Watch Psychosis For Free

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

"Psychosis" started out well enough, but then it went downhill quite fast, crumbling into boredom and a general lack of purpose.I am not going to even bother with the storyline here, as it was a very weak and thin storyline. The events that took place seemed irrelevant and at often incoherent.The movie trots ahead at a very slow pace, and nothing overly interesting happens, and as such this movie is a test to get through. And I have to admit that I didn't make it through. I gave up and had to turn it off out of sheer boredom.Although this movie was acted out by mostly people that I hadn't seen before, there was a single familiar face; Charisma Carpenter. But not even her presence in the movie was enough to keep anything in this movie afloat. Now, it is always nice to see new and unfamiliar faces, but when they have nothing proper to work with, then they are fighting a losing uphill battle.Don't get lured in and suckered in by the DVD cover, because the movie is not even remotely anything near as interesting as the DVD cover makes it out to be. This movie was bad with a capital B. We all have different like and dislikes, and "Psychosis" surely wasn't even close to the edge of being in my liking.

Charisma Carpenter does a reasonable job here as Susan Golden, an American crime writer who relocates to England (Somerset?) with her English husband, David, played by Paul Sculfor. He's not so convincing though and, if this film were to work, he would have needed to be. However, the script writers have a lot to answer for in giving him such rubbish dialogue.Glossing over the first five minutes which features a bunch of eco-warriors getting slaughtered (and that's not a reference to the Special Brew they drink), the pace here is just too slow. The wooden acting, predictable plot through the middle of the film and unsparkling dialogue all conspire to make this hard work to get into.Ricci Harnett, as Peck the cock-flasher, has been in some better things than this. He just needs a bigger part (ahem!…).I was interested to watch Justin Hawkins in a straight part, as I only know him as a rock star. Guess what he appears as here? Yep. And is he any good in that part? What do you think?This could be edited into a half-decent 30 minutes, maybe 45. The last few minutes, tying everything together, were well done, which gets the film a second star. But as it stands, it's really not very good.

I really wanted to love this movie. I just can't though. For all its good intentions and all the nice ideas, it is too flawed in the end. While obviously not a big production, it does feel bad from the get go. Poor editing choices and cinematography do not help the case either. It's not badly done, but you can see that it was rushed and therefor not much care has been given to some shots and performances. There are a few occasions where Charisma seems out of it. And while some may call it a nice addition to her role it is obvious that this was not meant that way.Charismas husband (in the movie that is) is even worse than any other player in the film. There is the gardener, but you almost don't care about his performance (especially during a dinner scene). But the husband does a good job at being bad. Which is a bad thing for the movie. The ending might feel like a saving grace (and I don't know the movie another reviewer who's ecstatic about it, raves about), but don't let that fool you.

I didn't find this movie as slow-moving as most, but it WAS as pointless as they've written. At first the ending was marginally surprising until I thought about it for five seconds. The only reason it was surprising is because of the misdirection of the movie's first 10 minutes. Remove that and the lease ingenuous viewer will know what the deal is after about 30 minutes.Very linear and predictable with extra characters that really do nothing to advance or even influence the story. It really could have been told with about five characters.Very little was done to explain why the lead sees what she sees other than a few vague words from a medium, but even at that there is no explanation as to why she sees things now, but apparently never did the first 35 (or so) years of her life.Still, it's decent enough for ambient viewing while loading a dishwasher or doing some paperwork. You've seen it enough times to not have to pay rapt attention, but it's not some obviously cheap, horribly acted flick that shoots entirely in day-for-night blue.