Lord of Tears (2013) User Reviews

Atmospheric and personal Gothic horror

[filmbizarro · 6/10 · 21 October 2013]

The "Lord of Tears" team might be some of the smartest crowdfunders in horror recently, basically giving horror fans exactly what they want to see with their teasing. They doubled their goal and then some, and it's not a surprise when their main teaser was the image of a slenderman-like figure in Victorian clothing, an owl head and long freakish fingers/claws. It's what children's and adult's nightmares alike are made of. And now it is time for this Gothic and poetic horror movie to reach its anticipating audience and reviewers.

It tells the classic tale of a troubled man returning to his past to find answers. James Findlay is a school teacher who has been suffering from nightmares of a figure we've come to know as the "Owlman". As I said before, a well-dressed human-like figure with an owl's head and long claws for fingers. This is a vision that's been haunting him since his childhood, but that he has finally put to rest. When his mother dies the Owlman returns to his dreams, and James sets out to get rid of his nightmares once and for all - by returning to his childhood's home where the nightmares started. At his return he meets a woman who he starts hanging out with to keep his sanity, while he investigates the history of the house and what happened to him in the past.

The movie does where its influences and inspirations on its sleeve, and sometimes even in the plot. History, religion, ghost stories and authors like Lovecraft, Hammer horror movies, Japanese horror, and so forth is very much all of the "Lord of Tears". And not in a bad way, it successfully uses what it needs to tell an atmospheric story. Except maybe the Japanese horror aspect, especially aesthetically and in the editing in certain parts - that might be one of the low points of the movie for me. It's actually a quite specific moment where you get a sense of that kicking in, and that's also when I think the movie went slightly downhill.

The build-up of this movie is very long but it also has to introduce you to a number of characters, its main location, much of the lore without spoiling anything, and so on. In true classic horror fashion it knows that you need to be aware of what you are watching before it brings out the big guns - or the big owl. The Gothic Hammer horror atmosphere might be the strongest influence, which comes free with the territory by its location, telling a ghost story and using history and religion to do so. It's a movie that heavily relies on its back story and they successfully build an interesting lore. The atmosphere is really strong within this movie, but I don't think it delivered any actual scares. Its iconic Owlman is a great character and many of the shots are fantastic, but I had hopes for a figure that would haunt me long after the movie ended. The Owlman didn't end up feeling like a villain as much as the one to guide James. Nothing wrong with that, and not necessarily a bad thing, but not quite what I thought I'd get whenever I looked at the terrific design of the character. What Owlman lacked in scares for me, I think it made up in purpose towards the end.

"Lord of Tears" has a familiar story and quite often you can predict what's about to happen, but when things come full circle at the end you're definitely pleased with the experience. It has a few bumps on the road, such as the Japanese horror inspired part later in the movie (at least this was the case for me). But between the location, the soundtrack and the Owlman, this is a movie that's packed with atmosphere and well worth a watch. A lot of independent productions lack atmosphere and I think that's the main force of this one. It's a good watch, but personally it's not something I will revisit any time soon. Definitely worth buying and hopefully it will deliver more chills and scares to someone else, but either way it delivers a well-rounded and personal story that many horror fans will love.

More reviews at FilmBizarro.com

Awesome monster, tedious screenplay

[Coventry · 4/10 · 22 April 2014]

Wow, either director Lawrie Brewster recruited all his friends and relatives to give high ratings and write favorable reviews for his film, OR none of the avid fanatics around here has ever seen a genuinely atmospheric Gothic horror movie. I'm sure my user comment will receive a lot of not-useful votes, but what the hell, "Lord of Tears" does not deserve its current 7.1 out of 10 rating and please do not be deceived by the plenty of comments stating it's an impeccable new genre classic. There, I said it. However, I do admit that the film is a worthwhile and well-crafted attempt at traditional & spooky horror with beautiful scenery and filming locations, an admirably melancholic ambiance and – most of all – an authentically creepy monster! The Owl Man, which you can admire on the cover artwork, is a nightmarish creature with impressive mask and claws that demands for a specific type of sacrifices. The timid school teacher James Findlay has been plagued by visions of this creature ever since his childhood, but now he can confront his traumas because James' mother died and he inherited the parental "Baldurroc Mansion" in the Scottish Highlands. James believes all his phobias originate from this place and, together with the lovely caretaker Eve, he begins to investigate the hidden secrets of the estate. Okay, so far so good, then why exactly isn't "Lord of Tears" as magnificent as it ought to be? Basically because the actual plot is feather light and ultra-thin and there are only two principal characters (and one reasonably significant supportive character) in the entire movie. Brewster compensates for the lack of variety through (over-)long sequences that stylishly build up tension and atmosphere, but they lead absolutely nowhere. You know what kind of sequences I mean: sudden apparitions of the creature underneath a tree, but it vanishes when the protagonist looks again, abruptly ending dream sequences, the clichéd use of creepy children's drawings, etc etc.. The denouement – as in the revelation of the Findlay family secret – doesn't make any sense and raises more questions than the script can answer. The acting performance of Euan Douglas is quite pitiable and the beautiful Alexandra Hulme doesn't convince either. David Schofield's sinister voice is underused. Lawrie Brewster and Sarah Daly (the writer) definitely show talent and growth potential, but "Lord of Tears" is overall unmemorable and weak. Okay, go ahead, hit the non-useful button if you must

Better than some of the other indie trash out there

[fathersonholygore · 6/10 · 25 June 2014]

I'll start by saying- this movie is not great. However, it isn't terrible either. There are some indie horrors which are an absolute waste. Lord of Tears wasn't a complete waste of time, there are some redeeming qualities. Just don't believe the reviews from cast and crew members, which is more than obvious by now, that's how it goes on IMDb with a lot of small productions by independent filmmakers.

As some people stated, the acting is not particularly solid... at all. The male lead is not great, but I've seen worse. Mainly, he feels to me to be acting onstage, instead of in a film; a little too exaggerated and hammy, playing too much to the audience instead of falling into his character. The female lead isn't too bad. Though later in the film, after the 'reveal', I found her acting to get worse, yet she did creep me out at times.

Mainly what I did enjoy about Lord of Tears was the cinematography, as well as some of the effects achieved here and there. It's not all wonderful; there are some scenes, certain shots, I was not a fan of, but overall there was a decent atmosphere.

I give this a 6 out of 10, almost solely for the fact the story isn't just another rip-off of something else, it has a shred of originality in it. Plus, the Owl Man was fairly creepy. I think they overdid it with the Owl Man 'speeches' at times, but the heart was in the right place. You could do worse than this film, when it comes to indie horror; there is a LOT of garbage, but Lord of Tears was half decent, enough to give it 6/10.

I really wanted to like this...

[pre-sales · 1/10 · 13 February 2014]

...after all, I paid £20 to watch it.

Yes, I came into IMDb, searched for "Horror Movies of the Last Five Years Scoring More Than 8 / 10". This came up. Really? 8.1 / 10 from NINETY people? Unconditionally positive critical reviews? Where do I sign?

It's dreadful. Amateurish, badly acted, devoid of scares, with an obtrusive soundtrack and an utterly forgettable bad guy with a terrible case of overbearing reverb on his voice.

I have absolutely NO idea how this qualified for an award from Sundance. It looks like a third rate camcorded school project.

The positive point: well packaged and sent in black tissue paper with a single owl feather. But seriously. £17.99 plus packaging?? The only thing I can think is that this is a 'cast, crew, family and friends'-rated movie. For those of you that have seen it and were as disappointed as I was - write a review. Let's see if we can save a few people a similar let-down.

Im in Tears

[horizon2008 · 2/10 · 26 November 2013]

Such a shame, I paid to watch this movie on Vimeo after reading many glowing reports on various horror sites online, but sadly I once again wasted my money.

The imagery in Lord Of Tears is actually quite good, with many shots of dark windswept coasts and old buildings that could have accompanied a great horror flick. But the acting, man the acting, it's like something off a children's TV show. Its really, really, bad. And one of the first shots of the main character getting scared looking at an old crayon picture had me burst out laughing. It was cringe worthy to say the least.

