Lord of Tears
- 2013
- 1h 44m
IMDb RATING
4.8/10
1.6K
YOUR RATING
When a school teacher is plagued by recurring nightmares of a mysterious entity, he travels to his childhood home because he suspects a link to a dark incident in his past.When a school teacher is plagued by recurring nightmares of a mysterious entity, he travels to his childhood home because he suspects a link to a dark incident in his past.When a school teacher is plagued by recurring nightmares of a mysterious entity, he travels to his childhood home because he suspects a link to a dark incident in his past.
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
This was a recommendation, it was suggested to me that this looked like it could potentially be scary stuff! It was not, it truly truly wasn't.
Lord Of Tears is one of those horrors that thinks it's a lot smarter than it actually is, an over convoluted plot, an arthouse look and student film level quality.
An English horror I'm surprised just how much I walked away disliking the film, some of the visuals are adequate but there is just no substance, lackluster performances and honestly the plot is a mess.
I like the concept I do, but it was utilized so incompetently it left the film a barely watchable embarassment.
I'm not a great lover of British cinema at the best of times but this is British cinema in the hands of people who have no place in the industry.
Certainly one to avoid.
The Good:
Beautiful scenery
Visual effects are quite good in places
The Bad:
Acting is sub-par
Comes across like a bad arthouse film
Awful scoring
At several points I did actually ask myself what the hell I was watching
Plot is seven shades of awful
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
No accent grinds on me more than a Scottish one
You can stay in the Mansion featured in the film for just under 400 British pounds per night
Lord Of Tears is one of those horrors that thinks it's a lot smarter than it actually is, an over convoluted plot, an arthouse look and student film level quality.
An English horror I'm surprised just how much I walked away disliking the film, some of the visuals are adequate but there is just no substance, lackluster performances and honestly the plot is a mess.
I like the concept I do, but it was utilized so incompetently it left the film a barely watchable embarassment.
I'm not a great lover of British cinema at the best of times but this is British cinema in the hands of people who have no place in the industry.
Certainly one to avoid.
The Good:
Beautiful scenery
Visual effects are quite good in places
The Bad:
Acting is sub-par
Comes across like a bad arthouse film
Awful scoring
At several points I did actually ask myself what the hell I was watching
Plot is seven shades of awful
Things I Learnt From This Movie:
No accent grinds on me more than a Scottish one
You can stay in the Mansion featured in the film for just under 400 British pounds per night
Lord of Tears promised me something unique and terrifying, but it didn't quite deliver what I had been hoping.
For a movie funded by kickstarter and working with a tiny budget, it's well-made. The artistic direction, photography, and everything visual in this film is wonderful. The score is beautiful and unsettling when it needs to be: very appropriate. The concept of the film had so much potential, potential which was completely bunked because of the performances within the movie.
The lead, Euan Douglas, wasn't absolutely awful, but something seemed to be holding him back, causing his acting and lines to appear stiff and awkward and uncomfortable at best. This could have been a problem with script or direction, but I would be willing to bet that it might have been conflict with the second-in-lead, Alexandra Hulme.
Hulme's performance was atrocious. It takes a lot for me to dislike a character which is not meant to be the target of audience hostility, but Hulme managed to accomplish this. For me personally, her over-acting and forced lines and exaggerated movements really tarnished the otherwise appealing movie. Had the part been taken up by another actress, it might have been an entirely different horror movie, but instead, Hulme has dragged my review down to a 3/10, and beset me with bitterness and buyer's remorse.
A lot of people tend not to expect much with horror movies, but the truth is that it's very much an art, as with any other genre. To really scare someone or cause unrest or discomfort, whatever the horror movie's motive may be, there's a delicate balance that must be maintained through visuals, music, and performances. If just one portion is off, it can ruin the experience entirely.
I wanted to like this movie very much. I'm a huge supporter of independent horror and Hollywood horror alike, but as the extensively positive reviews led me to this film, I needed to address it from my own point of view. I don't know where the 8.2 rating came from.
TL;DR: the marketing was brilliant, the visuals stunning, and the score beautiful, but the performance of Hulme just completely ruined it for me. This was not the horror movie that I was looking for, though it seemed to promise that it was.
For a movie funded by kickstarter and working with a tiny budget, it's well-made. The artistic direction, photography, and everything visual in this film is wonderful. The score is beautiful and unsettling when it needs to be: very appropriate. The concept of the film had so much potential, potential which was completely bunked because of the performances within the movie.
The lead, Euan Douglas, wasn't absolutely awful, but something seemed to be holding him back, causing his acting and lines to appear stiff and awkward and uncomfortable at best. This could have been a problem with script or direction, but I would be willing to bet that it might have been conflict with the second-in-lead, Alexandra Hulme.
Hulme's performance was atrocious. It takes a lot for me to dislike a character which is not meant to be the target of audience hostility, but Hulme managed to accomplish this. For me personally, her over-acting and forced lines and exaggerated movements really tarnished the otherwise appealing movie. Had the part been taken up by another actress, it might have been an entirely different horror movie, but instead, Hulme has dragged my review down to a 3/10, and beset me with bitterness and buyer's remorse.
A lot of people tend not to expect much with horror movies, but the truth is that it's very much an art, as with any other genre. To really scare someone or cause unrest or discomfort, whatever the horror movie's motive may be, there's a delicate balance that must be maintained through visuals, music, and performances. If just one portion is off, it can ruin the experience entirely.
I wanted to like this movie very much. I'm a huge supporter of independent horror and Hollywood horror alike, but as the extensively positive reviews led me to this film, I needed to address it from my own point of view. I don't know where the 8.2 rating came from.
TL;DR: the marketing was brilliant, the visuals stunning, and the score beautiful, but the performance of Hulme just completely ruined it for me. This was not the horror movie that I was looking for, though it seemed to promise that it was.
Atmosphere, yes. Great locations, yes. Interesting enough premise, yes. And I didn't notice that the lead male couldn't act until "Eve" showed up. She can act, but at the community theater level. Lordy, when she said "I'm from the South" in that "I'm not from the South and I don't think I've ever been there" accent it was over. Oh, did you know she trained as a dancer? Well, golly, there's a scene where she spins.
It's just all fluff and stiff moments with decent locales, some nice nature shots, and a MYSTERY!
It's just all fluff and stiff moments with decent locales, some nice nature shots, and a MYSTERY!
Wow. Just. Holy cow, what a cringefest. I mean, I am pretty tolerant of cheese you guys, but this stinks. It stinks. What a tremendously awful film. Almost everything about it just assaulted my senses. To be fair, the scenery was beautiful and the setting deserved a better movie. But they don't get credit for Scotland being cool.
The writing was awful, the plot boring, the acting - dear god. Who are these people? Why are they in a movie? Who let this happen? These characters are zero-dimensional, and these actors should stop. Just stop now and pursue other career choices.
You know when you are watching a movie and it's so bad you are embarrassed when other people walk in the room? Like you have to have an excuse for why it's so awful? This is that. They are lucky Scotland is eerie, or this 2 would have been a 1.
The writing was awful, the plot boring, the acting - dear god. Who are these people? Why are they in a movie? Who let this happen? These characters are zero-dimensional, and these actors should stop. Just stop now and pursue other career choices.
You know when you are watching a movie and it's so bad you are embarrassed when other people walk in the room? Like you have to have an excuse for why it's so awful? This is that. They are lucky Scotland is eerie, or this 2 would have been a 1.
I never "review" movies, but when horror breaks what I consider to be the #1 cardinal rule of the genre, it makes me almost angry for some reason. That rule, which is an entirely personal one, is that if you're going to take yourself dead seriously with your horror movie, you damn well better have good acting. Your story has to embrace camp in order for bad acting to have any hope of working. The lead actors ability is to me only a few small steps above infomercial quality. There is no feeling to his performance here whatsoever, especially when it calls for dire emotion which it does much too often. The story's execution, although interesting on paper, really doesn't do him or the lead actress any favours. I couldn't in good conscience rate it as low as possible because there are three things, a star for each, that to me must be commended: 1) The location and cinematography that takes place outdoors is fantastic. Beautiful stuff. 2) The lead actress is absolutely gorgeous here, and her performance singlehandedly carried me through to the end, which I could barely believe I made it to. She is embarrassingly cheesy in the third act, which I won't spoil here, but that is entirely the fault of the filmmakers. She did what she could with what she was given. 3) The movie is dedicated to Christopher Lee. This one is self explanatory.
3/10
3/10
Did you know
- TriviaYou can rent the house where this film was made for a holiday through Sykes Cottages. It is called Ardgour House and it looks exactly as it did in the film.
- SoundtracksSleep, My Darling
Written by Sarah Daly & Youssef Khalil
Performed by Sarah Daly & Youssef Khalil
- How long is Lord of Tears?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- The Owlman
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 44 minutes
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content