It's difficult to review Ghost Stories without giving spoilers away, so I'll be very careful in what I say.
If you're after some good jump scares and some nervous laughs, then it executes those beautifully. Also, Alex Lawther should be praised for a performance that knocks it out of the park. It's a good cast, but he outshines them all.
However, I do have issues with the story itself.
Initially the plotting teases a new post-modern take on portmanteau horror, with the individual cases not resolving in the usual way, but building to something more climatic.
But the story constructs its final act by falling back on a trope that we have all seen before and this left me disappointed when the credits rolled.
From Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman you might expect something else. Something different.
Something new.
It's very well-made, but it's not different or new.
Add a Review
-
British horrors are hit and miss with me, some are excessively uneasy to watch ('Eden Lake') whilst others are suitably atmospheric ('The Descent'). So when I saw the trailer to Ghost Stories, I immediately tempered expectations but what I saw increasingly intrigued me. The end result...was not what I predicted. A professor who takes pride at debunking psychic frauds, is given a task by his role model. He must investigate three unexplainable cases that challenge the existence of supernatural entities. An intriguing premise that will appeal to many, its execution however may not. Structuring its narrative through three short stories, each with a paranormal theme, whilst intertwining the cases into a coherent investigation. Combining real life conditions, such as stress, depression and loneliness, with a ghostly undertone certainly translates "the brain sees what it wants you to see" theme very well. The three cases themselves were convincingly atmospheric as they injected much needed chills and thrills to this horror flick. The main story itself, although basic, was ambiguously surreal and will leave you guessing right up to the final reveal. The acting was splendid from the whole cast, particularly Whitehouse and Lawther, hosting an array of British accents. Was it scary? No. Every single scare was accompanied with a piercing loud noise to ensure that you jump. That's not frightening, that's damn irritating! The makeup effects of the poltergeists were lacklustre. The second case should've been much scarier, but instead was rather hilarious. "Staaay!"...yeah, I wished you did. Could've enhanced the horror some more. Then we get to the ending, which is possibly one of the surrealist safest endings I've ever seen. The breadcrumbs throughout the film were intelligently positioned, but I feel it followed the same premise as an all too famous 1995 film (I won't say the title, it'll spoil it). The film is intelligently creepy, it's just not scary and it's conclusion didn't deliver any impact for me.
-
gizzie-4042412 August 2018I was lucky enough to catch the stage show in the West End a few years ago and I thoroughly enjoyed the live performance. I have just seen the film version and have to say that it creeped me out...a lot. Good performances and great stories. I don't know if seeing the stage show may have helped those who felt that it was up to scratch but everyone is different, yet I still feel this is well worth a watch. Enjoy.
-
sarahdoughty-7678826 August 2018As long as you immerse yourself in the film and don't try to critique it in that annoying "why did they go out and search" sort of way, then you will enjoy it. There are jump scares and it is a good British horror film. I enjoyed it, i felt entertained but then I like to broaden my horror movie horizons and don't rely on cgi or a new 'twist' to entertain me. So, give it a go...don't listen to the millennials who don't know the 'traditional' horror film or this that want a quick resolution. It is what it is: a good British horror.
-
Written and directed by Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman, Ghost Stories focuses on a certain Professor Goodman (portrayed by Andy Nyman himself), a man who has found some level of career fame in exposing and debunking the work of fraudulent so-called psychics.
The arrival of a mysterious package one day from a famous TV psychic investigator from Goodman's own childhood era, Charles Cameron (Leonard Byrne) - a man thought to be long dead and whose own disappearance years before had been shrouded in mystery - soon changes the course of Goodman's future work, dramatically.
It transpires that there are three ghostly mysteries that Cameron himself had wrestled with throughout his life, yet they remain unresolved to this day. It is Cameron's wish, in his old age, that Goodman should now investigate them and bring some much needed resolution to proceedings.
Armed with each of the case files, Goodman sets about tracking down the three key proponents, upon whose testimony these apparent other-worldly happenings are based.
Though somewhat shaken by his findings, Goodman's own innate scepticism leads him to believe that each of these cases can easily be explained away through the simple application of science and logic.
But sometimes it's the psychological uncertainties of our own minds that can provide the biggest clues when we seek to make sense of the seemingly inexplicable.
Dyson and Nyman's Ghost Stories works effectively for much of its duration as an apparently straight forward, slightly hammed-up spook-fest, though there is little by way of conclusions that can be garnered on face value from any of the three tales.
