When I got the DVD I was extremely excited, I mean, it has such a great cover… then the movie started and almost immediately I was horrified… and not in a good way. The opening moment of PSYCHOSIS already had me a little worried with its amateurish camerawork. However I have seen other horrors with below the average camerawork and some were pretty good for a low budget, PSYCHOSIS on the other hand simply got worse.

With a too long intro (which, by the way didn’t make any sense at the end of it all), random shots being edited together in the production room (which were pointless and again amateur), the sound being absolutely terrible… basically I couldn’t wait for the torture to end. Unfortunately I watched it again, hoping to ‘let it grow on me’, but there was no such luck.

Furthermore I had to simply ask myself what the hell were any of these so-called ‘writers’ thinking. The story had no structure, it can’t be called a soft-porn horror (there wasn’t enough flesh to get anywhere near a soft porn) it can’t be called a horror-comedy (it really wouldn’t be funny if you don’t have a sense of humour) and frankly it can’t be called a horror, unless you feel that seeing an actress’ liposuction scars on her thighs is horror.

It is obvious that Reg Traviss had not read my 10 Commandments of Horror if he did, he wouldn’t have made such a screw-up of things.

That said, I can’t only blame the director and writers alone. Charisma Carpenter (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) was lazy as an actress in this movie, and will most probably have to leave this off of her resume if she wants any more acting jobs. Paul Sculfor (apparently a heartthrob in Britain) can stick to looking pretty.

Ricci Harnett (28 Days Later) was too busy screwing anything that moves to really show his acting abilities (unless his acting abilities starts and ends with screwing and dying at some point) and the rest… I don’t think I have enough strength to comment on each and every actor… except poor Axelle Carolyn (Centurion)at the end of the flick. Why did they try to make her look so old? What was the point of the bad dubbing? I mean seriously, can Reg Traviss (Joyride) really be proud of this embarrassingly bad, so-called British “horror”? Really?

All in all I would advise everyone AWAY from buying the DVD and AVOID it when it is on T.V, it is really NOT worth the watch, unless you have masochistic tendencies. It actually hurt to watch, but I watched it twice to make sure I would be accurate when I wrote this review. However I might be scarred for life because of it…

Rated: 1/10

© BRWC 2010.

We hope you're enjoying BRWC. You should check us out on our social channels, subscribe to our newsletter, and tell your friends. BRWC is short for battleroyalewithcheese.

Trending on BRWC:

Michael Mendelsohn: Interview 

Michael Mendelsohn: Interview 

By BRWC / 6th May 2024 / 1 Comment
Velma Season 2: Review

Velma Season 2: Review

By BRWC / 9th May 2024 / 1 Comment
Unfrosted: The BRWC Review

Unfrosted: The BRWC Review

By BRWC / 14th May 2024
Infested – Review  

Infested – Review  

By BRWC / 5th May 2024 / 1 Comment
Classic Film Review: Ulysses (1967)

Classic Film Review: Ulysses (1967)

By BRWC / 29th April 2024

Cool Posts From Around the Web:

Alton loves film. He is founder and Editor In Chief of BRWC.  Some of the films he loves are Rear Window, Superman 2, The Man With The Two Brains, Clockwise, Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, Trading Places, Stir Crazy and Punch-Drunk Love.

  • peter benedict 16th July 2010

    I saw PSYCHOSIS in the cinema earlier this week and am a little surpised at your review. As a horror movie buff, I was relieved to find there were still people making thrillers that weren’t paced like X Box games. Perhaps I am alone in having had enough of plotless slasher flicks but this film entertained me because it had intelligible narrative and exactly the right degree of ambiguity, reminding me a little of Bryan Forbes’ SEANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON, in which we are never absolutely certain about the psychic abilities of the central protagonist. With regard to your complaint about the sound quality, I can only say I am astonished. I have been known to ask for a refund in cinemas because I can’t understand a word of dialogue in some big budget Hollywood films but this movie was fine. Is it possible you were having trouble with some of the regional British accents ?

  • Anonymous 17th July 2010

    It sounds pretty bad Peter.

  • DLyons 8th November 2010

    Thank God someone gave this film the review it deserves. I think the reviewer means the sound of the film as in the quality of the recording, not the accents. I don’t know why anyone would put the film out in its current state. The editing is so bad it’s untrue, the storyline is bolloxed, I think I know what the director was trying to do, but it was just too blurry. It comes across looking more like a film studies college project

  • Anonymous 8th November 2010



This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.