Watch The Yellow Wallpaper For Free

the audience applauded

Best movie ever!

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

"The Yellow Wallpaper" is a 6,000-word short story by the American writer Charlotte Perkins Gilman, first published in January 1892 in The New England Magazine. It is regarded as an important early work of American feminist literature, illustrating attitudes in the 19th century toward women's physical and mental health.This film adaptation of the story was directed by Logan Thomas, who has done mostly short films. And since the estimated budget is reported as $1.5 million, I'm prepared to be generous in my critique. But even a charitable attitude can't lift this film out of the cinematic doldrums. It is limp, shapeless and draggy. The scriptwriters have drained the story of its blood. The writing is stilted and flat-footed; the plot has been transformed from that of a woman gradually descending into madness into a fairly plodding ghost story. Any perceived feminist message is gone. The yellow wallpaper with which the female protagonist of the story becomes obsessed is definitely there on the walls, but it hardly figures in the film at all. The film perks up a little at the end, but only a little.Speaking of being generous: Calling the acting turgid and barely above amateurish IS being generous. In fact I thought that the 3 leads were amateurs until I looked them up. The female lead, Juliet Landau, is the daughter of Martin Landau and Barbara Bain. In this film her character Charlotte is supposed to be deep in the throes of despondency and PTSD after witnessing her daughter being burned alive in a house-fire. But in her performance no suffering is apparent; she's either very morose or a little less morose. She looks like a young Greta Scacchi after a serious illness. Aric Cushing projects no energy at all; he's just unkempt and phlegmatic in the extreme. Of the three leads, only Dale Dickey has any luster whatever on screen. Michael Moriarty shows up at the beginning of the film for about 3 minutes, and Veronica Cartwright has about 10 minutes of screen time near the end.The film's setting is lush: A house set back in the woods (somewhere outside of Atlanta), but compositions lack focus, not to mention clarity. The sound is poor; the dialogue mostly is distant and muffled. The fact that most of the dialogue wasn't looped and the sound remixed as should have been done may reflect the low budget.If this were a student film, I'd give it about a C-plus.

This film takes a remarkable risk for a movie these days by avoiding cgi and using an impressionist approach to lighting its Gothic story.The moody, enigmatic atmosphere of this film is very unconventional for an American movie and the action and gore horror crowd may have trouble appreciating it. The intense Gothic atmosphere from the lighting, camera shots, and general cinematography is not something I have seen often in American films. It has a lot more in common with European films. The films of Werner Herzog came to my mind. The film evoked memories of the emphasis on enigmatic and creepy mood in the movies Nosferatu and The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser. The pacing and buildup also reminded me of the classic David Bowie vampire tale The Hunger. The unresolved questions and the unsolved mysteries are also very European. The film remains mysterious to the end and the final scenes daze and confuse more than they solve. What is real? What is dream, hallucination, haunting? Who are Eckhart van Wakefield and Burn in Hell Man? The inclusion of symbolic elements like the arid desert that needs to be crossed to get from the house to the outside world contributes to this also. I found the cinematography to be simply beautiful. I loved the shots with darkened characters silhouetted by the light shining through windows. The extensive use natural lighting combined with filters reminded me of the films of David Hamilton. The scene with the main character Dr. John Weiland going through the house with the candelabra as the only light is excellent and spooky. The play of the three main actresses is bang on: Juliet Landau, whom I saw in Ed Wood, Dale Dickey, whom I remember from True Blood, Veronica Cartright, whom I've seen in a lot of movies and in the TV show Daniel Boone in the early seventies when I was a kid! In fact, Dale Dickey is positively eerie at times! Aric Cushing has a very challenging role to deal with. A professional doctor and father who lost what is most precious to him in horrifying circumstances and has withdrawn into a sullen mood, deeply challenged to cope with what is happening around him and remain in control of himself. Not an easy thing to pull off. To his credit, he carries it off very well. Even though he has a small role, it was also fun to see Michael Moriarty at play in this film. The period reconstitution is convincing: costumes, make up, decors and scenery. Very good job for such a low budget. It also helps that the site and house they chose to film the movie is magnificent. The only minor issue I had with the film was with the music and the sound mixing. Don't get me wrong, the music is very good and contributes greatly to the mood of the movie. The problem was with the intensity of the crescendos which was distracting at times, the music feeling occasionally too loud with respect to the mood set by the visuals, or the crescendo seeming unnecessarily dramatic. The scene where Dale Dickey is wiping dust from a shelf and shakes the rag is the one that stuck most to my mind. I think the music being more subdued would have worked better. The voice mixing seemed a little off also in some of the talking head scenes where it gave a TV teleplay feel. But this is minor stuff. Highly recommended to those who like films that are all about atmosphere and mood.

I just can't understand why everyone loves this movie! The acting was comically wooden, with the exception of the sister and the psychic. My husband gave up on it after 15 very painfully slow minutes, but I persevered with it. The story by the the way has NOTHING to do with the short story "The Yellow Wallpaper" other than a reference to the "rest cure" and place of women in Victorian society. And as mentioned by another reviewer, the main character is named Charlotte, a reference to Charlotte Gilbert, who wrote the short story. Oh, and there's an attic room with yellow wallpaper that the wife sometimes retreats to, but it's existence is Pretty arbitrary. THe plot was very broken up, and half the scenes take place in very dark rooms, making it difficult to see what was going on. The ending was a bit of whatever as well - it didn't seem to match the rest of the movie. it was an interesting premise, too bad it just didn't seem to flow. This could have been a good movie if: 1. They didn't call it The Yellow Wallpaper. False advertising! Why not give it it's own name? 2. The plot had some kind of flow to it, 3. better acting! Especially the male lead, who gave the most wooden performance I have EVER seen. Sadly, these elements were not there, making this clunker a discombobulated boring mess.

I was lucky enough because of my academic circles on the east coast to be invited to this picture. I had read this story well over 15 years ago and remembered the telling of it vividly. Although this picture slants from its original, it expounds on the possibilities of the mind. Is that not the responsibility of cinema? In respect and adoration of originality this picture breathes a life of its own. Refreshing in today's grinder of force fed films. I was thrilled that the director and producers had the courage to turn a very short story into a picture about generations for generations. This is an edge of your seat picture, dare I mention a love story. Go see it when the opportunity arises.