Lord of Tears tries to base its presence on a string of shots that would make great still photographs, and then string them all together with some of the hammiest acting I've ever seen. It's sad indeed they couldn't find a few folks who knew how to carry a film, rather than the ones in this damp squib. It all goes to show you cant take other peoples word for it when it comes to movies. And is it any wonder that people download things for free these days when money is at a premium? If we keep wasting our finances on stuff like this we eventually want to try BEFORE we buy. I collect horror movies, and I have hundreds of Bluray and DVDs. If this had been a good movie I would have bought it to keep, so the reality is, true horror fans will buy movies even if they are free, IF THEY ARE GOOD. So paying for a stinker just doesn't make me smile at all.

Lord of Tears: Embarassing

[Platypuschow · 2/10 · 2 June 2018]

This was a recommendation, it was suggested to me that this looked like it could potentially be scary stuff! It was not, it truly truly wasn't.

Lord Of Tears is one of those horrors that thinks it's a lot smarter than it actually is, an over convoluted plot, an arthouse look and student film level quality.

An English horror I'm surprised just how much I walked away disliking the film, some of the visuals are adequate but there is just no substance, lackluster performances and honestly the plot is a mess.

I like the concept I do, but it was utilized so incompetently it left the film a barely watchable embarassment.

I'm not a great lover of British cinema at the best of times but this is British cinema in the hands of people who have no place in the industry.

Certainly one to avoid.

The Good:

Beautiful scenery

Visual effects are quite good in places

The Bad:

Acting is sub-par

Comes across like a bad arthouse film

Awful scoring

At several points I did actually ask myself what the hell I was watching

Plot is seven shades of awful

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

No accent grinds on me more than a Scottish one

You can stay in the Mansion featured in the film for just under 400 British pounds per night

Atmospheric, must see chiller, shot in the Scottish Highlands

[ewanlauder · 7/10 · 5 February 2014]

Unravelling a childhood mystery, James Findlay (Euan Douglas) encounters the Owl man (David Schofield), an ancient, knowing, and rather decadent apparition. Doubting his sanity, James digs further into the secrets of his ancestral home, Baldurrock house. Where conned by the ethereal and stalked by the unimaginable, his confused existence becomes a waking nightmare.

Lord of Tears succeeds in creating a pretty memorable sense of foreboding and fright. Blending elements of whodunnit, folk-horror and maybe even j-horror, heightened by wonderful scenes with Eve (dancer/actor Alexandra Hulme), who adds to the off-beat ambiance with a siren like performance, and the Owl man himself, who brazenly stalks his prey, often in broad daylight.

The stately pile may be a genre cliché, but here, with inspired narrative and stylised photography and sound, a night in Baldurrock becomes a truly fearful proposition. Though I have to say, I'd actually like to meet the fiendish Owl man. I think he'd be quite enlightening.

A must see :)

I tried to like it.

[monica-d-appleby · 3/10 · 1 February 2014]

Lord of Tears promised me something unique and terrifying, but it didn't quite deliver what I had been hoping.

For a movie funded by kickstarter and working with a tiny budget, it's well-made. The artistic direction, photography, and everything visual in this film is wonderful. The score is beautiful and unsettling when it needs to be: very appropriate. The concept of the film had so much potential, potential which was completely bunked because of the performances within the movie.

The lead, Euan Douglas, wasn't absolutely awful, but something seemed to be holding him back, causing his acting and lines to appear stiff and awkward and uncomfortable at best. This could have been a problem with script or direction, but I would be willing to bet that it might have been conflict with the second-in-lead, Alexandra Hulme.

Hulme's performance was atrocious. It takes a lot for me to dislike a character which is not meant to be the target of audience hostility, but Hulme managed to accomplish this. For me personally, her over-acting and forced lines and exaggerated movements really tarnished the otherwise appealing movie. Had the part been taken up by another actress, it might have been an entirely different horror movie, but instead, Hulme has dragged my review down to a 3/10, and beset me with bitterness and buyer's remorse.

A lot of people tend not to expect much with horror movies, but the truth is that it's very much an art, as with any other genre. To really scare someone or cause unrest or discomfort, whatever the horror movie's motive may be, there's a delicate balance that must be maintained through visuals, music, and performances. If just one portion is off, it can ruin the experience entirely.

I wanted to like this movie very much. I'm a huge supporter of independent horror and Hollywood horror alike, but as the extensively positive reviews led me to this film, I needed to address it from my own point of view. I don't know where the 8.2 rating came from.

TL;DR: the marketing was brilliant, the visuals stunning, and the score beautiful, but the performance of Hulme just completely ruined it for me. This was not the horror movie that I was looking for, though it seemed to promise that it was.

A ghost story set in the eerie Scottish countryside

[baxterfutz · 6/10 · 19 August 2014]

The movie has atmosphere, & a good soundtrack, but overall suffers from an overly simplistic plot & lack of layered subplots. There are some metaphors & allegories that only become apparent at the end.

There is overacting on the part of the lead character, & he's a little TOO "nice", like wimpy nice. This might be because he is meant to be childlike for plot reasons, but he still comes across as too "nice" & fragile.

The scariest entity in the film turns out to be not the Owlman, but eventually Evie, the woman. Having said that, my favourite parts of the film are the dance scenes by Evie, which show her at her most seductive. She's a great dancer & poser. The first dance scene reminded me a bit of Brit Ekland's dance scene in the Wicker Man (minus the nudity). The dance scenes are almost like they're from a completely different movie.

I found parts of the plot implausible or unrealistic. Like if the mother really didn't want her son to go to the old mansion, then why on earth would she will the property to him? Just sell the thing beforehand & include the money in the estate. And the protagonist's running commentary into a dictation device is unnecessary & silly as well.

The Owlman's voice is over-drenched in reverb. More subtle use of that effect would be less distracting.

However, overall I appreciate that Lord of Tears is not a slash/gore/gratuitous violence kind of horror film, rather it relies on more subtle suspense & emotional & cerebral elements. But it's not on par with a movie like The Orphanage, which the Lord of Tears director refers to in a promo for Lord of Tears.

Jarringly Horrid

[renee-williams-893-592930 · 2/10 · 18 September 2014]

Wow. Just. Holy cow, what a cringefest. I mean, I am pretty tolerant of cheese you guys, but this stinks. It stinks. What a tremendously awful film. Almost everything about it just assaulted my senses. To be fair, the scenery was beautiful and the setting deserved a better movie. But they don't get credit for Scotland being cool.

The writing was awful, the plot boring, the acting - dear god. Who are these people? Why are they in a movie? Who let this happen? These characters are zero-dimensional, and these actors should stop. Just stop now and pursue other career choices.

You know when you are watching a movie and it's so bad you are embarrassed when other people walk in the room? Like you have to have an excuse for why it's so awful? This is that. They are lucky Scotland is eerie, or this 2 would have been a 1.

Formidable eeriness

[owen-170 · 9/10 · 29 October 2013]

Imbued with creepiness from the opening, this is a fabulous ride into psychological horror - I enjoyed it more than I thought I would!

It's a throwback to the old ghost stories, with palpable atmosphere I haven't experienced in a horror movie for a long time. In recent years (if we are talking mainstream), I think Insidious is a movie which almost deliver's this sort of atmospheric flavour, but Lord Of Tears isn't a big Hollywood production, it is independent, so this achievement is impressive indeed and built on the sheer talent of the film makers alone. It's also refreshing to watch a movie of this genre with none of the Hollywood pretensions; it's stripped bare of any unnecessary trimmings or overwrought special effects – so it's back to basics, making it natural, raw and authentic.

I would love to give a breakdown of my favourite parts, but I don't want spoil it; so I can only recommend it as a fan of the genre. In time, this should garner a cult (if not, mainstream) following.

I look forward to future projects & I hope this reaches the larger audience it deserves. Beautiful to watch & equally frightening, in both vision & sound, I definitely got my horror fix today……Now breath slowly…it's only a movie.

Good Lovecraftian story ruined by horrible acting

[diego_hentschke · 6/10 · 12 July 2014]

Amazing locations, great cinematography, good atmosphere and a very decent Lovecraftian story.

Its sad to see all this ruined by horrible acting and, at times, bad directing, as seen in some silly scenes extended for too long.

The two leading actors really ruined the experience for me. In some scenes they made me laugh when I supposed to be scared. Sometimes the whole thing is just too theatrical, like in an 20's or 30's movie. Totally cringe worthy.

Another example of good idea, poor execution. With a few changes, it would be a gem.

But definitely worth watching, if you're not paying for it.

Good Idea, Poor Execution

[jameshindmarch · 3/10 · 26 June 2014]

Ill try to avoid spoilers. This is a movie that I tried to like, I am a fan of horror but I always find the hack and slash genre too predictable and so prefer the slow burning suspense type story. This story is very reminiscent of "traditional" horror stories that I used to read as a kid, M.R James as an example. It has a similar feel to the Woman In Black (if you've ever seen the original BBC adaptation of that you'll know how utterly terrifying that was), and so I knew I wasn't going to see anything new or genre defining, but just in for a bit of an old scare. The other reason I wanted to like this film is because I believe in independent and/or low budget cinema, especially from here in the good old UK. The problem is this was just very poorly executed. The acting is excruciatingly bad from the start. The chemistry between the 2 main characters is painfully nonexistent, there are some genuinely cringe-worthy exchanges. There are some extraneous scenes which should have been cut completely, or at least edited. There are a few jumps, but even these are negated by constant repetition, half way through the movie you will have seen the mysterious protagonist several dozen times. There are glaring continuity errors (one scene he is having a particularly bad nightmare in bed and runs screaming from the room somehow fully clothed in a suit..)and some very incongruous background music just appears. Also the mysterious central owl figure talks s*** in a pseudo-poetic way constantly. I would recommend some film students getting their hands on this, a damn good editing may just have saved it from itself, but again, the acting is dreadful, poor direction. Its a real shame as I love this type of film, I hope the team involved put it behind them and learn from it. Sorry folks, but its a turkey.

Acting - 0 Owlman - 1

[longshot75 · 2/10 · 26 June 2014]

The only thing horrific about this film is the lead actor. This is unquestionably the worst performance I've EVER seen, in any medium. Just excruciating. Why was he cast? How? And it's not as if the cast as is poor, in fact the quality of the support, (especially Lexy Hulme who was wonderfully warm and quirky and mesmerising) makes Douglas's performance all the more painful. The film's one-way chemistry was so cringe inducing I actually felt like writing to his co-star to apologise. The fact that he even struggles to portray an attraction to the genuinely endearing performance of a pretty girl, is even more damning.

But the massive problem it creates, is that because of the nature of the film, a terrible central performance isn't something you can just overlook. The film is designed to be a haunting, dread fuelled tale about an entity with an owl's head, but all the creepy cinematography, sound design and unsettling visuals in the world are worthless against a lead actor who fundamentally cannot sell any of it to an audience. Trust me, I desperately wanted to love this film, but thanks in whole to the terrible lead, it's nothing more than a huge waste of some really great elements. By all means ignore this review and give it a go, but within ten minutes I guarantee you'll be in total agreement.

My lowest score ever

[begob · 1/10 · 27 January 2015]

Well, the propaganda was strong on this one. Not only 10 star spam on IMDb, but external critics puffed it up as well.

The exteriors and some of the interiors look good, but the weaknesses in the story telling make it almost unwatchable.

I know it's low budget, but there really is no excuse for the lead actor and the painfully bad exchanges with the lead actress. The dialogue is on the nose and often embarrassing. In one long, excruciating early scene over the dinner table it's like they're playing ping-pong with dumplings. At 30 mins I was ready to turn off.

As for pace, at 15 mins I noticed the time - bad sign. We had wasted most of it on a simple introduction. That accounts for overrunning 90 mins, but also the climax is drawn out over half an hour.

The owl does create an effect from afar, but its first appearance reminded me of something from Sesame Street and the voice over was cheesy.

In the end I didn't care about the mystery. This is the kind of simple story Hammer did much better 50 years ago in period costume.

Some of the music was overbearing - say, in the first scene in the cellar, when the sound of dripping water would have created better effect. Some of the sung music was good, especially the track over the end credits.

ps. I see a gang of six is patrolling this thread for nasteez. LOL.

Genuine Creepiness - The Return of True Horror

[reberclark · 2/10 · 26 November 2013]

Just finished watching the...uh...unsettling "Lord of Tears" from Lawrie Brewster and Hex Media (http://www.hexmedia.tv/) in association with Dark Dunes Productions! Genuine creepiness with unexpected twists. Well worth watching but be warned - if you're watching it alone you might feel a cold hand on your shoulder before it's over! (https://www.facebook.com/lordoftearsmovie) This sort of horror movie is what has been missing in movies for about thirty years. It's not your cheap teenage slasher flick that has ruled the screen since the late seventies. It generates genuine dread and shivers without the torture porn so prevalent lately. Dedicated, appropriately, to Christopher Lee it upholds those values his movies strove to maintain.