But alarm bells should begin to ring for the viewer when one considers that the first two tales are told from the perspective of a couple of characters who, despite ultimately finding themselves cornered by forces of evil and in apparently terminally hopeless predicaments, both still somehow manage to live to tell the tale. And it's only once the third tale reaches it's climactic 'conclusion' that events really start to take a peculiar twist, and Ghost Stories slips into an even more intriguing dimension altogether; one whose narrative slips and slides between apparently random events of varied illogic, yet one which ultimately helps to tie the film's pieces neatly and cleverly together.
There are a few passing parallels with landmark horror films of yesteryear. Elements of Poltergeist and The Blair Witch Project are apparent in places, but curiously it's a sort of tongue-in-cheek, 'hammer house' atmosphere that is most prevalent here. And although admittedly bearing little resemblance, content-wise, Roy Ward Baker's 1981 ghoulish and very British, twist-in-the-tale offering, The Monster Club, with its own lightly comical regaling of three haunting tales - is for me, somehow the film that I am most reminded of.
Certainly, within their own film, Dyson and Nyman are unafraid to administer generous doses of gallows humour in just the right places, and the casting of two chiefly comic actors in Martin Freeman and Paul Whitehouse - both of whom are excellent here - in two of the film's key roles, certainly helps with regard to this, whilst Nyman's own rather more straight portrayal of a man with an emotionally-scarred past, is equally impressive.
Whether it's to be considered a mysterious cognitive thriller or simply a ghostly shocker, either way, Ghost Stories is highly effective, lingering on in the memory the way all good cerebrally-challenging psychological horrors should.
For all of my reviews, visit my: WaywardWolfBlog Wordpress site. -
LloydBayer26 September 2018Adapted from a hugely successful West End stage play of the same name, Ghost Stories will appeal to old-school horror fans where the journey has more importance than the destination. For this, co-director Jeremy Dyson (who shares scripting and directing duties with lead actor Andy Nyman) uses every opportunity to rattle our nerves but applies restrain to great effect. Jump scares are also limited in favour of an icy atmosphere that harkens back to classic British horror films. In keeping with that tradition, viewers can expect this horror film to have all manner of spooky threats from all corners of the screen. While this can be perceived as a limitation to the original stage production, the story remains the same and the main reason why this is a well assembled chiller.
Because of the plurality in the title, the film appears to be an anthology of short stories. Or does it? There is a common thread running through each of the stories and that is co-director Nyman as Professor Phillip Goodman - a cynic devoted to exposing urban superstition and fraudulent psychics. The opening credits show why Goodman has a chip on the shoulder for superstition, but having climbed the ladder and become a television presenter, the chip on the other shoulder tells us that he is also hungry for fame. Opportunity arrives in the form of Charles Cameron, a renowned paranormal investigator Goodman has idolised since he was a child. The sick and dying Cameron asks Goodman to investigate three cases of unexplainable paranormal incidents. Little does Goodman know, or is prepared for what lies ahead. And neither are we.
Each of the three stories are barely twenty minutes long but ensures a good fright at the end. If that isn't enough, a fourth story emerges, which according to a very special character is "the last key that unlocks everything". But we want even more, right? Patience will be rewarded, but not before realising that even as the title is obvious, the black humour is equally evident. "The brain sees what it wants to see", says that same character, setting into motion a cruel joke that not only serves as a devilish twist ending but also ribbon-wraps the entire package.
While true horror fans may think this film is more bizarre than it is scary (which could be a let-down for some viewers when each story ends), the real meat of the film is in the build-up and not so much in the actual confrontation with the paranormal. This is evident in the old-fashioned campfire approach to telling a ghost story, and with almost the same potency from the works of Stanley Kubrick to Stephen King. Technically, this also means the directors were trying their hands at all possible ways to scare the audience. That doesn't say much about raising the bar as a horror film but to its merit, delivery from key roles played by Martin Freeman and Alex Lawther nails it as tight as a tomb. Lawther, in the second story, is as creepy as a ventriloquist's dummy, while Freeman's character brings an ethereal crowning to the entire film. Ultimately, Ghost Stories is assembled from a deep love for the genre. While that can include certain familiarities, the film is also smart and sophisticated. Which when stacked up against modern day horror films, feels strangely original yet playfully subversive. -
gnasher-1820120 March 2018My first reaction is that I need to watch it again. While personally I did not think it was scary, it does have moments that are typical to make the viewer jump. It does have a big and somewhat surprising twist at the end (which I thought was very clever and well executed), however I think the most scary aspect upon reflection is if that twist might actually be true in some real life cases, that is seriously scary and very sad. It was a good film, I look forward to watching it again, there is some light relief and laughter in one of the tales and some of the acting is very good - Martin Freeman and Alex Lawther particularly. The problem is that you just don't care about the wrap-around as Prof. Goodman is a priggish bore, an academic bulstered by his own beliefs and ego. Also, once the twist was revealed even the Prof's name annoyed me slightly - the point felt a little hammered home. I did feel that the explanation of Locked-in Syndrome was absolutely disgracefull, and not in line with medical science, which was just sloppy: now there is a film to watch - 'The Diving Bell and The Butterfly. Overall: good; worth a watch; not in itself scary; definitely food for thought.
-
Woodyanders26 October 2020Professor Phillip Goodman (a fine and credible performance by Andy Nyman) has dedicated his life to debunking the supernatural. Goodman has his cast in stone skepticism put to the test by three incidents in a case file that appear to be the real thing.
Writers/directors Nyman and Jeremy Dyson relate the intricate and absorbing story at a constant pace, ably crafts an eerie and unsettling atmosphere, offer a smart and provocative exploration of skeptics versus true believers, and really pull out the harrowing stops in the tense and terrifying last twenty minutes in which a tragic occurrence in Goodman's past comes back to haunt him with a vengeance. Moreover, the three individual cause tales are all quite creepy and nerve-wracking. The ace acting by the tip-top cast rates as another substantial asset, with especially praiseworthy contributions from Martin Freeman as hearty rich banker Mike Priddle, Paul Whitehouse as weary night watchman Tony Matthews, and Alex Lawther as rattled teenager Simon Rifkind. Both Ole Bratt Birkeland's sharp widescreen cinematography and Haim Frank Ilfman's spirited shivery score further enhance the overall sterling quality of this on the money fright film. -
kaptenvideo-8987512 May 2018There's this strange thing about horror movies that I have come to notice recently.
Almost every time one of them gets famous and popular, I hear how "this is not like the other horror movies". But this promise rarely proves to be true.
"Ghost Stories" is certainly inventive and watchable enough to justify its image as one of he year's more noteworthy horrors. But it's actually exactly like the others of its type. Which is, this time, both good and bad. I'll explain.
Good is that although the screenwriting-directing team of Andy Nyman and Jeremy Dyson have enough skills to use the ghost movie cliches effectively, they have also created a proper movie around them, with authentic atmosphere, characters, suspense and content.
This kind of high level of storytelling is relatively uncommon in the genre. And this is possible because the authors have taken their time and care to ensure everything has had room to develop and breathe.
Every one of the five stories included is good enough to keep us enterained and interested. Every time one ended and the next began, I was left wanting more - get more answers, stay more in the world created...
The tempo is rather slow and the movie only 98 minutes long, so every story and character has relatively limited screen time. And yet nothing feels rushed.
This sense of rhythm and flow is definitely "Ghost Stories's" biggest creative achievement. The menu consists mainly of cliches but they don't all that cliched thanks to some proper storytelling supporting them.
Having said that, the experience would probably benefit from using less "sudden scary noises" - a tactic which feels often cheap even in cheap horror movies.
So, what is bad about "Ghost Stories" being just like other horrors of its kind? It also shares their "curse of the final act". Meaning the story turns out to be less clever as it first seems.
And the end-game is more about tying the loose ends together than combining everything into coherent whole - or building the already satisfying tale up to memorable finale.
Still, there's a lot to like about the movie. I have yet to mention acting, the great quality of which also seems much higher than horror's usual.
The acting style is horror's usual (all those wide eyes and beat-skipping hearts) but much more nuanceful, so watching all the performances is joy in itself.
Some of the players - mainly Martin Freeman and Alex Lawther - have a chance to combine the characters' somberness with dry humour, and they prove to be superb at that, without turning anything into bad comedy.
The co-screenwriter and co-director Andy Nyman also fills the main role of skeptic investigating the supernatural. He has an extensive acting background, so he's actually capable leading man, and has impressive acting range at that.
His character feels almost too well written for "just a horror movie". There's this beautiful human softness and fragility about Nyman's performance, which contrasts quite starkly with the movie's gritty and ominous atmosphere. What a delicious combination, come to think of it!
I feel there's so little uniqueness or innovation in horror genre that watching those movies is usually not quite worth one's time. "Ghost Stories" is better than many, but sadly the whole is not nearly as great as its parts which I wrote extensively about.
It ultimately fails to jump over the high bar the authors have set for themselves. But this is surely one of the the best 7/10 movie you'll see this year.
If you are scared of horror movies, then rather skip it. "Ghost Stories" stays true to its title and has lots of scares to offer. -
bwdude22 July 2018There is nothing wrong with the acting or the production of this movie, in fact they are quite good.
It's just that it's really, really boring and seem to go nowhere. Also I did not care for any of the characters.
I sat through it, because I thought the ending might bring the seemingly unrelated stories together.
It actually did, kind of. But in the most uninteresting, far-fetched, cheap and stupid way possible. I was surprised alright, but not in a good way. -
jonrosser8130 March 2018This portmanteau film is made up of 3 scary ghost stories, all investigated by a man of science who is convinced the paranormal can be explained away with mundane explanations. A mysterious package leads him to investigate these 3 spooky tales. Great acting, well shot and directed, with a very British sense of humour sprinkled throughout. Do not read too much about this movie, just go and experience it, I think you will find it scary, interesting and most of all worth your time.
-
darrenbanks-0258819 March 2018Good film , bit of a twist at the end . Worth watching
-
It's really hard to understand how this ended up getting made. It's three clichéd and unsatisfying stories wrapped up in another clichéd and unsatisfying story. There are a few nice moments, but what a mess of a film.
-
milesd-9052929 August 2018Firstly, ignore the negative reviews, they're from people who obviously reside in the same place as the lead character does in this movie, (You'll know what I mean at the end of the movie.) These people have no imagination and probably like nothing more than a poor Hollywood zombie flick. On with the review. Great movie with plenty of jump scares mixed in with some chilling atmosphere along the way. Good location and some damn fine acting. The three stories are well executed, although I did find the second one rather disappointing as I felt the location and what's inside could have been explored more rather than the lame flash back itself, leaving me with too many questions. I thought the three stories were going to tie in somewhere towards the end and it geared up to that conclusion, however and unfortunately it failed to deliver and fell flat on it's face, leaving me feeling rather cheated and thinking "Is that the best they could come up with! " Ignore the ending it really doesn't do justice to what transpired before it. Enjoy the three stories for what they are and don't analyze too much. Just enjoy being made to jump and that's it.
-
There are some films that simply have to be reviewed using spoilers. I don't like to do it, but on occasions like this it is simply unavoidable. I take extensive measures to know as little about a film before going into it as possible (I even avoid trailers wherever possible). 'Ghost Stories' was a film I knew almost zero about other than that Martin Freeman was in it and it was classified as a drama/horror (whatever that means). Very early on in the film we meet a character who is supposedly an old man. Being quite familiar with him as an actor I said to myself that is Martin Freeman in heavy make-up. Sure enough it is revealed later in the movie that that was indeed the case. Now I'm not sure whether the make-up was supposed to be intentionally revealing, but I very much doubt it. I feel I would've enjoyed the reveal much more when it came around if I hadn't already suspected it over an hour ago. I can only guess the make-up budget wasn't quite high enough to pull it off properly.
This is very much a retrospective film. You are asked to look back and reconsider everything you've seen. That element to it I really liked. The ending is unquestionably the strongest part. The three horror stories told through the middle are on the other hand of the mixed bag variety. There are very strong moments in each of the stories, but ultimately they were a little tedious and forgettable. They were of course serving a purpose for later on, but I still feel they could have been done with a little more creativity - particularly the second one.
Martin Freeman is a breathe of fresh air in this film. He really shows the rest of the cast up it has to be said with his class, charisma and screen-presense. When I thought it was going to be a straight up horror movie I was a little concerned about whether his star-power would take me out of the horror mind-frame. Knowing now how the story plays out though I think he was an excellent choice for his role. There's certainly enough creativity and originality to make 'Ghost Stories' worthy of a watch. -
begob6 April 2020A professional sceptic takes over three unsolved hauntings from his ailing idol, and finds himself drawn into a life and death struggle.
Is it an anthology with a framing story? Hard to say. The first story is a perfect fright, with excellent lighting design to deliver the chills. Second story has a really disturbing set up, although not much follow through. And the third takes us through the looking glass, to wrap up in a tumult of revelations about what has gone before.
The lead performance in each story is strong, and the role of the sceptic keeps us focused even as the narrative grows complexity out of the simple elements. The music and sound effects are good. The jump scares work. They ought to have been able to build a good female role, but for whatever reason that wasn't pursued.
But does it work overall? This is a reverse-domino narrative, where everything flows into place as you look back in wonder with a dawning realisation. It certainly works in the final scene, but I still can't pin down the opening montage - so I dock a point.
Good, stylish chiller, but not completely integrated. -
gilleliath5 April 2020This is like a souped-up version of the Black Mirror 'rationalist horror' model. The shocks are handled well, in what is now the established Insidious / Sinister style, and you get the sort of twist you expect; the film leaves you with a sense of depressed unease - I'm not sure whether that's a good thing but at least it has an effect. But it lacks the colour of the great old Amicus portmanteaus - literally as well as figuratively, as it looks drab. The individual stories are super-slight - not much more than 'I saw a ghost' - and towards the end it seems in danger of sliding into the usual dreary British social realism. Some of the issues thrown up by the rational vs spiritual debate are interesting - are debunkers of the spiritual really helping anyone, or just trying to deal with issues of their own? - but a horror film is not really the place for it. The whole thing feels slightly over-thought - and like what it undoubtedly is, a pet project.
Still, as I say, it's fairly well done. A qualified thumbs up for a British film which does try to entertain, has a few ideas of its own, and which is not devoted to promoting some social ishoo or other. -
TheLittleSongbird3 May 2018Saw 'Ghost Stories' as someone who loved the trailer, appreciates horror, has enjoyed her fair share of anthology films (i.e. Hammer), was intrigued by the cast and loved the idea. It appealed to me straight away, and it quickly became another one of my most anticipated films of the years.
It also, after seeing it, very nearly became one of my favourites of the year thus far. A perfect example of how to execute British horror well, one of the better ones in years and another film to live up to a great idea and even outdo it. Would also go far to say that 'Ghost Stories' is one of the best anthology films personally seen too, certainly one of the most consistent, but it's much more than just an anthology film. It's also an unsettling and very well crafted film in its own right for any genre. 'Ghost Stories' won't go down as one of my favourite films ever and is not quite one of my favourites of the year, though it is in the better half, but a lot of work went into it and it shows.
Not everything surprises, there are places where knowing what is going to happen is not difficult. The tone shift towards the end jars ever so slightly. Really though there is very little wrong with 'Ghost Stories'. The episodic structure, inevitable as it is an anthology film and all the anthology films seen which is a lot are episodic, is not a problem at all when it could have been easily. Primarily because of the pacing being so fluid, the structure being tight and the atmosphere, the film also knew what to do with itself, what it wanted to be and who to aim it at, not always the case in horror.
Visually, there are some really striking and unnerving images in 'Ghost Stories', providing a good deal of eeriness and then there are the clever visual references. The film also boasts some of the cleverest and best use of sound editing and design of the year so far, another standout of the year being 'A Quiet Place'.
Writing is twisted, intelligent, thoughtful and darkly humorous. There are a lot of genuinely unsettlingly creepy moments in each story and the unnerving atmosphere is constant with a great touch of the bizarre and the grotesque without ever being confusing or dull. Anthology films can be inconsistent, where there are stories that fare better than others. 'Ghost Stories' is a rare case for an anthology film where all the stories work, hence why it was called earlier on in the review one of the most consistent anthology films. The plot twist is totally unexpected and stays with you.
Directing is assured and beautifully handled. The performances are spot on across the board. Was not expecting actors known for comedy like Paul Whitehouse and Martin Freeman to excel in roles where more of a dramatic approach was required, they do so magnificently. Alex Lawther is one to watch.
Concluding, hugely impressive and well worth the watch. Those who like British horror, or horror in general, shouldn't miss it. 8/10 Bethany Cox -
blitz_0825 November 2018I like scary, not blood and gore. This was scary, scary enough that an unexpected noise in my house while watching it, made me jump. The acting is good, each individual story has its own build up, Martin Freeman is great. Overall, a really fun movie that will give you a little scare. There are so many really dull, poorly acted, incredibly routine "horror" movies out there, this was a refreshing bit that's a cut above the rest.
