Customer Reviews

The Sickhouse

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

I watched this last night, and I will have to say I was very pleasantly surprised. Although horror is my favorite genre, much of the "new breed" of horror films are just plain...HORRIBLE. This is not the case here.

Set in London, the story follows a young archaeologist (Gina Phillips) who has discovered the "dig of a lifetime," only to be told the site has been quarantined because of a possible outbreak of the plague, and the site will be destroyed "in the morning." As most horror stories would have it, she throws caution to the wind and decides to go back for one more look. She causes way more than she bargained for. She finds herself trapped inside, along with four intruders, and they must find their way out before it's too late.

Very stylishly done, by first-time director Curtis Radclyffe, I found his use of lighting and sound very effective. There really is no "monster" here...so to speak. However, I was bothered by the "whispering child." I never could figure out what she was saying, and I think that message played a major part in the film. The gore, by the way, is handled very nicely; most of it is in black and white.

To make a really good horror movie, you don't need a maniac in a mask, or someone chasing nubile young women--scantilly clad, of course--with a chainsaw. Lighting, sound, and setting the right mood will do it all for you.

Gina Phillips was adequate as Anna (the archaeologist), and the supporting cast also turned out strong performances. Kuddos to first-time director Curtis Radclyffe. I'm anxious to see what he will do next. The film, amazingly enough, lasts 129 minutes. I watched the unrated version, but I don't know what it couldn't be released as an R.

Rent this one for a stormy, dark night. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

The Sickhouse (Curtis Radclyffe, 2007)

Radclyffe (Sweet Angel Mine) went eleven years between his first and second movies. I haven't seen the first one. After seeing the second, I'm not sure I care to. The Sickhouse is badly-shot (and in the world of low-budget horror movies, which are as a rule badly-shot, to single one out for this is really saying something), incomprehensible for fully half its length, not in any way scary, and in general close to unwatchable. So why, then, am I giving it such a high rating? Because once it starts to make sense, it almost manages to redeem itself.

Anna (Ring Around the Rosie's Gina Philips) is an American archaeologist working in Britain, excavating a plague hospital from the 1660s. She's stumbled upon what appears to be a base of multiple child murder, but tests of the soil in the are show that plague is still dormant there, and so the authorities, more worried about the plague coming back than they are about a possible three-hundred-odd-year-old murder case, are shutting the dig site down. Desperate to find out more, Anna sneaks in despite the posted guards. This is always a great idea in a horror film. Meanwhile, a band of young-and-beautifuls out celebrating one's twenty-first birthday get themselves involved in a fatal accident, flee the scene, and also end up in the dig site. They meet up with Anna and discover that, perhaps, they may be trapped with a three-hundred-year-old serial killer.

Yes, I'm serious. Also, I should mention that I cribbed much of that synopsis from various other reviews, because I couldn't make heads or tails of the first half of this movie. It wasn't edited, it was butchered. Radclyffe's (seemingly common) mistake of equating "darkness" with "atmosphere" doesn't help, either; much of this movie is simply too dark to see. Still, once Anna and the group of kids joins up and we actually get a sense of where the movie is going, for some odd reason the editing improves. (We get full sentences!) There's actually a story, and it's a half-decent one. The movie's still not much on suspense, acting, or sound (and I should mention the soundtrack, which you are either going to love or hate; I fall on the former side), but once there's a story you can sink your teeth into and you start getting some sense of the characters, it becomes surprisingly watchable. It never gets good, but sometimes watchable is enough.

In any case, probably best to avoid unless it's the last horror movie on the shelf at your local video rental store. After all, if it's a choice between this and the latest Michael Bay abomination, you should always go for the bad, low-budget horror flick. **

I watch a lot of horror movies, ghost stories especially. I'm very rarely frightened by any of them, and visually disturbed only a little more often, but this movie managed to do a little of the former and a lot of the latter. Having just watched it, I'm left with a feeling of filth and taint, like when I first saw the video for Aphex Twin's "Come to Daddy", oh so many years ago. I'm even somewhat nauseous. That's how visually disturbing this movie was at times, I was almost compelled to start thinking about maybe vomiting.

The visuals are exactly what I've been looking for in a horror movie, and they are really where the feeling of filth comes from. The colors are drab, the lighting is unnaturally bleak and the camera work is reminiscent of a nightmare. The shaky-cam technique doesn't always work out to the film's advantage, but for the most part, it's used quite well. The ghosts are pretty good, but I think their presence could have used some more obviating instead of them just showing up every once in a while. The atmosphere is icky, but it's not creepy. The entire movie is pretty well devoid of horrifying moments. You'll probably be grossed out, not scared.

