3/10
A poor excuse for a director to get Emilia Clarke naked
16 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I caught this movie because my GF wanted to see it. I went in without knowing what it was about, but was pleased to see Emilia Clarke was in it. The original premise seemed intriguing, and the setting and cinematography sets the mood for what could have been a very capable ghost story /haunted house movie. The characters are introduced and the scene is set, and then.... nothing. Unfortunately, the pace of the movie slowly plods along, with nary a bit of suspense or fright. No spooky scary things go bump in the night, the characters just bore the audience to tears. If it weren't for the fact that Emilia Clarke is beautiful, I can't see how anyone would spend more than 20 minutes watching this. To make matters worse, her supporting actor is a child who has not a single line of dialog the entire movie (until the very very very end). Most of the movie the two of them just go around listening to holes in walls, to which there are no strange voices, or eerie whispers, just silence... There is also a groundskeeper who doesn't talk very much at all, and the boy's father- one character that does have some lines to deliver. He actually seduces the lovely Emilia Clarke to model nude for him while he sculpts a life-size rock into a statue of her (with a hammer and chisel, from scratch, without any clay mock-ups) while she just lays naked for the audience to feast their eyes on. Then he has a sex scene with her - after all, her clothes are already off, how much more in the mood could she be? And that I suppose is the purpose of and only reason to watch this movie: for the director to have an excuse to disrobe an actress for a gratuitous nude/sex scene, and to see Emilia Clarke naked, which without it would make this movie a 1 star.
14 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed