Lord of Tears Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

RAMSEY CAMPBELL » Discussion » Lord of Tears « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 176.248.120.78
Posted on Tuesday, October 29, 2013 - 10:38 pm:   

I'd never heard of this before but just read a really glowing review on Bloody Disgusting:

"Fans of folk-horror, gothic romance, and owls in suits will not want to miss Lord of Tears. Itís hands down one of the most haunting and unique movies of the year. It couldíve done with some trimming, especially during a couple of the end sequences, but thatís my only complaint Ė and itís a small one. Itís a low-budget supernatural throwback that maintains an unshakable sense of unease throughout until itís shocking (and appropriate) conclusion. The ending truly sneaks up on you. By the time I realized what was about to happen, I had shifted from my couch to the floor, about two inches from the screen. This isnít a casual watch. Lord of Tears will shake you to the core."

The trailer seems a bit lurid, but it certainly looks interesting and the extras you get with the DVD/Blu-ray are pretty impressive: http://www.hexmedia.tv/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mick Curtis (Mick)
Username: Mick

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.148.135.100
Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 - 12:42 am:   

I fancy seeing this although the cost quickly mounts up. The DVD set is £18, but Blu Ray is £22, and once shipping and VAT are added it approaches £30, which is a fair bit to splash out on what's pretty much an unknown.
Still, I may give it a bash!

Mick
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 176.248.120.78
Posted on Wednesday, October 30, 2013 - 10:40 pm:   

Yeah, I'd like to see it first, and if it's really good I'd consider splashing out to support it, but it's way beyond an impulse buy price for me right now.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert)
Username: John_l_probert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 109.156.229.132
Posted on Thursday, October 31, 2013 - 08:56 am:   

Indeed - I liked the look of it, but as Mick says, once postage and VAT was added on I decided to cancel my order in view of how much I was gambling on an unknown. It looks like a lovely package, but I think you need a bit of a proven track record before you can expect people to shell out for something like that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 176.248.120.78
Posted on Friday, November 01, 2013 - 12:23 am:   

True. Hopefully it'll end up on the Horror Channel or somewhere sooner or later. I'm keeping an eye on the Facebook page for now.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 176.249.69.153
Posted on Friday, November 22, 2013 - 07:27 pm:   

Looks like they're doing free shipping for Xmas now, if you say it's a gift:

"XMAS LORD OF TEARS! We're offering a special gift version of the DVD/BLU-Ray for anyone searching for the perfect XMAS GIFT!

Each comes hand wrapped in Red Paper and with a creepy little XMAS card from Owlman (made out to any victim of your choosing with a talon scrawled message!)

We hope you all get Lord of Tears for your friends! For every two purchases we are throwing in a FREE MYSTERY GIFT and for every 3 purchases that PLUS a FREE T-SHIRT!

PLUS FREE SHIPPING!

To take advantage of our jingle-bell offer, just message us (with a paypal note or email) to say there for XMAS!

Our offer is EXCLUSIVE TO THE UK (to guarantee XMAS delivery!)
GET IT TODAY AT www.lordoftears.com"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 176.27.85.101
Posted on Tuesday, May 27, 2014 - 04:31 pm:   

The makers of this did a hidden camera stunt with their boogeyman and an abandoned hospital:

http://youtu.be/HgEkDWRb9IM

I actually think it may have worked too well. The second victim in particular looked like he had a full-on breakdown.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 85.255.232.126
Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - 04:21 pm:   

If that was set up, as it most probably was otherwise they'd be facing huge lawsuits, it was very well acted.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 176.27.85.101
Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - 04:51 pm:   

I wondered if it a set-up on my first watch, I'm erring towards the genuine though. The reactions just feel unscripted to me. In most of these things (that tend to feature ghost children or zombies or Sadako-type apparitions) people just scream and run but the first guy's frightened aggression and the second's terrified collapse felt right for people who hadn't just seen something scary, but something that was probably beyond their mind's ability to process in that moment.

According to their Facebook comments they intervened with the second guy to calm him down and let him know it was a prank.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 66.87.67.82
Posted on Wednesday, May 28, 2014 - 05:40 pm:   

Stevie, they would have had to sign a release after, and the chance to be on tv alleviates any embarrassment. I liked it! Cheese and all....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Simon Bestwick (Simon_b)
Username: Simon_b

Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 94.8.195.72
Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2014 - 02:12 pm:   

We watched the other night... beautifully packaged, but very disappointing, sadly.

The problems? First, The director has confused bombarding the viewer with a flurry of images (often exactly duplicating something already described in the dialogue) with atmosphere, straining for effect and achieving the opposite. Secondly, the actors' performances are stilted, unconvincing; thirdly, too much of the dialogue is clunky, if not downright cringeworthy. Fourth, there are groan-inducing gaps in storytelling and motivation. (One character undergoes a terrifying and near-fatal supernatural experience in the house where most of the action takes place; having escaped with his life, he waits until morning... and then goes back inside and gets into bed. This is just one of far too many examples of the 'well, he does it because otherwise the story won't work' school of writing.

I was very close to delivering a verdict of 'what a load of old shite', but in the last twenty or so minutes the film ups its game and achieves a genuinely unsettling effect (even though the director still has a tendency to draw out certain scenes too long.) It's good, atmospheric and creepy, but not enough to make up for what's gone before.

There's a fascinating idea at the heart of this, the Highland settings are gorgeous and LORD OF TEARS could have been a much better film than it ends up being. Comes with a free soundtrack CD, which I haven't had a listen to yet.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 86.1.56.95
Posted on Tuesday, June 10, 2014 - 02:28 pm:   

Shame that, Simon. Sounds like a decent idea very badly made. Thanks for the lowdown. Maybe they should try turning it into a short?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 176.248.60.181
Posted on Sunday, June 15, 2014 - 01:55 am:   

That's a bit disappointing to hear, all the reviews I've seen so far have been overwhelmingly positive. I do think they've missed a trick by not having a cheaper no-frills release available. I would have bought it by now, but really can't justify the expense.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.29.1
Posted on Monday, June 16, 2014 - 03:06 pm:   

I've had a look at some of the other reviews of the film and they have me intrigued enough to want to see it for myself now. Some of them are very postitive indeed and the overall consensus seems to be a thumbs up. I'll wait until it appears a whole lot cheaper on Amazon Marketplace.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert)
Username: John_l_probert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.151
Posted on Monday, June 16, 2014 - 04:24 pm:   

Thanks Simon! Kate & I were only talking about this on the weekend. It's still pretty pricey from the website so we're going to wait...and wait....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.29.1
Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2014 - 12:00 pm:   

There are three types of film, imo. Those that were made on a low budget by independent unknowns (like this one), those that were made on a low budget by established auteurs (e.g. Woody Allen) and those that were made by a big studio with a big budget (e.g. 'Pacific Rim'). All three types produce works that vary from misguided rubbish to visionary genius, with an awful lot of watchably average fodder in between. It is the middle group that is most interesting as it divides the viewers/critics most passionately as to where on the grey scale of thumbs up/thumbs down each work belongs.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Simon Bestwick (Simon_b)
Username: Simon_b

Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 2.223.67.62
Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2014 - 01:53 am:   

Stevie/Lord P, I'm more than happy to send my copy along to you guys for perusal (as long as whichever of you gets it first sends it on to the other.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.29.1
Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2014 - 11:50 am:   

That's a very kind offer, Simon. You can email me on swalsh123 at hot mail dot com.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.13.54.79
Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2014 - 01:20 pm:   

I wish I liked it more. It has good moments, but it's no Borderlands.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 85.255.235.174
Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2014 - 03:26 pm:   

Will let you know what I think, Ramsey. Simon's sending it over to me.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 85.255.234.142
Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2014 - 12:09 am:   

Thanks, Simon. The DVD arrived today. Will watch it over the weekend and let you all know what I think. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 212.183.128.169
Posted on Sunday, July 20, 2014 - 07:28 pm:   

Hi, Simon. Will settle down to watch 'Lord Of Tears' tonight with a nice Chinese and let you know what I think. Really means a lot to me you sending it over. It's a lovely package... but is it a good movie ha ha? Will send it on to Lord P after if you give me his palatial address.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Simon Bestwick (Simon_b)
Username: Simon_b

Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 94.0.65.171
Posted on Sunday, July 20, 2014 - 08:02 pm:   

Settling down with a nice Chinese myself, shortly, Stevie! The Mrs wants to watch 'Catching Fire.'
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert)
Username: John_l_probert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.169.142.4
Posted on Monday, July 21, 2014 - 10:03 pm:   

Just seen this! Many thanks Simon / Stevie!

Stevie - email me johnlprobert@NOSPAMyahoo.com to get my address. (Obviously take out the NOSPAM bit. Well, I say obviously but you'd be surprised!)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 85.255.233.64
Posted on Monday, July 21, 2014 - 10:40 pm:   

I watched 'Lord Of Tears' last night and your first assessment was the correct one, Simon. It's a load of old shite!

Embarrassingly inept in every department; the painfully slow moving and po-faced striving for atmosphere at the expense of narrative logic and the irritating jump cut editing has all the hallmarks of a hopelessly hamfisted art student film with pretensions of grandeur while the atrociously wooden acting and dreadful dialogue had me cringing and praying for the thing to be over. Even the much hyped owlman monster becomes laughable we see so bloody much of it standing doing fuck all at various distances from the camera. And the final twist was completely nonsensical!

About the only positive thing I can say about it is how nice the location cinematography looked. A shockingly bad and, worse yet, stultifyingly dull attempt at an M.R. Jamesian style ghost story. Avoid!!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 85.255.233.64
Posted on Monday, July 21, 2014 - 10:51 pm:   

Thanks John. I've emailed you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert)
Username: John_l_probert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.169.142.4
Posted on Monday, July 21, 2014 - 11:03 pm:   

Cheers Stevie! Back at you my dear chap!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Simon Bestwick (Simon_b)
Username: Simon_b

Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 94.0.65.171
Posted on Monday, July 21, 2014 - 11:33 pm:   

Stevie - agree completely for the most part! I wanted to like it but alarm bells rang when the opening credits described it as 'starring David Schofield' - Schofield is a fine actor, but given that he was the voice of the Owlman, he should have been billed as 'and featuring'. A minor detail, but a piece of filmic illiteracy that struck an ill note immediately. Maybe it was done to keep him on board when he saw the huge chunks of godawful pretentious look-Mum-I-swallowed-a-dictionary verbiage he was lumbered with; his speeches are among the film's worst dialogue, a title for which there's some stiff competition.

I'm trying to recall if I've seen any of the cast elsewhere: it can be bloody difficult giving a decent performance with dialogue like that, plus a script that offers such weak characterisation and poor motivation.

[SPOILER] The ending made a sort of sense, I thought, but I have little patience with the school of horror that gears itself towards redemption/resolution regarding past sins, only to rubbish it with a 'twist' ending.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 85.255.233.64
Posted on Monday, July 21, 2014 - 11:46 pm:   

The worst part of the film was the girl Evie's seemingly never ending slow motion dance routine to that awful tinkly music. It served no purpose, went on and on and on, and was completely at odds with the supposed style the director had been straining for up till then. It was at that point I looked up to the ceiling and questioned the existence of a just God.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 85.255.233.64
Posted on Monday, July 21, 2014 - 11:58 pm:   

But the twist was so absurdly shoe-horned in at the end and involved a tangential character who had been completely uninvolved in the "action" of the story up till then. It felt to me like a last minute decision to try and make the film's ending darker in tone with those bloody awful pseudo-arthouse dream sequences dotted through the movie afterward to try and make some sense of it.

