked it....far fetched but i liked it

[kristinanne17 · 4/10 · 19 July 2008]

Although a bit confusing, I found the chair to be an alright movie for such a low budget film. It started off with a bit of creepiness and led to some confusing twists and turns and I only say confusing because some audio wasn't all that great but maybe that is what they were going for. Ovverall though it had a nice psychotic/ possession feel and the ending although predictable was kinda what I was hoping for. If you have seen a lot of the horror lately I am sure you are disappointed but this was higher than my expectations for it. I would recommend if you have like Blockbusters movie pass or a friend is paying to watch it. Not a complete waste of time.

Uninspired is the kindest comment I can make...

[MrGKB · 3/10 · 11 February 2010]

...about this derivative, uninvolving tale of pseudo-supernatural folderol. Director Brett "Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed" Sullivan is primarily a film editor, and I would suggest that he should stick with that calling. Screenwriter Michael Capellupo is a marginal actor who should stick with that profession as well; his script for this bit of ultra-low budget boredom has all the pizazz of a textbook. The acting is mostly wooden, the cinematography might be passable for talking-head television, and the production values...well, the thing was shot almost exclusively in the director's home, so that should tell you something.

Don't get me wrong; I actually admire these folks for doing something outside the domain of the Hollywood system...heck, outside the domain of almost any system...but am compelled to remind such folks that the "Hey! Let's make a movie, kids!" mindset is nowhere near enough to produce a worthy film. You need a decent script, first of all, and then you need good actors who can actually bring it to life, and hopefully with the guidance of a director who knows how to visually tell a compelling tale. "The Chair" has none of these things.

Thank goodness for the public library, which gave me the chance to see this fast-forward special at no cost (beyond whatever fraction of my taxes went to purchasing the poor, benighted thing). I can only hope that it's quickly sold off at the annual inventory-reduction sale to make room for better material.

Not to be bothered with, despite anything else you might read here or elsewhere. You've been warned.

"Is my fear fuelling my imagination or is my imagination fuelling my fear?" Average supernatural horror cheapie.

[poolandrews · 4/10 · 26 July 2008]

The Chair starts as psychology student Danielle Velayo (Alanna Chisolm) moves into 216 Archwood Drive, a large three storey Victorian house. Initially excited at moving in Danielle starts to get second thoughts when strange, ghostly & supernatural occurrences begin to happen. Doing some research on the house Danielle discovers that 100 years ago a mesmerist named Mordachai Zymytryk (Paul Soren) hypnotised sadistic child killer Edgar Crowe (Adam Seybold) at the point of his death leaving his soul in limbo. However Crowe's soul is back & begins to possess Danielle in order to carry on his murder spree, can Danielle's loving sister Anna (Lauren Roy) save her from Crowe's evil soul & influence?

This Canadian production was directed by Brett Sullivan & I am constantly amazed at how much an audiences opinion can differ, I mean I had a quick scan through the other IMDb comments for The Chair & quite frankly I'm wondering if they saw a completely different film than I did! I'm sorry but I can't see how anyone could use words like 'awesome', 'great' & 'I loved it' to describe The Chair, I just can't. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course but even so. Anyway, I personally thought The Chair was a pretty slow going fairly dull supernatural horror flick that I admit passes the time but there's not enough story here to fill a 90 odd minute film, it's pretty repetitive & I will probably have forgotten everything about it by the end of the weekend. There are a couple of plot holes that I found distracting here, for start how was Danielle connected to the house & the plot twist at the end when her tutor turns out to be Mordechai is just daft beyond belief & doesn't make a blind bit of sense. I mean if Mordechai knew that Crowe's evil spirit was still around & he knew how to stop him (obviously he does since he does at the end) then why didn't he kill Crowe before? Why wait until Crowe possessed someone & started to kill innocent people? Also there is supposedly footage shot by Mordechai back in 1902 when he first hypnotised Crowe & he talks to the camera & explains everything in a quick & easy exposition scene. Right, well that's OK if it wasn't for the fact film cameras couldn't record speech back then in 1902! In fact the very first 'talkie' film was The Jazz Singer & wasn't made until 1927. I usually don't mind the odd goof in a piece of fiction but this really bugged me & I picked up on it straight away, it irritated me the entire film! Then there's the question of how an unemployed student could afford to rent & run a huge three storey house on her own, lets keep it real people OK? Then there are some truly bizarre scenes like a shot of a hand pushing Danielle under water while she takes a bath but the film suddenly cuts & the next time we see Danielle she's alright & the hand is never mentioned or seen again. There's also a strange scene in which Anna comes home & her sister Danielle is hiding from her on the top shelf in the bathroom! What's wrong with a cupboard or something simple like that? Then Danielle gets down & walks around the house naked for no apparent reason! What makes it even stranger is that Danielle isn't even hiding from Anna so why the top shelf? The first hour or so is pretty slow going, the last thirty odd minutes is better & at times is even quite good but overall The Chair didn't do much me at all & a glaring plot hole or two doesn't help.

According to the IMDb this was shot in director Brett Sullivan's own house, I suppose it keeps the budget down. There is very little variety in The Chair & the film takes place almost entirely in this one location which becomes boring. The chair of the title refers to a torture device the killer Crowe made & uses in the films best moments. Gore wise there's very little here, a screwdriver in someone's head & a bit of blood on a cut. Director Sullivan places his camera all over the place, there are extreme close-ups, there are lots of shots from the ceiling looking down presumably to give some impression of space & he thankfully keeps the CGI computer effects down to a minimum. There's nothing that scary here & as a whole you won't be on the edge of your seat!

Shot in Toronto in Canada the film actually looks quite nice, it certainly looks a lot better than a lot of recent low budget horror & the lack of awful CGI really helps too. The acting is average, I thought the leading lady lady Chisholm looked nice but her performance was wooden, there wasn't any difference between her being possessed by Crowe & not being possessed by him.

The Chair is a film that is just about watchable but isn't anything great, I think it would have worked much better as a thirty minute Tales from the Crypt style episode with a dark twist ending which the material lends itself to perfectly. Not to be confused with The Chair (1989) which is another horror film & is about a cursed electric chair in a prison.

My Review

[joemamaohio · 5/10 · 15 July 2008]

A movie about a young girl with some demons in her past moves into an old house that's haunted by the spirit of a man who was 'mesermized' to death by a famous mesmertist.

That's the basic premise of this movie. While it's not the worst B-rated flick I've seen, it's not the best. The acting is palpable, the camera angles and effects they used were slightly above-par, but there was just that little 'umph' that was missing. It was creepy enough, but you didn't really feel for the characters like you should've. And the ending was extremely predictable.

Still, though, not too bad.

A fun chair

[chelano · 4/10 · 16 October 2011]

This film was almost good. It had a really cool concept about being possessed by a spirit and becoming them. It was also strange for it was a girl being possessed by a male spirit. But the film is based around building this torture chair and learning something from the past from the house that the main character is staying in. Here is the problem though, parts of the film just made no sense. Something would come up and you would wonder why it even happened. Also the film had scenes for the jumping scare factor, but seemed to ruin it. A girl sees a blanket, yes we all know there is something under the blanket because we saw earlier in the film, something was put there. So no, it was not scary on parts that worked out like that. I do respect the story of the film though, it was really a good idea. It just wasn't portrayed right.

Another spooky house movie

[baunacholi-86159 · 4/10 · 13 May 2021]

The initial idea might have been a solid one, some scenes are also creepy (hanging chair in the hallway, the lead actress above in the cuboard) but ultimately it's a mash up of too many ideas going nowhere in my POV. I thought the mental instability could have been portrayed more to give a feeling of unease. The reveal or twist with the boy turning into evil, well ok but not a massive surprise.

Decent Low Budget Horror Flick

[Nightmare-Maker · 6/10 · 2 June 2008]

After reading lots of positive reviews for THE CHAIR, I just had to order the DVD. Now I have seen it I got to say it's a decent effort...although not brilliant.

The film was shot entirely in Director Brett Sullivan's apartment, which is a brave thing to do if you ask me, because can you imagine having an entire film crew living in your house for a few weeks! But considering the budget he obviously had he's done a remarkable job, the reason I gave 6 out of 10 was because the first half of the film was very good, but the second half fell away I thought it did'nt capture the great atmosphere that the first half had. But nethertheless well worth seeking out.

Panic Chair?

[gavin6942 · 5/10 · 23 October 2014]

Danielle (Alanna Chisholm), a young psychology student, is trying to rebuild her life when she sublets a century-old Victorian house. Unknowingly, she awakens an evil specter lurking in the dark recesses of her new home.

From director Brett Sullivan ("Ginger Snaps II") and distributed by the now-defunct Alliance Atlantis, this is a relatively low-key film that does not command one's attention. Indeed, it is subtle, and really only exists to showcase the so-called "panic chair" (which only shows up later on).

There is some interesting back story about a mesmerist, a child killer and a professor, but it is all sort of strange. May be brilliant or awful, just too hard to say.

awesome, low-budget supernatural thriller

[screencinderelly · 10/10 · 5 June 2008]

Saw and loved it at the Montreal Film Festival and saw it again recently, and liked it even more. Visually and in terms of story and character, this movie makes the most out of small moments and details, gathering them together, slowly but surely, toward a shocking climax. I was really impressed by Danielle's slow transformation from a troubled, pretty grad student to the masculinized host of the killer's spirit who takes possession of her. Also the head-scratching, how'd-they-do-that? spooky special effects (they make pancake batter really scary). You don't see this kind of subtlety and careful crafting too often in horror flicks.

An unconventional supernatural thriller, beautifully shot and acted. Definitely not to every horror fan's taste, but I'm surprised to see the 1-votes. If you don't need buckets of blood and female hysterics to make you good and scared, this is a smart, well-made, satisfying, truly indie film.

Has a few problems, but horror fans will like it

[Samiam3 · 6/10 · 7 November 2010]

The Chair feels like two movies formated into one, both have their ups and downs. The first half is a choppy but pretty spooky haunted house formula. Furthermore, If i didn't know better, I'd also call it a forerunner to Paranormal Activity. The second half is more of a Saw- formula, with more blood, adrenaline, but at the same time, more contrivance. The Chair as a whole deserves credit for being neither dull nor derivative (as so many b-movies are) but there is a sense of unevenness to the finished product. That and a sort of, scrappy/unprofessional screenplay degrade the Chair from good to 'almost' good. In the end it's silly but I think it will please horror movie goers.

Upper Year College student Daniel has just moved into a new place. A very old, red brick house. In less than a day, she becomes convinced that it is haunted. She starts doing a little experimenting: filming herself at night, going through closets. After doing some extensive research, she finds material which causes her not only to wanna write her masters thesis on horror related topics, but she is driven to perform some very sadistic behaviour, which is increasing becoming a concern (and a threat) to her friends and family.

Director Brett Sullivan knows what he is doing when he steps behind a camera of sits in front of the editing software. He effectively uses technique rather than traditional shock factor to scare the audience. While not the scariest of films, I don't exactly have a long list of films that achieve the kind of effect that the Chair does. some films on that list like Friday the 13th predate the chair, others like Paranormal Activity come after. But this is all contained within the first half. The second part of the feature, is where the blood gets spilled. Sullivan again avoids the superficial approach, relying more on grotesque ideas rather than quantity of bodily fluids to startle the audience. It works, but not flawlessly. This is the dumber half of the Chair.

speaking script-wise, it's not like the first half was perfect either. Most of the dialogue in the Chair is not that great. Nobody has much to say, but at least the delivery shows signs of attempt. Indeed the movie is just as dependant on a strong leading role as it is on suspense. Alanna Crisholm (in her only movie role) makes a pretty credible lead, given the limited room she has to work with. She sells it to us quite well through her face and her body gestures.

The Chair has quite a bit going for it, but not quite enough. It needs a bit of a reworking perhaps, because it stills feels a bit unbelievable in places. It looks as if it is intended to appeal to two different types of horror lovers: the Blair Which lovers and the Saw Lovers. As a horror film, The Chair is successful, but it remains a bit unstable and under fleshed. I did enjoy it though

The Hair

[Bezenby · 7/10 · 25 November 2016]

Timid, used student Danielle moves into a creepy place following the disintegration of her relationship and finds herself on the receiving end of an American director's vision of what a Japanese horror film would be like filmed in not-Japan land.

This is more difficult than I thought. My name is Jay Rayner. I am an overweight, but highly groomed food critic who has taken some time of reviewing Celeriac puree and...that...in order to review a film, but it's hard than it looks! Honestly, if someone had presented me with a slimy panacotta I would go straight for the throat, but this film instead has very many merits in it's first half, as it goes for a Japanese style creep out what with the subtle scares and what not, but then goes a bit astray as the 'haunting' part goes out the window and a whole 'possesion' bit comes into play.

I'm Jay Rayner. I have a beard that makes my face look like the world's worst fanny. Good day.

I saw the world premiere in Montreal

[Alexandre_DeLarge · 8/10 · 19 September 2007]

I was at the world premiere in Montreal at cinema Imperial. It's a weird movie with low budget. It was shot in the director's apartment. It's about a girl who moves up in a strange house. Some paranormal thing begins. The girl start to changes and she wants to know more about this house... I have to admit this movie scared me. It was believable. After the viewing of this film, I felt strange emotions walking alone in the dark street (the film was programed at midnight). I really liked the main character, she was so great. It's hard to have that kind of transformation in a character that is not laughable. For her interpretation alone that movie is worth to see. The director did a goog job. I'll check out for his new films if he do more.

Canadian horror which doesn't attempt to fake out the USA

[charlytully · 6/10 · 5 January 2009]

Unlike so many other recent movies of all genres filmed in Toronto, this one does not make any blatant attempts to pass itself off as being set in the United States, or, worse yet, try to foist off total idiots as being Americans. So in THE CHAIR's opening minutes, when a neurotic psychology student on anti-psychotic medication moves into a creepy 150-year-old house as the sole occupant and immediately experiences frightening paranormal events, one can easily suspend disbelief and think "yeah, eh, in Canada they probably have just one opening for student housing at a time in a college town." And when the troubled student's sister, who holds down a 9-to-5 job, gets called across town at 4 a.m. every other night to stay in her sibling's bed until sunrise, NEVER ONCE SUGGESTING MAYBE BOTH SISTERS SHOULD SLEEP IN THE WORKING SISTER'S HOME, one can suspend disbelief again and muse "yeah, eh, maybe Canadian law makes it a hate crime not to humor the death wishes of the mentally ill." Therefore, while the movie itself rates an above average 6/10 as a horror flick, I highly recommend THE CHAIR for anyone interested in quaint Canadian customs.

I Enjoyed It

[KALE808 · 8/10 · 29 June 2008]

Maybe it's a testament to the low-key sex appeal of its star, Alanna Chisholm. Or the generally good direction and cinematography, but this film was definitely appealing. I usually can't get into films shot on video, but this one looked pretty good.

Also, even though it has a slower pace, it was unrelenting up until the very end. I think for horror movies to be effective, on some level they have to be mean-spirited toward the viewer. The writer/director has to want to inflict a little psychological trauma in that 2 hours. This film doesn't seem like it's got what it takes to deliver that type of wallop, so it takes you by surprise at the end when it does.

I would recommend it.

Alanna Chisholm's performance makes this film a winner

[sitenoise · 8/10 · 16 August 2008]

Horror films are a gamble but it's easy to tell fairly quickly when it's time to hold 'em and when it's time to fold 'em. The direction, cinematography, and character introductions reveal promptly where the film is aiming at on the stupid scale and how serious an effort it's going to be. The Chair was shot on video but looks remarkably good to my eyes and Brett Sullivan's direction is smartly done—not so much in the way he captures the scenes but for the way he gets to them—the camera peers around a corner, or from across the room, from inside a closet, or it nestles itself on the ceiling and observes from there. It's not rocket science to make those choices for a film about a haunted house, but Sullivan's execution is inspired.

The Chair begins with a few black & white moments of spooky snippets and background data on mesmerism. Then we're brought to the present in the presence of a blond pony-tail. Uh-oh ... a quick shot of pony-tail girl from the attic of the house she's about to move into letting us know there's something up there, and pony-tail's off to the bathtub to relax and pleasure herself. Umm ...

Alanna Chisholm plays the pony-tail and looks like she could be Nicole Sullivan's twin sister. Her performance makes this film a winner. Once she's out of the tub and on to developing her character it's refreshing to see she's not playing it anywhere near bimbo. She's got big expressive eyes and a quirky yet confident mixed-uppedness about her that's appealing, inviting both fear and empathy. We know she's medicated and has a history of breakdowns, which she uses to her advantage. Since she is operating under suspicion of not having both oars in the water, she is unpredictable—but never hysterical. She never imagines anything; it's all really happening. It's just up to her grad school self to find the paradigm it all fits into. When her sister and the cleavage she rode in on arrive to act as the reasonable foil, Chisholm begins playing with a cold determination that works as a transition to the possessed by the "never quite dead 100 year old spirit of a killer" that invades her body, character.

Said spirit belongs to a man who was mesmerized right at the moment of death—while sitting in a spooky chair in the very house Chisholm now inhabits—and then buried alive causing him to remain in a state of horrifying limbo for a hundred years—a fate the mesmerist feels is worse than death for the man who killed his daughter, or something like that ... so there's some plot going on behind Chisholm's performance.

Plot is a difficult thing and even if we give it only a 3.8 on a scale of 10 it could still win a batting title. What interests me more are the nuances and subtle humor Sullivan and Chisholm bring to the proceedings, which also grant the film membership in the much vaunted Horror version2 category.

When it's time to explore the dark and secret room they discover in the house (plot), Chisholm and her sister's cleavage use one of those flashlights you have to wind up to get any light from. It's done without fanfare, making it quite funny. The big race-against-time action sequence toward the end of the film seems to fizzle out empty and unproductive, deliberately, making it funny and absurd. My favorite bits of the film, however, are when Chisholm settles down to research and does a slow roll of her neck, cracking it. Makes creepy noises.

Different from other Horrors

[burnsker · 9/10 · 6 April 2008]

I liked this movie A LOT. It is so different than what I'm used to. I'm used to people dying in interesting ways every 30 seconds, but in this film, nothing really happens (killing-wise) in the first 2/3 of it. Its just building up tension and interesting situations. This is great and necessary for this thing to be believable and touching. When I watched it, the director was there which was GREAT because I got to hear what he thought of it and ask him my questions (I am a youngun who is ALWAYS full of questions). One thing that I always hated about horror movies is that they go to a house and its haunted and weird crap happens. And its just like "... GET OUF OF THE HOUSE! MOVE!" But they made the character a psychology major and someone is is incredibly interested in this sort of thing. Also, she is mentally ill, so there are several reasons for her to decide to not leave like a regular person.

And then one thing I LOVE about this movie, but maybe I am a pervert, is the sexual undertone. I think even if you are not paying attention, you can FEEL it, unknowingly, and it just makes everything seem so juicy and personal.

**SpoileR** So, I liked this horror movie a lot. I mean, its not perfect... there was a scene where the guy was digging up a body of someone named Crow with a crow bar and it was a desperate situation and he said "A crowbar for Crow" and it made me LAUGH. And I think that was Brett's intention, but still dude! Haha!

And he was really pleased with our reactions to the wind up flashlight. I personally LOVED it. It was the eerie sound which just added to the feeling and the frustration of the flash light adding to the tension. You're just like "God, the damn flashlight!" hahaha

Zymytryk: the fumbling demi-god occult master.

[fedor8 · 5 January 2013]

TC starts with a quote by Houdini: "Over the years, I have exposed numerous spiritualists and clairvoyants as charlatans… but the mesmerizing powers of Mordecai Zymytryk still to this day baffle and haunt me… "

Some people are easily baffled and haunted, aren't they? Evidently, Houdini had been royally played by a top-notch charlatan, and perhaps by "numerous" he meant "two and a half", and perhaps by "mesmerizing" he meant "sexy and irresistible". (Houdini: a closet gay?). Houdini may have been a master escape-artist, but he was certainly no intellectual, as is evident from this miserable statement. Certainly if he could see this movie now, he'd have second thoughts about Mordecai, and he might cringe more than a bit for being the provider of this quote – not to mention being associated with this cheap B-movie.

Considering how the script attempts to build up Zymytryk as an omnipresent magic god of sorts, it was rather surprising and highly puzzling to have this supposedly brilliant death-defying powerful witch-master turn out to be such an utter failure. Mr. Z pretty much gets everything wrong in the highly moronic "grand finale"; he messes up his own plan, allowing a ghost of a dumb child-murderer to outwit him. I guess there is only so much power you can have, even with three Ys and one Z in your name.

One way of starting an awful movie is certainly shoving a useless dumb quote in the viewer's (hopefully tiny) brain, followed by cheap titillation. By this I mean the early scene in which the blond masturbates in a bathtub; cheap because we don't get to see her boobs, which is fairly annoying. I've always maintained that if your script sucks, the least you can do is undress your actresses. (Unless they happen to be Vanessa Redgrave or Ellen Degeneres, in which case you pay them to keep their clothes on.)

One way of continuing a movie as bad as this is to make sure that the blood looks like Heinz ketchup and that there is practically no tension in any of the scenes. The fact that a perky blond is trying hard - but failing - in being menacing makes things worse. That ensures that the overall crapiness is maintained at a consistently high level.

One way of concluding a bad movie is to turn the kid (who's an awful actor) into Damien. Certainly a successful ending – if crap is what you aimed for all along. And from what I've seen during these laughable 90 minutes, that is exactly what the film-makers wanted. They set out to make garbage and they ended up with garbage: mission accomplished, so everyone can go home and pour their Heinz ketchup on their cold low-budget pizzas.

TC's obvious B-movie roots ensure that its very fake-looking ketchupy blood holds as much eerie power as a farm chicken hatching eggs. Like most modern B-movie horror films, TC is an abysmal failure. A weak soundtrack, mediocre camera-work, and average/sub-par actors make this an experience worthy of immediate deletion from the mind. You don't need to have Alzheimers to completely obliterate the memory of these 90 minutes just an hour after its viewing.

The blonde's sister is fairly cute. That's about it.

Not A Comfy Chair...

[azathothpwiggins · 29 September 2020]

THE CHAIR has merit in that it offers something unusual in the way of a story line. It's about a child killer from 1906, who was hypnotized by a mesmerist at the point of his death. One hundred years later, said murderer returns to torment the woman (Alanna Chisholm) who moves into his old house.

There's mystery, suspense, and creepiness throughout. There's a haunting and even a possession. Then, the chair of the title comes into play, which is as ingenious as it is diabolical! It's a torture device designed to instill hopeless, suffocating terror in its victims, while slowly relieving them of their lives. According to the film's creators, this thing actually works, making it all the more frightening! In spite of its miniscule budget, this movie makes the best of its limitations...