Gothic (1986) - Horror

Hohum Score

91

Hohummer

The Shelleys visit Lord Byron and compete to write a horror story.

IMDB: 5.7
Director: Ken Russell
Stars: Gabriel Byrne, Julian Sands
Length: 87 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 11 out of 67 found boring (16.41%)

One-line Reviews (41)

Visually stunning hypnotic nightmare.

Director Ken Russell's Films are Nothing if Not Hallucinatory Hubris, Visually Stunning Excesses of Something Out of a Nightmare or Drug Induced.

As a whole Gothic is bizarre, weird & just totally out there unfortunately it's also pointless, boring, crap, rubbish, meaningless, empty, unsatisfying & what really kills it is that it provides zero entertainment value, yes it really is that bad.

What we see is at the same time boring, shocking, and irrelevant.

It's all quite fun and enjoyable.

Non of the actors seemed to have studied their characters and completely over acted making the film unwatchable at times, also the actors where obviously to old (Mary Shelley was meant to be 17 at this time!

She's complimented well by Byrne, who takes the role of Byron entirely seriously, even when spouting some incredibly pretentious dialog and attempting to seduce every character in the film.

In many respects, the film is incoherent, and will be difficult to follow if you do not pay attention.

I found the film to be rather intriguing, and it did have some decent effects, though it does get quite bizarre at times.

The film pretty much left me bored for the first hour and when I wasn't bored I was trying to backtrack to try and make sense of what was going on.

The story line that supposedly showed the characters drug induced debauched lives was over the top and boring in its bad representation.

Looking at through the eyes of "it's just Hollywood cinema" it's an entertaining horror film.

Julian Sands, though again playing the tedious blubber baby also delivers a superb performance as the naive and idiotic Shelley.

Gabriel Byrne is wonderful here, he is creepy as always, intense, and very likable!.

The nightmare –and hallucination sequences are far too messy; not petrifying or disturbing, just very confusing.

Despite it's uninspiring title, Ken Russell's "Gothic" is actually an intriguing, and uniquely inspiring piece of cinema.

Visually it is stunning and the soundtrack by Thomas Dolby is one of my favourites.

There are a few dull stretches in the middle too, and the ending feels forced and structurally at odds with the rest of the film.

The imagery is stunning, and fits into the film very well.

But once one does get it, it is far more intriguing than "Frankenstein" in my opinion.

With that said, this movie is a pretty confusing mess from start to finish and I'm still not quite sure what it was trying to do.

Recommended to fans of romanticism and to non-fans who understand what is currently considered socially esoteric behavior, but both of you be warned, this movie is empty.

Well, this semi-entertaining horror flick tells an interesting story about the night that Mary Shelley came up with one of the most popular monsters of all time.

Julian sands gives a fantastic performance, here he is also intense, and watching his mind go crazy was a treat!

I was very upset overall with this film definitely a 1/10 for this pretentious and awful unwatchable spectacle!

Even more intriguing than the story of Frankenstein itself.

Ken Russell has always been intriguing as a director and if you are looking for something off the beaten track - this road is spotless and free of conventional transportation.

The lives of these people come out of boredom.

**SPOILERS**Arriving at the Villa Deodati at Lake Geneva, Mary Shelley, (Natasha Richardson) seeks shelter from a storm while owner Lord Byron, (Gabriel Byrne) offers her the house until she is ready to leave.

The trademark Russell lunacy was there, but the script was disappointing, and the film comes off as choppy and inconsistent, too concerned with being poetic and artsy-fartsy to allow any viewer identification with the characters.

This feature is intense and not for everyone.

After an evening of excess imbibing laudanum and reading ghost stories to combat the boredom due to being kept inside by a lightning storm, all five denizens of this house of horrors (the Universal-esque title "House of Byron" would have been just as apt) must contend with nightmarish hallucinations and come face to face with their innermost terrors.

However, once the film gets going - and the wild images and hallucinations begin to accumulate - Russell's energetic style and talent for creating outré and unforgettable visual compositions and ideas really begins to take off; creating a film that is fascinating and open to deeper interpretations regarding the character of Mary Shelley and the unfortunate circumstances of her life that may have led to the creation of her classic and iconic horror story, Frankenstein.

Quite the contrary, "Gothic" is sadly disappointing and pretentious film.

This is quite underrated, and has been unfairly panned by a lot of people, it's always interesting, always fascinating , and it has a couple of really cool twists as well.

Evocative and nightmarish-like retelling of the creation of a literary classic .

Technically the film is alright, the location used was Gaddesdon Place in Hamel Hampstead in Hertfordshire which is in good old England & the house in the film just feels very empty & basic although it's obviously of the right period & looks the business.

What's even worse is how much this cancels out the film's good points, since they force so much of the god stuff out the window by being so dull and not all-that-impressive when these cancel the other parts out.

It's Fascinating, Fun, Horrifying, Disgusting, Decadent, and Delightful.

Yet, some parts of the film were just plain boring, and some of it didn't make too much sense, which was why I only gave Gothic six stars.

" It is utterly fascinating to wonder what went on during that summer.