Apart from the lovely packaging and location photography the whole thing came across as pitifully amateurish, imho.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 92.5.44.226
Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2014 - 03:21 pm:   

Yes - on balance I think I was overly kind...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

David Lees (David_lees)
Username: David_lees

Registered: 12-2011
Posted From: 2.216.164.11
Posted on Sunday, July 27, 2014 - 04:04 pm:   

That's a shame. I'm quite glad I didn't give in to temptation and buy it myself now.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 217.35.85.78
Posted on Sunday, July 27, 2014 - 07:35 pm:   

There are good bad movies and there are bad bad movies. This one is atrociously bad. I'd call it a misguided glory project by someone with more money than sense.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.29.1
Posted on Monday, August 11, 2014 - 04:41 pm:   

I await Lord P's verdict with baited breath!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert)
Username: John_l_probert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.141
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - 06:00 pm:   

It's arrived!!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 85.255.232.193
Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - 09:34 pm:   

Great stuff! Let us know your thoughts, man.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Simon Bestwick (Simon_b)
Username: Simon_b

Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 2.124.93.187
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 - 03:57 pm:   

John's good reviews are always intelligent and insightful. His bad reviews, however, are true comic gems. I suspect Lord of Tears will provoke one of the latter.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.29.1
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 - 04:38 pm:   

It's not just that the film is badly made - after all some of the most entertaining horror films of all time are complete rubbish on every technical level - it's more that the filmmakers are so up themselves, convinced that they've made a stylish masterpiece worthy of serious critical analysis, when in fact the whole project is woefully inept on any level one cares to approach it. The self-penned DVD blurb warns us to look out for "our next horror epic" coming soon... Jesus wept!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Simon Bestwick (Simon_b)
Username: Simon_b

Registered: 10-2008
Posted From: 2.124.93.187
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 - 07:02 pm:   

Is that the title for Lord of Tears 2?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 81.133.201.151
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2014 - 09:33 pm:   

Exactly lol. ;-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert)
Username: John_l_probert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.141
Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2014 - 05:01 pm:   

Gosh, chaps, what can I say? As I've already mentioned to Stevie, LORD OF TEARS is by no means the worst film I've been sent for review this year. Of course, that doesn't mean it's a must see - in fact, one of the things that's starting to really bug me about a lot of straight to DVD product these days is that the makers don't seem to have completed their film school courses. Either that or perhaps, like so many other things these days, film school has become so dumbed down its graduates are emerging half baked and not even semi-competent.

LORD OF TEARS has a good idea, good intentions, and a nice title font. But you need an awful lot more than that to make a competent film. We groaned at the dull camera setups, the info dump dialogue that was so boringly shot, the scenes that started off interesting but then went on and on and on, going from weird, to funny to hilarious to boring - even on fast forward. If your actors aren't that great then don't give them so much to say - even Jess Franco knew that. The owlman is scary but there's too much boring scrappy presentation before he comes along so you don't care. I agree that the movie picks up in the last half an hour, but even the scary girl bits need editing to make them effective.

So I didn't hate it, exactly. There are other films that are far worse out there that have the nerve to ask people to pay for the privilege of enduring talentless rubbish. Mind you, they're usually only asking for a couple of pounds and ninety minutes when you could be on the lavatory or tearing bits of newspapers into shapes more interesting than what's on the screen.

If I made LORD OR TEARS I'd actually be a bit embarrassed to ask the price they want for the DVD on their website. So perhaps it does deserve trashing for having ideas far too high above its station. The people who have given this rave reviews have either been paid, are friends of the makers, or have never seen an actual film before.

BIRDEMIC is actually better value for money than LORD OF TEARS.

Mind you, the title font isn't as nice.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 85.255.232.134
Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2014 - 09:41 pm:   

I agree pretty much with everything you say, John. The handful of atmospheric scenes near the end of the movie provided some slight evidence of an ability to create a scary image but the build up was so interminably leaden and amateurish that by that stage I just wanted the film to be over. There was no directorial talent in evidence whatsoever and, dear god, the script and acting were just atrocious. To think of you sitting through even more boring films (for a living?) is a picture of Hell I'd rather not contemplate!

I've some awful dross in my collection. Probably the worst, that I keep as an example of just how bad horror cinema can get, are 'Scared To Death' (1947), 'Drive In Massacre' (1977) and 'Dr Jekyll's Dungeon Of Death' (1979). I'd rank 'Lord Of Tears' as on the same sort of level but more tedious to sit through than any of them.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration