Watch The Living and the Dead For Free

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

In a decaying mansion in England, the former Lord Donald Brocklebank (Roger Lloyd Pack) lives with his wife Nancy (Kate Fahy), who is very ill, and their retarded and schizophrenic teenage son James (Leo Bill) that needs to use several pills to calm down. Donald is completely broken, apparently for paying for Nancy's medical treatment, and has been pressed to see his manor.One day, Donald needs to travel early in the morning to London for a business and he summons Nurse Mary (Sarah Ball). However, James decides to prove to his father that he is capable to take care of his mother and he closes all the accesses to the house and locks himself with his mother inside the house. He gives an overdose of pills to his mother expecting to heal her and Nancy dies. In the funeral, there is another problem with James driving Donald insane."The Living and the Dead" is a harrowing and disturbing journey to insanity. The screenplay entwines reality and madness, past and present, in an environment of nightmare and the viewer needs to be very concentrated in the film to understand the story.Leo Bill and Kate Fahy deliver top-notch performances and the camera work is amazing. This is the first work of Simon Rumley that I see and I noted in IMDb that many viewers have not understood the unpleasant journey to hell and insanity of Donald Brocklebank that is indicated to specific audiences. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Distúrbio Fatal" ("Fatal Disorder")

I think it would be fair to say The Living and the Dead had me held in some sort of blind terror for more often than not. The film is so outrageous in the places it goes and the manner in which it acts when it gets there, that it's impossible to merely put aside the watching experience having seen it. The film is a freak-show, yes, of characters; visual tricks and constructed scares, but a calculated and carefully constructed one: one that I think will tap into a nerve within, whether you're a veteran of many-a horror films or not. The film is something like a little under an hour and half long, but when it had ended, felt as if it had clocked in at something like three hours; such is the grip of terror and unease I was in. Like a hypnosis session in which you're out for the count for all of about thirty minutes, but the deep-rooted places you may have been to during that time unearthing such discomfort and a sense of feeling, that the whole process feels like half a day's gone by.The film's premise sees it set up a perilous exchange between a middle aged mother and her twenty-something son in a large, pre-modern and isolated house in the country. She's physically unwell, suffering from some sort of extreme form of M.E. whilst he's a scatty, eccentric schizophrenic whose mannerism; movements and vocal tone is wildly inconsistent and unnerving. The mother is Nancy (Fahy), the son is James (Bill) and the family name is Brocklebank; something that I think instills a certain amount of pride into the household as father and husband of the piece Donald (Lloyd-Pack) seems to furiously defend them and their right to house there by way of a number of conversations over the phone with someone. It's this someone Donald must leave the property to venture out and see, and it's from here that most of the trouble unfolds.The film's tone is unbearably downbeat, beginning in the present tense with a greyed out Donald covered in injuries as he observes an ambulance advance down his property's long, lonely driveway towards him. His face is glum, rueful and regretful and a perfect teeing up for the events the film covers in instilling a sense that something's up: he's thinking that leaving that final time was a big mistake. In flashing back to better times, certainly the best times either of these characters find themselves in throughout the film, it's revealed Donald cared for both his wife and son accordingly; with the early exchanges coming across as calm and methodical in their feeling and construction what with static camera work and long takes. This is in stark contrast to when James takes over as the self proclaimed "man of the house", a title actor Leo Bill does well in his character's mixture of pleading and exclaiming, in what is a desperate attempt to try and prove to his parents that he's able to take on responsibility. The danger signs in this lie within the fact his strict medication diet of various pills and vaccine shots sit uneasily with the fact he's commanded by his father to hide from visitors and avoid the newspaper, instilling a certain child-like sensibility to him and acting as triggers to stoke a fire of warning.Leo Bill plays James as a sort of pastiche of Rik Mayall's character from popular 1990's British TV show 'Bottom', only rendered schizophrenic and far more mentally ill. Early on, I wondered if the man had an agenda; whether or not he was at all homicidal and indeed hated his mother which added to an intense element of unease. As the film switches perspectives in carer, a gradual shift in emphasis onto James becomes apparent in the conventions writer/director Simon Rumley applies. In switching from a mainly static camera complete with long takes which took prior precedence, Rumley then throws sped-up footage; bizarre angles; editing as well as distorted sound effects which amalgamate to form odd music into the mix, getting across a sense of chaos and somebody seriously ill-suited for the task. Rumley's tactics of applying a disorientating and off the wall aesthetic to most of the scenes James' acts as carer beautifully but disturbingly conflicts in a highly effective manner with this large, decrepit, centuries old manor house with which you do not associate the given conventions.There are killings in the film; somebody gets knifed and there's a fair degree of blood running on a premise that sees it bed down in one place as terror and uncanniness plays out, but don't let that lead you to think this is a Halloween sequel or some similarly underwhelming slasher film. One sequence which goes a long way in highlighting this odd combination of techniques and conventions to actually form something half-decent occurs nearer the end when, isolated and on their own, a young female supporting character creeps through the dark passages and corridors of the home unaware of what lurks around them but knowledgeable that there's a male lead, somewhere, who could very well react negatively if he sees or finds her. The whole thing is constructed like an age-old sequence in a slasher-sub genre flick, but the film sets a bar far higher. Roger Lloyd-Pack does a superb job, banishing any lingering memory you might have of him in a prior comedic role as we observe his envisaging of what might very well have gone on during his absence. Rumley's film is not all about shocks and scares; a sequence later on in which many family members have gathered in the house's main area is shot from high on up in the rafters, the camera just too embarrassed or ashamed to go to ground level and capture these people's expressions and reactions. I found The Living and the Dead to be a smart and affecting film.

I shouldn't even get this piece of waste of time one star. I'm sitting here considering this one of the worst movies i have ever seen - and i've seen some crap in my time.The sorry piece of movie will of course give us all some bad taste in our mouth when they make awkward and embarrassing scenes like seeing a retarded son trying to help his mother when she is seriously ill and crying, scenes where the retard tries to force his mother to eat pills because "the more you take, the better you will get". But that doesn't make the movie better, touching, scary or anything else than a bad taste in my mouth and wanting to seeing this sorry movie. So lets just say that the one star i'm giving is for making me feel bad.The effects are really annoying - fast forward style effects, annoying sound. Mental-patient seeing visions effect look like a joke with a painted guy with something weird on top of his head - i guess he is supposed to look dead (and even with this they fail miserably) and he has got something that looks like a new years party decoration on top his head.Even the ever so faulty and stupid story of the family with a sick son and mother has so many annoying mistakes and just poor judgments in it that i hate this movie. I would never recommend this movie to anyone, not even my worst enemy or as looser-practical-joke recommendation to my best friends... DO NOT WASTE YOUR LIFE ON THIS!

How can you say "pointless" or "don't watch this movie"? This is not a thriller/gore/cheap Hollywood movie! As someone very well said "A psychological study of degeneration and dependency." Ya know... something to THINK about it and not waiting to see computer generated silliness like that RING crap. I have an idea, you who think that this movie was bad: go to apple's trailers page and look for 3d Anime and/or HORROR movies like those with tons of blood and robots and puppies that kill little children (no need to use your brain - is so nice and easy!) and i promise you, you won't be disappointed and please stay away from the actual good movies. These days people go to the movies for totally wrong motives. So sad :(