Psychosis (I) (2010) User Reviews

Reasonable psychological horror thriller.

[poolandrews · 5/10 · 19 March 2012]

Psychosis is set in England & starts as some Eco warrior protesters set-up a campsite in the middle of the countryside just outside London where a new motorway is going to be built, that night they are all brutally killed by some local man who goes mad. Jump forward over a decade & one of the best selling crime novelists in the world Susan Golden (Charisma Carpenter) & her corporate events organiser husband David (Paul Sculfor) move into a large country mansion near the fields where the murders took place, Susan has writer's block after suffering a nervous breakdown & is feeling the pressure to finish her latest book & feels the move away from California might be beneficial. Susan starts to experience terrifying visions, violent hallucinations, disturbing dreams along with strange unnatural events & believes that her new house may be haunted. Is Susan's new home haunted? Is she having another breakdown? Are there perfectly reasonable explanations for what is happening? Or is there something much more sinister going on...

This British production was written & directed by Reg Traviss & is a feature length remake of the Dreamhouse segment from the British horror anthology film Screamtime (1986) which I have not seen so I cannot compare the two but I have to say that I was reasonably impressed by Psychosis & didn't think it was that bad at all, it's hardly any sort of masterpiece but I felt it had enough going for it to make the 90 minutes I spent watching it worthwhile. The script has me in two minds, while I liked the basic premise & I thought the final twist was particularly good & fairly unexpected it's far from perfect with the chief complaint being that it's so slow & it takes a very long time to get where it's going. The final twist does turn traditional expectation & cliché on it's head quite effectively & at the very least I was interested in where the film was going, there's a supernatural element, a hint of psychological thriller, some straight horror & even a bit of a criminal subplot which all come together reasonably well. Unfortunately I found the two main character's poorly drawn & I was never convinced at any time that they were a loving married couple, Susan is by far the more interesting & developed character of the two. I am not sure what the creepy Peck guy is all about & the scene when he first meets his new boss Susan & flashes his cock at her comes out of nowhere & is quite unsettling!

Set mainly in rural England this looks nice enough with an impressive looking stately home & some attractive scenery. There's some nudity & sex including the aforementioned cock flashing & a strange scene set in a swingers party where a man is seen lying under a clear glass table looking up & then a naked woman sit down on the table which presumably gives the guy a nice view! There are a few flashes of gore but they are few & far between, the opening sequence features several hippies with names like Snake getting killed including an axe to the head & the climax features a gory slit throat. Originally had the working title Vivid which was apparently changed because Vivid was also the name of a porn company & brought about unwanted connections & associations.

With a supposed budget of about $1,200,000 this had a modest budget but nowhere near as low as some films that are being made & getting a wide release, the production values are good & Psychosis is well made. By some strange coincidence Psychosis is actually the second Charisma Carpenter film I have seen in the past couple of days after I saw House of Bones (2011), not that I am a fan or anything but Carpenter is quite cute & doesn't look like she's approaching forty. By the way, Psychosis is far better than House of Bones & Carpenter puts in a much better performance but then there's far more to work with here than she had with the basic House of Bones which only really needed her to turn up on set & not much else.

Psychosis is not a film for everyone, the slow pace & an ending that (judging by the IMDb message board for Psychosis) not everyone seems to understand although I thought it was perfectly simple & made sense within the context of the film up to that point. It comes down to personal opinion I suppose & mine is that I quite liked Psychosis although I doubt I would ever want to see it again.

SQUAT THE WORLD

[nogodnomasters · 4/10 · 19 April 2018]

The film opens with the murder of some hippie squatters. And then crime thriller writer Susan (Charisma Carpenter) moves into a manor along with her husband and American driver side BMW. She suffered an "episode" in California.

She sees stuff and her husband cheats on her. Is he driving her crazy or is she seeing things? The problem is that we really don't care because the film wasn't that interesting.

Part of a horror DVD 8 pack. $5.00 US Walmart.

Guide: F-word, sex, nudity (Katrena Rochell, Ricci Harnett)

where is the horror?

