User reviews

I was highly skeptical after seeing the trailer for this and all the 10 star reviews, but I have to say it was definitely worth ones time. The Yellow Wallpaper definitely had budget restraints, but that didn't really matter here. The acting and overall ambiance gradually drew me in deeper and deeper to these people's lives. The movie really had an old feel to it that a lot of Hollywood films lack. I actually felt like I was watching these people.

With that being said, The Yellow Wallpaper is a bizarre movie that has some shades of Lovecraft in it. It strays from the original short story into a full feature that stands out on its own. Im glad it took the direction it did because so many people were talking about the short I figured I pretty much already knew how it was going to end. I'm glad I was wrong.

This film is a bit of a slow burn, but it carries itself well. Its creepy, bizarre, and bleak. I recommend this to anyone who likes time pieces and Lovecraft stories.

Solid 7/10

Had to watch it. I'm always curious when a film gets a mix of very high and very low ratings. Plus, I have long been a fan of the original story. This film deserves a solid middle rating. There is some decent cinematography and acting for the budget range, but anyone who comes to it expecting a direct adaptation of the short story "The Yellow Wallpaper" is going to be disappointed.

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.

Don't expect this film to do any justice to the short story, hence the "adaptation." If you enjoy period pieces for the accurate sets, costumes etc. then The Yellow Wallpaper may be for you. If you want narration to do the digging for you, again this may be the film for you. On the surface it felt much like your typical horror/thriller with the appropriate high strung music to curdle your insides before the action has even begun. Many of the shots also felt excessive in building the tension. The subject matter seemed strong enough on its own without a series of 'creepy' face close ups. The characters were well cast for their appearance, though the acting felt very... dry? I suppose this was to match a 'gothic' aesthetic. For me, it was disappointing to see such a film baring the name of great Gothic lit, but I can see how some may still find it entertaining in its own right.

I saw this film in a private screening of 30 industry professionals. Producers came out and said, they understood if we didn't like it, no problem. I guess they have been laboring over the film for a couple years. Do not expect your typical horror film from this one. A few people looked a little stunned after the film. Since I had never read the story -- I guess it is required reading in high school and college - - how the hell did I miss that? ... probably from being a total deadbeat in high school... I went into the film unaware. It is a period film, which is pretty cool, and set before 1900 or something. . . I can say one thing about the film... I never guessed the ending. You actually have no idea was is going to happen in the end. This is a breath of fresh air, when it seems like everything nowadays is just a remake or some stupid idea that has never been fleshed out correctly. Because the story is famous, I am sure more people will hate it because it doesn't adhere to the story exactly. I don't know much about the original story, but what they did with the the film was pretty unique. it has a dream-like. I think this is what movies are supposed to capture. Good job Mr. director.

"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.

I highly recommend this movie to everyone. It was one of the most desolate, mysterious and frightening movies I have ever seen. I decided to watch it in the middle of the afternoon with the sun pouring into my living room but it was night everywhere.

There is something of the Brothers Grimm in here. There are terrifying forest scenes. An artistic conflict between light and dark. But most of all there is a horrible loneliness and sense of loss and helplessness and desperation. The Yellow Wallpaper is a picture of total misery and fear and desperation. There is nothing worse in the world than the loss of a child and this film takes us to the limit.

I have always loved the story by Charlotte Perkins Gilman but now I love it even more! What a unique and interesting way bring a classic story to a new generation--with a few surprises, too.

A real movie that has been developed for real entertainment, devoid of the fake images that Hollywood now depends upon instead of good acting, and creative scripts.

Good performances by actors, seems to be a rarity in my eyes. This movie is fantastic, with actors actually and professionally performing their skilled trade that seems to be vanishing in big Hollywood Productions and replaced by loud music and fake imagery. Oh that Hollywood, they need to come back to earth!

Extremely entertaining, beautifully and skillfully shot, scary and intriguing, an artful adaptation of the original short story, this movie seems to have it all.

I am privileged to have seen this unique film and meet its creators.

Awful doesn't even cut it. This comes under the heading of WORST MOVIES EVER MADE. Stupid story, incredibly poor acting (but then how could they act with such a stupid script{}. UGH, UGH, UGH all the way. If you read the synopsis or story line, or even the review of the 'short story' they try to convince you it's about women and mental illness. Poppycock and balderdash. It's just another run of the mill, idiotic vampire movie. The only mental illness here was that of the the author who wrote the short story. I just had to watch the whole movie just to see how incredulously stupid it would turn out to be. BINGO !! First prize for INCREDULOUSLY STUPID. What a waste of time!

This is a period piece filled with thousands of tiny, rich details: the creepy, chilling way the sun sets, the sense of foreboding mixed with anticipation, the ladies' dresses that look so stiff and uncomfortable that you feel faint and sweaty, too. The men have that dandy look of that time, but the dustiness settles on them just enough to show they are masking big secrets. I was surprised to see so many recognizable actors in a small independent film, and I was also surprised at how much I enjoyed this film overall. The story had a good, interesting pace. There are a couple of good jolts to keep the viewer's attention, and some neat twists throughout. It was beautifully shot, with Gothic overtones - which is a feat given that it is a horror film.

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.

This is a film which honors patience. It is not for those who need action-packed adrenaline stoking from beginning to end. This is a film for those who appreciate the slow build up to terror of a classic Gothic ghost story.

The characters speak slowly in careful Victorian, but Midwestern American, English as the year is 1892. The camera reveals scenes with a languid, sensuality. Yet, there is a discomforting eerie quality that builds as the film progresses. Most of the scenes are outside or within a 100-year old haunted house. A few sequences are of a bleak landscape separating the house from town. The sound track has a threatening undertone. John encounters a rat-killing couple on a bicycle ride into town. The encounter is the first of increasingly bizarre experiences that John, his wife, and sister-in-law, Jennifer have, after renting the house with yellow wallpaper. Suspense builds, like waves, each reaching a bit higher, and the viewer's tension notches up.

The film is wonderfully atmospheric and full of symbolic allusion (e.g., town represents safety, where there is civilization, but it is cut off by desert, forest, and distant mountains, thus unattainable for those caught in the web of terror). The stark Victorian mansion, at first, seems to offer a comforting respite for the grief-stricken family. John and Charlotte have lost their daughter in a fire that consumed their previous house. True to its Gothic literary antecedent, however, the house's hidden terrors slowly enrapture and capture its occupants. The descent into terror and madness is a slow but steady incline, not a dash from a spring board.

John, a medical doctor, demands that the family maintain its rational, civilized understanding of reality and thus seek understanding of the inexplicable events that begin to occur after moving into the house. Charlotte embraces the irrational-supernatural aura of the house as a means to reconnect with their deceased daughter. Jennifer, the pragmatist, brings in a "ghost-buster" from back east. So, what force will prevail and will the 3 survive as they approach the final horror the house dishes up? The production is first class in all respects. The sets appear historically accurate to the Victorian era. The soundtrack music is wonderfully eerie and then shrieks like Psycho when the viewer's nerves are about to snap with tension. The acting is superb by all 3 of the main characters, and the walk-ons are appropriately creepy. The writing and direction bring to life for 21st Century viewers a classic Gothic tale of terror.

I had no expectations when I saw this film and this is one of those instances where I was thrilled to have found such a gem in something I had never even heard of. The film is quiet, slow and very dark. From the first moment the stage is set by the incredible score that only gets better throughout the movie. There is a dream-like quality that makes you wonder at times if what you're watching is what is actually going on. The lines are delivered deliberately and the actors do a fantastic job of adding to the confusion. Almost as though they are players in a play but they aren't aware they are in. There are some very recognizable actors in this movie but they play parts that are far from their "usual" roles which I found very entertaining. This is the type of movie that leaves you with "images" for weeks after you see it and I cannot say enough about the fabulous score. I plan on watching this several times in the coming weeks. What a find!

I like the film because it builds, not just the scenes,but the acting as well. the main characters have an intense lose in the beginning of the film, then they try to recover throughout the story afterwards. The acting is carried out in this regard from beginning to end and all the performances are well done. The lead man is very good, changing from deadpan-zombie in the beginning, to a decisive individual at the end. His lack of emotion in the beginning is accurate, and the females that are around him behave according to this. Very well done. Instead of just starting in the beginning on high notes, which is what most of television consists of (and lives and breathes by ..constant high pitched emotion with no build up.) A really well directed film with a moving soundtrack that is really built for film lovers. But not much for general viewers. One of those great, surprising films that makes one wonder how the film was ever made in the first place, or how was the financing ever secured. Not a popcorn film, but a great art film. Watch it for something different.

Knowing the original script would be somewhat different from the original short story; the creators of this visually exquisite, superbly executed sensation have succeeded in transforming Charlotte Perkins Gilman's fine prose into a masterpiece which will more than likely, become a Cult Classic. The musical scoring is beyond hauntingly superb, driving the sequences beyond thriller limits and maintaining wonderful classical refinements. The 'reveal' of the ending is shockingly appropriate somehow. Though many purists of Gilman's work may find this a bit disturbing, they cannot deny that much of her work has been highly honored in this innovative film version. All contributors deserve accolades. An exquisite accomplishment by director, Logan Thomas. August 11, 2016 - by Karen J Shoaff

I have always liked the Gothic novel upon which this movie is based, and so I was a bit fearful to see how director Logan Thomas had interpreted it. In short - It was wonderful.

It has been a long time since I have enjoyed a movie enough to write a review. This was well- written, well-acted and well-directed. It was so beautiful and visually stimulating I could hang the stills around my house. I love the reinvention of this story - it is at once fantastically modern and relevant and yet dripping with history and antiquity. This is truly a masterful, rich and thrilling film. Definite must see!!

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.

One is immediately struck by the sad, lush darkness of the film. The key to success is to also make it alluring, which is accomplished both instantly and artfully in The Yellow Wallpaper.

The year is 1892. A young married couple, along with the wife's sister, flee the recent disaster of losing their daughter and home in fire. Left with only each other and bit of cash, they receive an invitation to live in another home in a new town. Upon arrival, there is a haze that you're not sure is attributable to summer heat or strangeness of the new situation. Quite quickly, you come to know it may be both.

The cast is peppered with film and TV veterans that bring additional gravity to this already haunting material. The score is original and gorgeous.

I have to admit, I had never even heard of this film until it was brought to my attention by a friend. They thought I would appreciate the main storyline and the fact that it is a period film. I have not been at all disappointed. What a hidden gem?! How had I not heard of it before? It is a dark film, spooky but thought provoking.

The general gist of this is that it is based on two characters Charlotte and John, and is an origin story (rather than a remake) for the original Charlotte Perkins Gilman story. Events unfold after a life changing fire, Charlotte begins to start having visions and becomes reclusive from her husband and sister.

The excellent mysterious, spooky and dark storyline is complemented by brilliant music and wonderful actors. Some names to note are, Dale Dickey (Iron Man 3, Winter's Bone), Emmy winners, golden globe winner, and Tony winner Michael Moriarty, Veronica Cartwright. You must watch it! I know I will be watching this again, soon!