User reviews

I read on here that some think it is a horrendous movie and others think it's a very good movie. It's none of the above. Saying it's horrendous is ridiculous because it isn't that bad. Saying it's a very good movie is also ridiculous because there are way better movies in the same genre then this one. It's an average movie worth watching once and then forget about it. The cast isn't bad. All actors did their best playing their respective characters. It's just the story that could have been better. It's all a bit guessing what happened but it's just a bit too slow and too long before you get some answers. They try to make it creepy but it isn't really and that's why it's just an average movie for this genre.

What a strange little movie we have in the under-the-radar Canadian supernatural drama "Lavender". It may be a low budget indy, but the story, acting and cinematography are all of high caliber.

Australian beauty Abbie Cornish is Jane, a woman with a horrific past that she can not remember. Cornish resonates as a wife and mother struggling to recall unthinkable events from a tragic childhood. Although she plays a gal from the American Midwest, her indigenous Aussie accent does seep through on occasion. But that doesn't detract from a solid performance as the anchor of a uniformly fine cast which includes veteran pros Dermot Mulroney and Justin Long.

And one other thing. Watching "Lavender" may well result in you never again looking at unexpected presents wrapped in pretty red ribbon as a welcome surprise.

Trauma certainly has its moments, a bold beginning, a rather dramatic ending, and a solid story development. At times in the middle I did find myself losing a little bit of interest, as it did delve into the realms of boring at times.

I'm surprised that this film has awful and amazing reviews, to me it's very middle of the road, there's nothing particularly shambolic here, it's nicely edited, well acted, but the main flaw it has, is it's overwhelming obviousness, you just know exactly how it's going to pan out, why, and who is at fault, there was no other possible outcome offered up.

It's watchable. 5/10

The movie begins by letting us know that the main character's family was killed when she was young, and that she was found in the house, crouched in the corner holding a pocket razor. Basically the movie then serves to unfold the mystery of what happened all those years ago.

The movie is incredibly slow. I found myself doing that "come on, wrap it up" gesture at the screen on more than one occasion where the camera was just pointed at Abbie Cornish's face, while she stood there looking sad or scared for WAY TOO LONG. I don't require a superhero movie to stay engaged, but the pace on this thing was like watching hair grow.

Like some other reviewers, I also questioned the "look" of Abbie Cornish's character. She certainly didn't look like a photographer. She looked like she was going to a barn dance, every day. I usually don't feel that annoyed by a character's wardrobe, but in this case that darn denim jacket got SO old it was distracting.

That aside, the plot unfolds in a pretty silly way. There isn't much consistency to the supernatural aspects (I am fine suspending disbelief for supernatural stuff -- but please establish some rules instead of having everyone do totally random things!).

By far the SILLIEST thing about this movie, though, is when we get to find out "what really happened." It was 1985 when this multiple murder took place, and the police couldn't put together what happened?? Once you see everything play out on the screen, it's obvious that even a random person off the street examining the bodies could give a fairly good guess. The specific types of injuries (or lack thereof) would make everything pretty obvious.

In short, it isn't a mysterious crime at all, so the police would ABSOLUTELY have figured it out and narrowed in on the killer quite easily. I hate having to suspend THAT much disbelief, so I felt cheated at the end, rather than rewarded for my patience sitting through all of those long, slow scenes.

It's not the worst movie I've ever seen, but there are a LOT of other good things I'd recommend putting ahead of this on your watchlist.

Those who don't understand this genre have no business writing reviews for it. The story is beautifully crafted as a psychological revelation that presents itself to a young woman who has a traumatized childhood but does not remember it. Her mind helps heal itself by gifting her little pieces of repressed memories, one at a time. These pieces appear to us, and to her, in the form of tiny gift packages tied with a red ribbon. The people she lost, the same ones from her repressed memory present themselves to her as strangers and apparitions she chases to get to a complete recovery of her mind and memory. A literal translation of those memories would be ghosts but that depends on how you choose to see it. Right until the end it could very well just be a drama unfolding itself in her mind, right until her daughter seems to know things she has no business knowing about. That's when the ghosts become real. This movie has the perfect amount of spookiness and everything makes sense. By the end of the movie every bit falls together like a sweetly solved puzzle.

Lavender has a fairly interesting, though not entirely unique premise. While it tries to create an eerie atmosphere and engaging story, it just kind of misses the mark. Nothing is particularly terrible about it. The story resolves neatly and there are a few effective scary moments. It's just not very memorable. I personally didn't find the acting very impressive and just felt bored at moments. The reveal at the end was unexpected, but not all that satisfying.

If you're considering checking out the movie, it's worth a casual watch.

In 1985 ... the mother is killed, one of the daughters survives. Not much later the police arrives. Who called them?

Lavender has the potential to be an interesting, intriguing ghost story, but it never quite hits the mark. Entirely too predictable, if you cannot guess who the villain is you're either not paying attention (who could blame you?) or you've been sheltered from the last 60+ years of thriller/horror stories. To suggest it is Hitchcockesqe is an insult to Alfred, for he would have certainly done more with the script. Overall, the movie is adequate at best but, it is far from the worst and worth watching if you haven't anything better to do. If you are taking off work for an actual sick day, this film is worth watching if for no other reason than it will lull you to sleep.

I don't understand the bad reviews. The one that first came up said the movie was slow and boring. It is for only about 10-15 minutes, but then the story picks up and it is a very good story. The eeriness is a key element of this movie and it is a true mystery. We all enjoyed it very much and would highly recommend it if you enjoy psychological thrillers.

I've seen worse movies. I actually appreciated how artistically appealing this movie was. People are complaining that this movie wasn't interesting enough, but you have to realize that the top grossing movies in the world are fast and the furious and transformer franchises, so i wish there was some context in their reviews. I personally felt that this movie could have been better, but It definitely didn't deserve a 1 star rating.

I'm honestly surprised this movie has such a low rating. It's not the best I have ever seen, but it's pretty good. There is a plot twist that I didn't see coming and the main actress played her character really well.

I would recommend this if you like psychological movies that has the climax towards the end.

This is actually a pretty good movie. It is a slow burn with a good twist at the end. It kept my attention

The storyline was very intriguing. The "revealing" in the end made it to be pretty good. However, the movie was so slow it was difficult to watch. I fell asleep for about 10-15 minutes watching this with my husband and I didn't miss anything. So many moments were just completely unnecessary. It was good, but I'm glad it's over.

The film only has excellent photography and music. The film takes place very slowly.

I wonder just how difficult it is to make a juvenile character interesting without also making her the kind of brat you would like to throttle. I'm speaking hypothetically in case anyone is worried I'm encouraging child abuse. But after spending all morning telling her mother how bored she is in her company, little Alice (Lola Flanery) goes on to tell her, "I expect ice cream," and mum Jane (Abbie Cornish) looks on adoringly. To cheer the child up, Jane will then confide little secrets to the girl about how daddy wets the bed when he's drunk too much. So the pecking order is laid down. The brat makes the rules, and when mum gets frustrated, dad - who is well meaning but a bit thick - gets the brunt of it.

It's such a shame, because these characters provide the heart of what is a fairly interesting psychological horror thriller - but if the audience is not allowed to like these people, they don't care what befalls them. And really, little Alice takes every opportunity to test the patience constantly.

It all comes good in the end though (or does it? That would be telling) and through their frightening situations, the characters become seemingly improved. And this story does have some very good moments. How much more involving it would be, though, if the main players had been more likeable from the beginning? 6 out of 10.

This was painful. I watched the entire thing, fighting sleep throughout. Only the last 20 minutes was interesting. Up until then it's just a string of boring flashbacks. I found myself just hoping they would hurry up and get to the point. To make matters worse, the ending is quite predictable. This one is a Netflix late night special if you are very bored.

This is a slow-burning, well constructed psychological thriller with mystery and supernatural elements. The revelation makes sense, but is not obvious. The acting could have been better, especially on part of the lead actress, but still does the job. The cinematography is beautiful. Other reviewers here seem to have simply picked the wrong film; if you only like action or horror, don't bother with this one.

## Spoilers-free review

This movie could have been a nice "who's-done-it" type of movie, but it got stained by plot exploitation and dislikable characters. This is a shame because the movie's premise is actually good.

Lavender tells the story of Jane, a mother in a seemingly ok family with some marriage problems. She has some problems with her husband Alan because she is kinda forgetful.

Jane likes to take pictures of old houses and stare at them for long periods because, I don't know, photographers and such. But this is not the beginning of the film. The very beginning is a montage of police officers in a crime scene which we soon realize is Jane's old house where her family was murdered. She is the sole survivor, and the movie implies she can be the killer. This is this movie's premise.

The movie's premise is not new or original, but it is good. My problems with this movie are that Jane is not likable, and the story progression is too superficial. You can read details about these problems in the **Review with spoilers** section, but the fact is that, in the end, I literally wished Jane would not have a happy ending. And convenient plot devices kinda pisses me off.

There are unnecessary jumpscares to add "scary" factors. They are totally dismissable.

In the end, I felt like this movie could deliver more. It has a good premise, camera work, and scenery, but the overall plot and the conveniences and inconveniences throughout the story made me dislike this movie.

## Review with spoilers

I would have liked the movie if the plot wasn't so inconsistent and conveniently set up. The story tries to keep us hooked on the idea that we don't know who the killer is. The story tries to make us think Jane could be the killer and her search for the truth is the main plot.

So... I don't like Jane. And I feel the plot does not want me to like her. She is always floating in her mind, being cryptic to Alan without reason, and being a terrible mother once she starts getting influenced by her family's ghosts. Yup, ghosts. It is a ghosts movie.

Now, the ghost idea is lame. To me, it is horror exploitation, considering this movie's context. I feel the scriptwriters used ghosts to try to simplify the plot. This movie would have been much better if they kept it as a psychological thriller about a woman trying to find out if she killed her family or not. Instead, it became a dumb story about Jane getting haunted by her family ghosts for no particular reason other than to add jumpscares.

Jane is already being delusional since the beginning. Then, she suffers a car accident and loses her memory. To help her heal faster, her psychiatrist convinces her that she should reconnect with her past by living in her old childhood house again.

Her family ghosts start haunting her. But we don't know why yet. For some unexplained reason, ghost rules forbid her family ghosts to say their stuff clearly. They need to be cryptic and make her remember on her own. But, "conveniently," they are always there to help her keep track of her task.

But her family ghosts are also scary for no particular reason. I didn't see any evidence that Jane's family was messed up. For some reason, the movie implies her mother was terrible, leading Jane to start being aggressive with her daughter, but I don't know why. In the end, it seemed like they were an OK family. So why do her family ghosts keep scaring Jane if they want her to find out the truth?

The other character we meet is her uncle Patrick. Patrick appears, gives some exploitation, and vanishes for the rest of the plot. He is definitely the killer.

Speaking of ghosts, who the sees ghosts and act so casual? I'm pretty sure anyone would panic if they got into Jane's situation.

The climax is kinda predictable. Patrick is a child molester, but, apparently, he only likes to molest his family's kids because he is in a, I don't know, 20 years hiatus since his first incident... Jane finds out that the psychiatrist she is seeing is actually her late dad and she is being haunted by her family because they need her to remember the truth. And the truth is that Patrick was about to molest Jane's sister, but her parents got home early, and Patrick killed Jane's mother while trying to defend himself. Her sister ended up dying in an asthma crisis during the events. And Jane accidentally bumped into her dad, who was going up the steps, and they both fell down the steps, killing her dad and leaving her with a head injury which explains her memory lapses. Jane remembers this because her family ghosts showed that to her. Well, if they could do that, why keep messing with her?

Yeah, so, in the end, we get a predictable event, of course, and then Jane leaves Patrick so her family ghosts can kill him!? What? I thought they were all good and stuff; what's up with this demonic side to them?

Yeah, sour taste after the movie ended. Not recommendable.

Oh. My. God. If I have ever seen a slow-paced movie, they seem like roller-coasters now. This title is only rivaled by that French joke of a horror movie called They Came Back (100 minutes of my life; gone).

Nothing happened for the first half hour besides the introduction of the characters and the main character living her life in between zoning out to annoying violin (or cello?) tunes for looong seconds. Literally two seconds of Dermot Mulroney and no Justin Long. Just as I was about to turn it off, though, my food arrived so I kept watching. Nothing kept happening for another 15 minutes, but right when I was closing the window for sure this time, a single interesting thing happened that involved Justin Long's character (and I love Justin Long) so I gave it yet another chance.

When there was more empty scenery and zoning out, I just skipped ahead to the revelation part, which wasn't too bad, and then it was finally over. I thanked God and ran here to try and stop others from wasting precious time.