[trashgang · 3/10 · 25 March 2011]

When it was available in the shops were I wander around it was immediately in sale. I should have known better. This is not good, simple as that. The main leads, Paul Sculfor and Charisma Carpenter aren't believable. Just watch at the end of the movie when something is happening to Paul, the acting given is not good. And Charisma couldn't convince me too, you see them both acting. But that's not the only problem. It's low on the red stuff so there should be some other teasers to watch but sadly it isn't. It's never frightening. just watch the first 5 minutes and the last 15 minutes, forget what lays in between. Could have been so much better...

Good as ambient viewing; no real surprises

[cobbler88 · 17 August 2011]

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.

From the first five minutes, you know its gonna be a stinker

[MovieMaddis · 1/10 · 30 July 2010]

Just terrible. Bad acting, bad script, pacing was 100% predictable and there was not one cliché left uncopied. The only press this is going to get is from extraneous, irrelevant tabloid schlock. Once the film is seen by more than just the makers of the movie, its going straight to the bargin bin. There were a few redeeming special effects but tossed in but with the nonsensical storyline, it hardly saves the movie. To add a twist convincingly, you have to make us care about the protagonist, there was no one in this movie that didn't look like they just walked out of a spray tan booth and teeth whitening salon. Just aged actors who seem to think by flashing a smile and looking pretty, they can compensate for their plastic personas. Did not enjoy this one bit sad to say. Funny that almost all of the 20 something votes for this film are 10/10, wonder where that came from? I would suggest avoiding.

Why was this made...

[AvidLV426 · 1/10 · 30 August 2010]

Just saw this a couple of days ago, and am still wondering why this was made. First off the plot for this film could barely of filled a 10 minute short, and yet was stretched to fill the duration of this so called feature. All the layers that the director mentioned he added in the making of made no sense, didn't go anywhere and added nothing to the film. Acting was beyond poor, especially by a certain lead man. Lighting seemed flat. On the upside, some of the special effects seemed pretty well done (a fake head in particular) but are not enough to save the film.

The only interesting thing on the DVD was the making of, and interview with the cast. Maybe they should have got that guy to direct instead.

Watch at your own risk.

Wtf

[hansson-52432 · 1/10 · 22 January 2020]

Zero points A total waste of time Bad badder ... this movie

Direct remake of "Screamtime" 1983

[dissolvedpaul · 1/10 · 11 August 2010]

EDIT- At the time I was writing I was not aware that it was in fact a "Remake" of the second story in the 1983 film "Screamtime". Therefore you can understand why I thought that it was a direct rip off of this particular movie. Being very fond of that particular short, I was a bit upset because I thought someone was ripping it off! Amusing in hindsight I suppose. For your enjoyment here is my original review and feelings written before knowing it was a 'remake'::

I will keep this review short but I'm still in shock after seeing this movie. Not because it was scary, not because it shocked me, not because I was bowled over by its brilliance. No, simply because I've never shook my head in disbelief at such outright plagiarism in a movie.Clearly the Director was really really hoping that no one had ever seen the fantastic little anthology horror film "Scream time" from 1983, more specifically, the second story in this film "Dream house". Now the stories in "Scream time" are relatively short since it's an anthology movie so in order to pad out "Psychosis", the director had at least to attempt to introduce some other little elements to attempt to keep things interesting before the scene for scene stealing begins. Unfortunately these elements are dull, lots of sex which is not thrilling in the least and flat acting. The movie falls flat very quickly overall to be honest and towards the end and dotted throughout, the 'hallucinations' of Charisma Carpenter are about the most interesting thing happening. Her name is the most charismatic thing about the movie, it's never scary due to some dull direction, predictable soundtrack and characters that are never in the least bit likable at any point. It starts off initially with a "slasher film" type prologue which really does nothing for the rest of the film, only serving to confuse and then we watch as Carpenter slowly descends into the "Psychosis" of the title. On my first viewing I already picked up on how much it was stealing from the "Dream house" episode of "Scream time" to the point where I was pointing out things before they even happened. I could not believe it. The director should be rightly ridiculed for such stealing and I'm sure more and more people will pick up on this as they see it. It's a shame because movies like this will get lots of exposure and acclaim from people none the wiser where as "Scream time" remains unreleased on DVD anywhere in the world and is a far more scary and interesting little 80's film. Spoilers------ Charisma's Hallucinations are wholesale lifted from "Dream house". This will make sense if you've seen it. She constantly see's someone in black playing with a football outside in her garden but when she goes out to tell him off she's gone. 'Dream house' -The main actress constantly see's a little boy riding on a bike outside in her garden but when she goes out to tell him off he's gone. In "Psychosis" the husband calls a Psychic to the house to investigate after Charisma has complained about all the visions she's been seeing and the psychic tells Charisma that there is nothing there at all.

Almost exactly the same scene happens in 'Dream house' and the Psychic tells the husband she is possibly mad.

Towards the end, when the murders start to play out more extended, the madman stabs the victims repeatedly and at one point, charisma grabs a telephone and throws it at the vision, (the madman is strangling the victim using the telephone) which promptly vanishes. In "Dream house", the murders are playing out and the actress grabs a telephone and throws it at the vision of the man stabbing and strangling the victim with the telephone wire which promptly vanishes.

At the end, Charisma's husband (Charisma is in a mental hospital after all this) greets the "new owner" and we are introduced to the new people moving in, all of whom we've seen previously in the visions like the kid playing with the football etc. In "Dream House", exactly the same thing happens. The husband welcomes the new owners, says they hope they will be happy there and all around him, the people we have seen being murdered are working around him, like the decorator painting the window and the boy riding the bike.

The husband gets into his car and is attacked from behind, has his throat slashed and goes into a fit, holding his foot down on the accelerator. The radio announces that a crazed murderer has escaped from a mental hospital and is on the loose.

It's quite sad that it's so obvious really. Clearly this director though he would get away with it but I reckon it's going to come back on him at one point or another. Watch "Scream time" and the "dream house" episode if you can get a copy. It's infinitely better than this poor excuse for a copy of a movie.

You might just get a psychosis from suffering through this movie...

[paul_haakonsen · 1/10 · 30 July 2013]

"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.

Pointless - but so bad it's almost funny.

[bigc-47-136628 · 1/10 · 7 May 2011]

Wow. this movie is so bad it's almost epic. The acting is so dreadful that you spend the first 15 minutes wondering if it's deliberate. (It's not).

The first slash and hack scene is not only pointless but laughable - if the hippie group had been aiming for a "dirty wooden zombie" feel, they nailed it, but I am pretty sure that it wasn't deliberate. Natch! It went down hill from wooden zombie... to wallow and sink in it's own puddle of mediocrity - but at least Charisma's hair looked fabulous through out.

I kept hoping that that SOME ONE would leap out of a cupboard and slice and dice everybody involved in the making of this movie (including the script writers and special effects department) for crimes against the dramatic arts... that alone may have saved this "feature". (sigh) Do not watch this if you want horror or drama - you WILL regret the loss of the hour and a half. Once that time is gone, you can never get it back.

If you MUST watch this movie, then I would recommend a two bottle wine buffer.

I suffered a Psychosis from watching it till the end - yawn yawn yawn

[one9eighty · 3/10 · 22 October 2015]

Reg Traviss directs this 2010 suspense/thriller film which features Charisma (the brunette from 'Buffy' the TV series) Carpenter, Paul Sculfor and even features a turn by Justin Hawkins from the band 'The Darkness'.

In 1992 some anarchist environmentalist protesters are butchered in the middle of the English countryside while trying to prevent the construction of a motorway. Flash forward 15 years into the future and Susan Golden (Carpenter) is a top selling novelist, she moves into the country estate with her husband where the butchering previously occurred. After some time she starts seeing things and is slowly driven mad. A massive plot twist at the end shows how and why the madness occurred but don't worry, it made for another best selling novel that her husband could sell for his own gains.

The acting is wooden and unconvincing, at no point did I feel that Carpenter and Sculfor were close let alone married. The plot was predictable, after about 15 minutes of the visions I'd worked out what would occur at the end. This felt more like a low budget Hammer House film which is an insult to Hammer more than this film. There was occasional nudity and gore but not enough to write home about. I've read some of the reviews on here which suggest the twists and turns are deeper than they appear on the surface and therefore are brilliant but I strongly disagree, I found this film duller than dishwater and won't be in a rush to watch it again or recommend it. I'm awarding this 3 out of 10 and even that I feel is a big more generous that it deserves. More drama than horror, more yawn than thrills. Happiest when the credits rolled.

Superb Cinema Horror

[jlthornb51 · 10/10 · 17 June 2015]

Reg Traviss and fellow screen writer Micahel Carpenter have crafted a supremely frightening script and the cinema results are extraordinary. Directed as well by Traviss with flair and originality, he creates an atmosphere of almost surrealistic suspense and a unholy, dark environment of overwhelming dread. Charisma Carpenter gives a superb performance in the role of the young woman haunted by visions of what she believes to be remnants of violent episodes that have taken place in the house where she lives. There is incredibly disturbing imagery and horrific scares as she strives to discover the answers to all the terrifying mysteries. No one who sees this superior horror film will ever forget the unendurable suspense, stunning visions, and lightning like intensity that is Psychosis.

Not bad horror flick but Charisma makes it for me

[Joxerlives · 7/10 · 24 November 2012]

Huge Buffy/Angel fan and watched this on the Horror Channel (wow, actual horror on the Horror Channel, rare these days) largely because Charisma Carpenter is in it (just as I only watch Gossip Girl when Michelle Tractenberg is on as Georgina). Not the best film in the world but glad I watched it. I actually met Charisma at a convention a few years back (just as beautiful and charming in real life) and seeing her hairstyle in this I realise now she was in the UK filming this at the time and had just taken the weekend off to earn herself an easy $20,000 signing 2000 autographs (including my copy of Playboy with her posing nude).

The Good; really did remind me of Hammer House of Horror and a lot of the old horror anthologies you used to get. I later learned that I was spot on, this is a remake of a segment of the 1983 horror anthology 'Screamtime'. It's shocks are very good, the violence suitably nasty and a good performance from Charisma, similar to her scenes in the Angel ep 'To Shanshu in LA' where she's losing her mind. They throw a lot of sex into the mix too, not only with the cheating husband and his scantily clad bimbos but the scene where Charisma gets drug raped by his henchman (or does she? The way she grabs his hand during their sex makes you wonder if she's actually surrendered to her dark desires and become a willing participant in her own ravishment?).

The twist in the tail is a kicker, very clever and probably what attracted everyone to a remake in the first place. I had to rewatch it a couple of times before I realised that she's being tortured not by visions of what HAS taken place as everyone thought but by premonitions of what's GOING to take place. Good news for her as it means she'll no longer be driven crazy by it once it's happened and can get out of the asylum to enjoy spending her royalties, bad news for her cheating rat husband and the poor folks who moved into their house.

The Bad; The cheapness of the production shows through in many scenes. Will we ever have an American film set in the UK where they don't drive past famous landmarks such as the Houses of Parliament? (Interesting in 'Screamtime' the sub-stories were all set in Britain but framed by a overall story set in New York to give it transatlantic appeal). Some of the acting by the supporting cast is pretty rubbish, I'm not sure what Justin Hawkins of the band The Darkness was doing in this, he's not David Bowie. It's pretty obvious from the start that the husband is trying to 'Gaslight' Charisma, he may as well have 'villain' stamped on his forehead.

So all told, enjoyable film and I'm glad I watched it. 7/10

Infectious

[kosmasp · 3/10 · 10 May 2012]

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.

A lot of the right ingredients were there but hampered by a low budget and some wooden acting this fails to make an impact.

[candlemansa · 17 August 2010]

'Psychosis' is an example of a movie that I'm sure read brilliantly on page. The story is there, old English house, horror writer retreat; descent into madness, at times it reminded me of the Demi Moore film 'Half Light' although that's an example of how it should be done. The setting of 'Psychosis' is spot on creating a country atmosphere similar to 'Watcher in the woods'. However hampered by wooden acting (save for its two leads) and stilted dialogue, it's hard to warm to the characters or become engaged in the story.