-
Platypuschow4 January 2019Ghost Stories is kinda of a horror anthology, but not really. It's a British horror anyway starring Martin Freeman and oddly Paul Whitehouse.
It tells the story of a skeptic, a professional debunker and I think they're always fantastic protagonists because I can entirely relate to their plight and mission. He's tasked with investigating three supernatural incidents and off he goes to find the truth.
Truth be told I was really enjoying it, it was so well handled. Genuinely tense, succeeds in being scary without relying on jump scares and the cast are fantastic. I was gripped, I was enthralled, I was hooked.
Martin Freeman is on form and Paul Whitehouse in such a role though weird actually showed he may be a more credible actor than originally believed. He broke free of the comedy characters he's known for a did a great job.
So what went wrong? Sadly for me it's one of those films killed by the ending, it just didn't work for me. I get it, I fully understand everything they were going for but personally that flat lined the entire film.
Such potential, so well done, but that ending just bundled the thing into a coffin and sent it to a premature grave. Such a shame.
The Good:
The majority is fantastic on every front
Lot of potential
The Bad:
Movie killing ending
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
Phone signal is something that you just swipe out of the air
02 product placement? Worst ever
Professors are known for pulling onions out of their bottoms -
Clever, but not overly clever. Not so clever that you want to punch the writer(s) in the face. I was very surprised and satisfied with the ending of the film, and thoroughly enjoyed the path the storytellers took the viewers on to reach the conclusion. I watched it multiple times after renting in order to locate the delicious little hints that pointed to what was actually going on in the film. My first viewing was obviously the most satisfying: sitting alone in my lil' house in the woods, late at night, with all the lights off. The silence and darkness of my surroundings definitely added to the overall experience. I also really enjoyed the subsequent viewings, which helped me understand reasons behind certain shots, bits of dialogue, etc. And it was still scary the second and third times around!
I thought each paranormal case presented in the film was uniquely frightening. The filmmakers made effective use out of many different types of scares. It isn't overly gory, which I appreciate because I am not really into blood and guts. There was a lot of suspense and eerie sounds, which I love. And some spooky critters, which I also love. The lighting (or darkness, I guess) in the first scenario was really unsettling. And then...the soul horror. Lawd have mercy.
Thought Martin Freeman stole the show, but then he usually does. Really enjoyed the 3 or so minutes with Kobna Holdbrook-Smith as the priest. His dialogue was beautifully written and performed. Alex Lawther is always creepy. He could do a sweet-as-sugar romcom with Emma Watson and he would still freak me out.
Love the cover art/film poster/whatever you call it as well.
All in all, I found it really enjoyable. Classically spooky with modern twists. Good times. -
Within the framework of a paranormal-debunker investigating three cases which his colleague has declared unexplainable, this film presents three horror vignettes that manage a spooky atmosphere but have an overall darkly comedic overtone. This is important to know going in, I think, because dark comedy can be disappointing--even to those who like it--if one expects more sincere horror.
Though many reviewers have called this film truly scary or creepy, this is not its intention, which I think has also led to poor reviews by people disappointed with the ending. Ultimately the narrative framework coalesces into the fourth, poignant if not outright tragic vignette.
I think the filmmakers were aiming for some existential levels they did not quite reach, regarding the nature of truth and how people interpret what they see--or THINK they see. Nevertheless the film was a break from the ordinary, which this horror fanatic always appreciates. -
rocknrelics27 August 2018Was really looking forward to this, but what a let down. Not scary, stories with no proper ending(terrible ending for the film itself), and just a lack of authenticity. I was annoyed from the start with the flashback clips, if they wanted them to look like Super 8 clips, why not film them in super 8?Much has been made of the portmanteau style of the film, but if you're expecting it to have any of the charm of the old Amicus ones, you'll be severely disappointed. As a British horror buff, I'm sad to be so negative, but when a film has been built up quite a lot, and you're expecting something half decent and are presented with this, then it's not surprising to be somewhat disappointed. I advise giving it a wide berth.
-
One of those movies that people tend to really like or hate. Even I am torn between the two sides. On the one hand it is stylish, very nutty and unpredictable at the end, but on the other hand that resolution does seem like a lame cop-out. Plus, the individual stories were mostly incomplete. Their incompleteness can be easily explained by the fact that they are dreams, but this doesn't change the fact that they don't end satisfactorily.
The conclusion is quite trippy. It makes little sense though, aside from explaining that Nyman actually hallucinated everything while in a coma - and it explains why he attempted suicide.
Very iffy, this suicide business though. Why would a middle-aged man kill himself over some guilt-trip stemming from decades earlier? What was he waiting for? Or was there a different reason for the suicide? Why does he hallucinate these three stories about science being superior over superstition and fear? Why this subject? Is he even a TV personality to begin with? Why does the movie LIE to us about EVERYTHING only to throw the "mega twists" at us? Can't they deliver a story with twists while playing fair with the viewer? It's easy to offer "twists" when you LIE throughout the movie: that doesn't take intelligence and isn't innovative, it's just a cheesy, cheap trick. Lying is easy, after all.
Besides, the writers/directors (Nyman and another guy) lay ALL the blame on Nyman for the death of the mentally-challenged character, when it is abundantly obvious (all the way from outer space) that it's the two thugs that are primarily to blame. Nor do I find it very realistic that Nyman didn't report the event; but OK, that's a minor flaw. It's improbable but not impossible.
The bullying incident itself was way over-the-top too, typical cinematic overkill: the thugs first basically attempted to murder Nyman, then when Kojak showed up they decided to murder him instead! That's how it comes off. The thugs did not appear to be THAT stupid though. They weren't serial-killers, were they? I'd expect only total and utter fools to try that bottle thing without the fear of doing a big stretch of time for it. (Then again, being minors in Britain, they'd probably get a slap on the wrist, nothing more.) Or to send a mentally deficient person into a long, dark, narrow tunnel. Unnecessarily far-fetched. Over-dramatized hence silly.
Another problem is the switching of themes, which is admittedly unusual but basically daft. I'm fine with a very unpredictable ending (people who claim GS was predictable are pathological liars, because there is NOTHING to tell you that he is in a coma, making it all up; only in hindsight can you understand the "clues"), but what has Nyman's suicide have to do with the INITIAL theme about science/reason vs the supernatural? Nothing. The movie starts off with one premise and topic then COMPLETELY veers off into a totally unrelated tangent, as if randomly chosen.
In fact, the very first scenes depict a Jewish family torn by racial prejudice! Goodman talks of how "religion tore our family apart". How? Not only do we not get an explanation, but that topic has very little to do with either the main science/ghost premise nor the later themes of suicide and guilt. It's a very muddled script, in that sense at least.
Typically, all the reviewers who praise GS talk about the clever ending, yet almost none of them discuss WHY the ending is clever or what it even means on some imaginary "profoundly intellectual" level. I am of course referring to the spoiler reviews. None of these spoiler reviews with high ratings discuss in detail WHY the ending is allegedly brilliant. Not one.
As far as the stories...
The 1st story is good. It's nicely shot but seems incomplete. It doesn't even add any hints/clues regarding Nyman. (Of course, later on the last scene ties in well with the hospital segment.)
The 2nd story is very interesting. It's a pity the zombie parents shown briefly were never explained, but perhaps it's better like that. Still, it was a nice touch. Having a sort of demon run over was also a fun and original premise, but it sort of goes nowhere, this story also being incomplete. The photo on the wall is a nice touch too because it's the first hint of the big twist - despite the fact it only has significance in hindsight. Also, Nyman finally experiences something weird after the story; alas, this occurrence only vaguely connects to the ending and is usable as a hint only in hindsight. It means nothing on the first viewing.
The 3rd story has some nice touches, is quite good too, but more importantly after it finishes the trippy stuff starts, beginning with the totally unexpected "suicide" by Freeman - which in hindsight turns out to be related to Goodman's suicide AND Dr Freeman's jokey suggestion that "a shotgun aimed at the head is the right way to do it". (Strangely enough, Dr Freeman says this AFTER the dream, meaning that he must say this "joke" often, though it seems a little odd that he would repeat it, and more than once within comatose Goodman's earshot. A bit far-fetched.)
Shortly after that the movie moves into art-house territory, and then we get that "it was all a dream" cliche ending. Are these film-makers even aware how many movies used this shtick? The first one was "Wizard of Oz" frcrssakes. "Dead End", "The Others", "Sixth Sense", "Specters", "Carnival of Souls", "Stay" and a host of other movies have a similar or same twist. Plus of course "The Usual Suspects" whose end-twist GS unashamedly uses.
Hence I presume that some people impressed with GS must be new to cinema, or at least horror/fantasy films. Everyone else should feel somewhat let down by the ending which is unfortunate because the trippy section that preceded it was a lot of fun and promised a wild ending rather than just another problematic cliche.
After an additional viewing:
I enjoyed the film more the 2nd time around, knowing how things would play out. Slick, interesting, moody, good dialog, good photography, well acted, original...
However, that incomplete ending just doesn't sit well with me. Basically, it tells us that Goodman is a random suicide coma case. We realize that we know almost nothing about him, aside from the guilt he has over the incident in the tunnel. The film lies to us all along, which is OK to a certain extent i.e. Provided it gives us at least some info about the man. The entire movie was told from his perspective, basically, yet when the movie ends we know far less about him than we (believed we) did 90 minutes earlier. We know almost nothing in fact. For all we know, he is Romanian bank clerk as opposed to a Jewish paranormal debunker.
That to me makes no sense, that we should know LESS at the end than at the beginning. Goodman is basically a random person picked off the street and thrown into the script, just because he had a botched suicide attempt.
Even that old tunnel incident turns out not to be necessarily relevant to the hospital scenes, because it fails to explain who Goodman was, what his life was like, and what lead him to suicide. WHY should such a story revolve around a random Joe Shmoe about whom we find out practically nothing? As it is, the film's ending expects us to be satisfied with an ending that basically has some random guy tortured for "eternity" because he failed to kill himself? How fashionably nihilistic, which is ironic considering the moral lecture Demon Freeman was giving to Goodman just before he was "sent back" to the hospital. But then again, that was just a dream, hence potentially meaningless.
And what the hell is that bird hitting the window supposed to represent? I mean, aside from the end of the most recent dream and the beginning of the next i.e. A repeat of it i.e. The loop being continued. Why did the writers choose a bird hitting a window to signify the re-start of the loop? Because there's a window and it's convenient? We also don't know for sure that the dream does repeat: maybe it's a completely different one every time - in which case AGAIN we have a meaningless ending, because the movie covers only one of potentially infinite dreams.
There is the additional annoyance of Freeman acting as some kind of avenging angel, as if Goodman deserves to be tortured for eternity (or how many years he'll be stuck in a coma) for something that two other guys are responsible for. Wouldn't it have made more sense to somehow pin the punishment for the demise of the kid on one of his actual killers? The script could have possibly used another twist, which leads to the hospital bed of the fat killer. Or elsewhere. Or something of that nature. Instead, the innocent gets punished, the guilty go scot-free.
Then again, we don't even know what really happened at the tunnel that day, because all we get is the dream version of the event. So in fact we might not know squat, except that a random suicide coma case is having the same elaborate dream in a loop.
In fact, if the point of this movie was to say "this is just a prank, there was no childhood guilt trauma, this story exists just to be fun" then that I'd accept. But in terms of there being a "moral" to this story, forget about it. Zero moral. Certainly I am hoping that the writers weren't so naive as to expect us to conclude that Goodman committed suicide as a result of his guilt. What, 30 years after the incident he decides to kill himself? Despite not being guilty of the murder? Still, this way or that, the ending does not work that well.
The conclusion, as it stands, means nothing. It is merely a rehash of "Stay" (and a number of other "endless loop" films) plus the "free association" shtick of "Usual Suspects". Pity, because a worthy ending would have turned this into a great movie. -
I loved this movie up until the last, oh, maybe 15 minutes or so.
The film is an extremely interesting series of ghostly investigations that force a haughty paranormal skeptic to question his life's work. Its premise is executed perfectly, and sent chills down my spine so many times (the security guard). The special effects are mostly unreliant on CGI, and that use of what's real makes the viewer feel the fear of the characters. I was able to put myself in the characters' shoes many times, experiencing their fear.
Martin Freeman gives a unique, and wonderful, performance in here. That's always to be expected out of him. He could turn dirt scripts into gold. This script was already well written though. Andy Nyman is pretty good, never seen him before this one, and I was impressed. He's good at being full of himself.
The ending is what severely weakened this. Can't believe someone would try something that's been done so many times, and went out of style back in like 2001. The ending makes sense, yes, but like... we've seen that 87 times before man. Imagine if a writer tried to use the same twist from Sixth Sense in today's age. You just can't. Overall, still a really enjoyable movie despite this flaw, and a good addition to your list of worth-watching scary movies.