The acting is pretty good. You may think that acting in a horror movie doesn't require any talent, but try looking scared while you run from what you know is just a guy in a suit, a puppet or empty space to be edited with CG later. Then try doing it all day and you'll have an idea of what it takes to film an entire flick. The characters were all believable, and even though they weren't as well fleshed out or deep as some may like, they weren't simple plot bots. That role seemed well filled by the ghosts, whose motives were pretty much unknown until the last few minutes, and even then it's sketchy at best.

Not all is well with the movie, however. The editing sucked. There are times where the film moved way too slowly, and the aforementioned shaky cam view sometimes made it unnecessarily difficult to follow what was going on. The movie's worst offense was the map. Every once in a while, it comes out of the movie to show you where the next scene will be on a map of the complex. It's cheesy, ugly, stupid and gives off a horrible "Uwe Boll" stench. The director would do well to learn from this mistake.

All in all, it was a good horror movie. If the director can capitalize on his ability to perturb and mix it with real horror, he may bring us a true horror classic. Until then, you can watch this and pretend you're scared.

I rented this with my friend thinking it would be a good scary flick. OMG it sucked so bad. The young kids were just stupid and there was not much talent required. I wouldn't be suprised if they just improvised the lines the for the whole movie. Unless you want to see some overgrown bigbird looking dude murder people, don't waste your time/money...GO see Mirrors!!

By far the worst movie ever produced!!!!! Horrible, not scary, goes no where, bad script, waste of precious money & time!! You'll find it in your local dollar recycled dump bin. This flick was just a plain waste of my time, did not scare me once, special FX were nothing to write home about either. I do not "WRECK-A-MEND" this piece of garbage to anyone. It seems that NOBODY these days knows how to make TRUE HORROR flicks like they did in the 80's. In the 80's you had lots of blood, gore, storylines & more, now it seems that movie producers are just trying to be way to artsy & that just plain sucks. Come on movie producers get with the true meaning of horror & when you do contact me at Cult Movies Magazine. Schroeder (Publisher/Owner) of Cult Movies Magazine.

I feel the peformances were strong. But, the plot never seems to take hold and the "scares" aren't there. They try to get scares by using camera tricks and "shaking" objects (ghosts) as if the emulate Japanese Horror. The story just leaves you flat.

I actually got lucky on this, and VOD'ed it rather than buying it. Boy, am I glad.

This film seemed promising at the outset, but became more idiotic as each minute passed. The plot revolves around an attractive American archaeologist working solo on a dig in an old sanitorium in London. Her work is interrupted by a group of typically obnoxious British "teens" who are in the process of fleeing the scene of a hit-and-run accident. They soon discover that the building is haunted not only by the spirits of murdered children, but also by the powerful ghost of a "plague doctor". Fairly decent synopsis, yes? Unfortunately for this film, the synopsis is the only thing remotely interesting about it.

The film's dialogue is pedantic and predictable, the acting is atrocious, and the cinematography is reminiscent of a student film. I assume the director was going for a "realistic-yet-gothic" feel when shooting this movie. I won't spoil the ending for those of you who insist on watching it, but suffice it to say you'll know the ending before you get halfway through it.

Do yourself a favor and watch the original House on Haunted Hill if you want a good ghost movie. This one belongs in the bin, not on your shelf.

A stunning failure of the first order. This "movie" represents a brilliant story concept lacking only a director, a writer, a cast and a budget.

A tired walk through of "shaky night shots at odd angles"...OH deary me ...I'll be scared in a minute...any minute now...just wait..it's coming.....

I'm glad to see something original come into play for once. This movie is very good at doing that. It is a great movie! A must see for horror fans!!!

I was pretty well entertained with this Horror film, mainly because it combined supernatural elements with the very cute Gina Philips. Gina , as the Archaeologist, is not supposed to be there since here Professor said that the authorities had closed the site down on the suspicion of Plague that had been confirmed. As the story develops, the characters come together and then time freezes. Its in this magic hour, magic moment that the film happens. The Eerie time Time Travel style diversion explores who is supposed to be part of the sacrifice for the central character that Gina's Character has traced as the plague Doctor who is responsible for many deaths in an earlier century; like some sort of Ethereal Vampire, the Doctor has Names that Change but remain the same ( they are the
same name changed into different languages). And this develops ... its not a Uwo Boll style Film, ( and I don't take that as a criticism since I enjoy what he does), its a film unto its own style, since it shows how a spirit of a different age extracts the essence of the souls in a different age.
Very Spooky indeed.