Charisma Carpenter and Paul Sculfor are both easy to watch and had they been given a slightly bigger budget, tweaked dialogue and better surrounding actors then this could have been a winner. There is some chilling vision in the film (notably the tent scene at the start with the man licking the feet, cryptic I know but I don't want to spoil anything) but that vision seems to fade into clichés very quickly. There is a twist, it's a small one but unique and again showed potential for something better.

I watched this because I am a Charisma Carpenter fan so to other fans out there I will say its better than Scyfy's awful 'House of Bones', so if it comes down to the two watch this one.

Not convincing

[TdSmth5 · 5/10 · 5 May 2014]

In the intro some hippie kids set up camp somewhere to protest the expansion of a motorway. Somebody is watching them, then someone else kills them. The killer acts all wild and crazy as if he's zombified.

Years later a couple moves into a mansion in England. She's a famous crime novel writer, he's an even organizer. She's anxious, every sound she hears makes her nervous. She goes exploring and finds a couple having sex in the middle of her woods, the creepy guy then exposes himself to her. She sees some kid playing with a ball but when she goes after him he vanishes. Later her husband introduces the creepy guy as the new grounds-keeper.

We learn that she's had in her past a massive mental breakdown. Now she's working on her new bestseller and is being pressured by her publisher. The quiet country is supposed to give her peace to work. But she keeps seeing things, namely some rocker she saw on TV, the killings from the intro, and the same killer running around her house. Her husbands distances himself a bit from her spending more time at work. One of the events he goes to is some type of party/orgy where the rocker is in attendance and the husband has fun with some girl who has been promised more than just hook ups.

When the creepy guy cooks her dinner she faints and sees more stuff, namely all sorts of crimes in her house. As a result she kills the creepy guy by accident. Now it all unravels. She ends up in a mental institution. Her husband gets a nice royalty check and sells the mansion that will be turned into a clinic and lots of familiar characters show up that either makes things clear or raise more questions in so far as the story and the woman's madness is concerned.

Movies about the British countryside, country people and madness are almost a subgenre in horror. And they are usually weak. This one is watchable. But it lacks something. Carpenter's character isn't likable enough and I don't think it helps to present her as already a little wacky. Stories like these are usually not entirely satisfactory because they presume a level of superhuman planning and all has to go right for the plans of the villain to work. The violence isn't very good. The villain isn't clear enough, from the main character's perspective, everyone is a villain and that just doesn't work. As with many English movies we get full frontal male nudity and little female nudity. Psychosis manages to create some creepiness and tension, but not enough, and lacks the atmosphere to engage the audience entirely.

Soapboxes

[BakuryuuTyranno · 4/10 · 31 March 2012]

Apparently the people behind "Psychosis" decided they wanted to focus mainly on drama.

Well they succeeded but I'm not sure anybody would be watching a haunted house film expecting it to concentrate on drama thus I don't know whether recommending it is a good idea.

The story focuses on Susan Golden, her husband and a creepy man roaming around in the forest. And, apparently, ghosts. Unfortunately there's not much emotional investment in our primary cast. Which causes problems because really, the movie, despite appearing horror-ish, is closer to a supernatural soap.

In the finale, turns out these "ghosts" are actually premonitions. Cue massacre. Kinda smart, except it's basically "a bunch of stuff that happened" because again, no emotional investment is there and so audience are unlikely to really care when it's revealed.

It's really not very good

[ogdendc · 2/10 · 29 January 2013]

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.

Garbage

[gianmarcoronconi · 2/10 · 6 October 2023]

This is not a real review, it should be taken more as a collection of impressions on the film.

Very slow and also quite boring film with a beginning that doesn't have much to do with the rest of the film and an ending that is the only slightly nice thing that the whole film has to offer. So the film is bad even if the ending is nice because even if the final twist is a bit the opposite of what I expected, the rest of the film is meaningless and very boring. Another thing is that the film dates back to 2011 and the way it is shot looks like a B-series horror film from the 1980s. So in conclusion the ending is valid but the rest is rubbish.