"Of such great powers or beings there may be conceivably a survival ... a survival of a hugely remote period when ... consciousness was manifested, perhaps, in shapes and forms long since withdrawn before the tide of advancing humanity ... forms of which poetry and legend alone have caught a flying memory and called them gods, monsters, mythical beings of all sorts and kinds." - Algernon Blackwood, from H. P. Lovecraft's "The Call of Cthulhu"

Well done, guys!

"I Am Your Past, And Your Future!"...

[azathothpwiggins · 11 May 2021]

Director Lawrie Brewster's LORD OF TEARS is the story of James Findlay (Eaun Douglas), who has inherited his family estate in the Scottish highlands. Said estate was the source of many childhood nightmares for young James. His late mother even attempts to dissuade him, via a letter left for him, from moving into the place.

Unperturbed, James moves right in... and the new nightmare begins.

First off, let's talk about the house itself, which is one creepy place! The exterior looks like an ancient asylum crossed with a mausoleum. The interior is a labyrinthine collection of tight hallways, countless rooms, and winding staircases. In a word, it's perfect!

Strange occurrences start almost immediately.

Enter Eve (Alexandra "Lexy" Hulme), an American woman who is eager to help James uncover the truth about his past. Ms. Hulme's Eve is a beguiling, playful woman whose every move seems seductive. Her dance and swimming pool entrance scenes are unforgettable! There's something different about Eve. Something mysterious and somehow foreboding. She undergoes a transformation that almost defies description. Ms. Hulme delivers the terror in spades!

Brewster captures a growing sense of dread, perfectly. His film is fittingly surreal without tumbling into absurdity. It's also scary as hell! The house, the grounds, and the surrounding landscape are characters in themselves. This is for those who enjoy the macabre, the gloomy, and the doom-filled.

And we haven't even mentioned the enigmatic Owl Man...

A story of dread and love... But lacking by the end.

[Germs-live-inside-me · 7/10 · 2 July 2014]

With it's advertisement being shown to unsuspecting victims on a Chat Roulette site and photographers sent to an old building to be subjected to a horror gimmick with unexpected results was a wonderful viral build up of scares and natural fear, that upon viewing, didn't deliver in comparison to it's build up.

The story begins without beating around the bush, when the protagonist, James Findlay (Euan Douglas) inherits a mysterious will and testament left by his late mother. From the very start to the end of the film, it is filled with a wonderful score of music and some unique sounds to emphasis James' emotions and the brooding atmosphere, then throwing you gleefully into beautiful scenes of lust. This leads to feelings of dread and romance sure to keep you fixed and entranced.

This film is fuelled by mystery, rather than horror. With very artistic shots through dream sequences and 'lynchesque' visuals the mystery becomes thicker as the film progresses and progressing it does very well. But the film falls flat in the third act, where a very long, drawn out scene that from an instant of sheer horror becomes quickly ridiculous and embarrassing to watch. Thus, making a mockery of the films actor Alexandra Hulmes' talent as an actor and dancer.

Sure this film is sure to please a fan of mystery pictures, but the unnecessary jump scares shown far too frequently, fail to even startle from the first, bringing it down a few pegs as it becomes irrelevant and most of all, startling with disbelief that anyone could think it would be a good idea.

'Lord of Tears' is well worth the watch by all means for lovers of mystery solving, to see some wonderful visuals and the score, but don't expect any scares.

I'm in tears now...

[headshotofficial · 2/10 · 13 March 2018]

A rediculously slow and boring script, poor visual effects and editing, undeveloped characters with no meaning, long and meaningless scenes building the madness in ones mind, so long that I almost fell asleep in one of them and last but least... TERRIBLE acting! OVERALL : LAUGHABLE! The previous reviews got me thinking, 'It can't be that good' AND I WAS RIGHT! Almost two hours of my life totally wasted... Wish I had visited pornhub instead.

A Good Modern Gothic Horror

[Rainey-Dawn · 7/10 · 11 September 2017]

I would have given this film 8.5 to 9 stars if it had not been for the ghost girl scenes - that I wasn't crazy over - but the rest of the film was really good. Oodles of beautiful Gothic imagery - eye candy for Gothic lovers. And the story is good, it's about the Pagan Owl god Moloch and one man's path to find out his own history.

I do recommend this one for those that like the older/classic horror styled films because Owlman is in the "spirit" of the classics tales.

I did enjoy this movie - just wished the ghost girl scenes were more in the classic style instead of the modern style.. the rest of the film definitely has the look and feel of the older films and as with the storyline.

7.5/10

Lord of disappoint

[em_rajoy · 2/10 · 1 July 2015]

I prepared my self with great expectations to enjoy this one. An allegedly "lovecraftian", slow burning creepy, Gothic horror movie? That sounds great! So the first and evident thing is this was done on a low budget; I'm OK with that, I prioritize a good script, directing skills, photography and dialogs over cgi and expensive technology. 20 min later I'm twisting in pain, and not in a good way (if there's such thing). This movie is actually painful to watch. The dialogs, the acting, the character interaction, makeup, directing, editing, set decoration. it's all so terribly bad that I couldn't even finish watching this aberration. There were two or three moments where illumination and photography looked pretty well (mostly scenery, and nature textures) thats why I scored a 2 and not just 1. I'm sure Lawrie Brewster will improve overtime and maybe become a great director, but right now it seems unfair to give this one a 10 star rating when it clearly doesn't deserves it

For those who love story, characters and a lot of atmosphere for their scares

[extremehorrorcinema · 10/10 · 27 October 2013]

Now I'm not big on ghost films but 'Lord of Tears' directed by Lawrie Brewster is a slow burn character driven piece with atmosphere so thick you could suffocate a child to Moloch. What an experience it is and I absolutely loved it.

Brewster creates some great scenes of intense atmosphere and in one such scene, I even had goose bumps and chills running up and down my spine. Something of which I haven't experienced since I watched Dario Argento's 'Suspiria' and before that, I can't remember the last time this happened. There isn't any jump scares as it is all just pure atmosphere with some chilling imagery. Now that's talent. The movie takes what you know and throws it in your face just over the half way mark and the ending comes out of nowhere grabbing your balls in a vice leaving you a little depressed and sick to the stomach. I watched it with my sister, she was so freaked during some moments, and I had to keep telling her to shut up. She has since changed her Facebook Banner Photo to the film's mysterious and unsettling entity of the Owl Man.

I also loved the use of ancient legends and mythologies. It grounds everything in a somewhat taboo and older soil as it's inspired by actual immortal figures of our past. These characters Gods if you will were once an everyday part of human life and seeing such figures having air breathed back into them albeit stale, dark and twisted air just makes the proceedings that much more atmospheric. I shudder to think the amount of hours the filmmakers scrambled around doing research.

Some of the performances aren't exactly top notch (which was expected) but that said it made the movie that much more grounded and it has a quirky awkward mist in the air that is always present in these situations. Perhaps the passable acting is intentional as it is effective in making everything so much more connectible. The character of James (Euan Douglas) is rather likable and you end up feeling for him as he has an odd innocence. We see him plagued by nightmares of the Owl Man and suspecting that his terrifying visions are related to a traumatic incident from his past he returns to his childhood home a mansion in the Scottish Highlands. Here he discovers the disturbing truth behind the nightmarish images in his mind the consequences of which lead to a brutal fight for survival. Eve (Alexandra Hulme) is stunningly beautiful and her looks are rather side tracking.

David Schofield as the Owl Man delivers some utterly brilliant lines. He is chilling stuff and I love the way he speaks with poetic like dialogue. It reminds me of Doug Bradley's performance as Pinhead in the first two Hellraiser films as he is neither good nor evil just extremely well presented and doing what he is meant to within his rules. If I have one complaint though it would be the forest scene as his voice makes it a tad hard to catch everything he says but it is just that one scene. Credit here must go to Sarah Daly as her writing is fantastic and I look forward to see what other dark and twisted stories she and the director has to offer.

I feel very comfortable stating that 'Lord of Tears' IS the best modern horror movie I've seen in the last three years since Kim Jee-Woon's 'I Saw The Devil'. Between then and this I haven't really liked anything much in the genre. This is a contender along with Tobe Hooper's 'Poltergeist' for taking the crown for my most loved ghost-like horror film as well. I was terrified by the hype and excitement surrounding it and I was worried it was going to ruin it for me and I'm ever so glad it didn't. I loved every frame of it and I will without doubt fully support any future projects this team works on. My hat goes off to them and I thank them so much very much for such a beautiful piece of filmmaking. Oh, and I loved their shout out to Chris Lee and Extreme Horror Cinema in the credits.

In a time where horror is flooded by remakes, reboots, sequels and lame "true story" found footage movies that are full of pathetic jump scares it is a breath of fresh air to see something this original and perfectly orchestrated to surface from the independent market.

10/10

• General Ox

Join us @ extremehorrorcinema.com

Stick with it !!!

[berg-74532 · 7/10 · 21 January 2018]

I'm not sure why people give plot details in reviews. But whatever. It did not look like it would live up to the creepy vibe in trailer and took time to get there, and was worth the build up. I think most people who like horror movies watch a lot of them (I do) so you can usually see what's coming. And this did not. Slow beginning, solid story, excellent conclusion. If a movie is not a slasher the story has to be good and this was excellent well crafted story. This is not boobs and blood teen horror, if you enjoy a good story you will enjoy.

So much possible promise and unfortunately falls

[voodoorockertv · 4/10 · 2 February 2015]

I really wanted to like this movie it definitely had a lot of promise, but does fall down in a few key areas. The first issue I have is with the the time period it takes place. The school buildings and all the places in the film outside of the house give the impression it takes place in the 70's. Which is odd considering it takes place in current day and that from my memory is only specifically mentioned on the hex media site and the glimpses of modern technology. This seems even weirder with the female lead who's hinted to be from a different time who looks to be in her early mid/20's , but has the style of someone growing up in the 40's and the movie tries hard to imply that she is from a very different time. Which would make sense considering the black and white photograph found later that is aged and the set heavily sets the tone of the movie taking place in the 70's which would make the main character in his mid to late 30's and a small child in the 40's when the photo was taken.

One other issue I have is with the film is the main actor. I'm not sure who decided to have him freak out at everything. It makes it much harder to take him seriously later on when he is legitimately afraid, but harder to buy considering he's been doing that the whole film.

The last issue I have is with the Owl Man. Great looking and he looks creepy and the movie really tries, but the movie doesn't really feature him till the last 20 min maybe half hour. Considering the whole movie centers on him they really don't include him as much. I'm fully aware a large part of horror is keeping certain things in the dark however, it seemed a lot was revealed last minute and also his appearances were sporadic. One thing about HP Love Craft did so well was the sense of for boding the power of the gods through out the whole story and in this case it really feels shoved in last minute.

Had they worked out the time line/plot holes, issues with the main actor and included more of the Owl Man earlier on it could've been great. They really skip of over a lot of the Owl Man and it feels like it got thrown in at the end. The promise though is definitely there, which makes this so much more disappointing especially considering the trailer and the implication the Owl Man would be more involved.

Breaks what to me is the biggest rule of horror movie-making

[alegault · 3/10 · 16 May 2017]

I never "review" movies, but when horror breaks what I consider to be the #1 cardinal rule of the genre, it makes me almost angry for some reason. That rule, which is an entirely personal one, is that if you're going to take yourself dead seriously with your horror movie, you damn well better have good acting. Your story has to embrace camp in order for bad acting to have any hope of working. The lead actors ability is to me only a few small steps above infomercial quality. There is no feeling to his performance here whatsoever, especially when it calls for dire emotion which it does much too often. The story's execution, although interesting on paper, really doesn't do him or the lead actress any favours. I couldn't in good conscience rate it as low as possible because there are three things, a star for each, that to me must be commended: 1) The location and cinematography that takes place outdoors is fantastic. Beautiful stuff. 2) The lead actress is absolutely gorgeous here, and her performance singlehandedly carried me through to the end, which I could barely believe I made it to. She is embarrassingly cheesy in the third act, which I won't spoil here, but that is entirely the fault of the filmmakers. She did what she could with what she was given. 3) The movie is dedicated to Christopher Lee. This one is self explanatory.

3/10