Middling

[Woodyanders · 5/10 · 26 January 2021]

Horror novelist Susan (a solid and appealing performance by Charisma Carpenter) relocates to a remote rural area of England in the wake of suffering from a mental breakdown. However, it turns out said rural area was the same place where a savage massacre occurred fifteen years ago.

While writer/director Reg Traviss gets this movie off to a cracking start with several bloody'n'brutal killings and makes nice use of the beautiful countryside, he alas lets the mostly predictable story unfold at a plodding pace and crucially fails to generate much in the way of any essential tension or creepy atmosphere. However, Traviss does deliver a real dandy dark twist at the very end. Moreover, the game cast do their best with the so-so material: Paul Sulfor as Susan's conniving no-count husband David, Ricci Harnett as scruffy gamekeeper Peck, Ty Glaser as brash tart Emily, Richard Raynes as pesky agent Charles, and Bernard Key as helpful local priest Reverend Swan. An okay time-killer.

Brilliant movie

[meshman79 · 10/10 · 16 December 2010]

I'm a massive fan of this movie, it's a perfectly executed re-imagining of 1983's Scream Time. Charisma Carpenter is a great choice for the lead role of 'Susan' and she successfully pulls off a difficult character arch that sees her transform from a settled, confident woman into a truly tortured soul. Ricci Harnett is also great as the rather creepy groundsman 'Peck' and Paul Sculfor is a very clever choice for Susan's husband - adding a level of credibility and logic to the film that I won't spoil with this review. If like me, you like your horror to be full of suspense, thrills, sex and deception - you should watch this movie.

My Review Of "Psychosis"

[ASouthernHorrorFan · 6/10 · 16 July 2013]

A serial killer unleashes his blood lust at a remote environmental-camp. Years later a horror novelist relocates to rural England and is plagued to the point of madness by horrific haunting of a massacre.

So I finally got around to watching Charisma Carpenter in "Psychosis". At first as it started out I thought maybe I had the wrong movie because it looked like a tradition psycho slasher flick however I was pleasantly surprised. After the story took off, the way that the film kept me constantly focused on the deceit of her husband, and constantly trying to figure out just what the film was about, it totally threw me for a loop with the ending. Brilliant execution of the story. This was not an easy script to keep cohesive and relatable. At any point the film could have fell apart with all the subtext and micro plots that seemed to flutter about in the telling of this story.

For the most part I felt I was watching a psychological thriller just a bit above Lifetime Movie abilities and constantly wondering what the beginning had to do with f*ckall in this movie. It kept me guessing and confused visually as to the characters that played out in the Macbeth styled dance of twisted tales of betrayal and deception. The cinematography was gritty and yet polished with its total control of the film by jumping from micro plot to micro plot. Is she crazy? Is she psychic? or is some people totally f*cking with her?! I just kept bouncing back. This turned out to be a really great film and you don't realize just how intricate and detailed the plot is until the last 15 minutes of the film and that is got me totally into the story and made me drop my jaw. The ending tied it all up so poignantly and perfectly. A great psychological profile of the depths of human psychosis.

Disappointing and could've been better

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 6/10 · 30 January 2014]

After moving to a new house in the country, a writer begins to believe the strange visions and hallucinations around the house are all in her head and meant to drive her crazy, but she discovers a history of death and mayhem in the area that may prove to be the actual culprit.

This is an admittedly decent film in concept, yet this one here just doesn't really do enough to really differentiate itself from the hordes of similarly-themed films and in the end comes across merely as decent. The fact that this one tends to just meander on about different ideas and topics that aren't in the slightest bit scary, from the constant scenes of the young boy playing soccer to the freak-outs over the gardener and the endless scenes of her breaking down crying and needing to be comforted, it just grows old and never once creates an atmosphere or aura of creepiness, which is somewhat of a let-down considering the fact that nothing much happens. Without many kills for gore-gags and a pretty lagging pace until the finale when the real ploy is revealed and the scares get somewhat more intense, not a whole lot to like here unless this sort of thing fits you.

Rated R: Graphic Language, Violence, Full Nudity and sex scenes.