By Keri O’Shea
There have been a few cryptozoological horrors in recent years – that is, horror movies about mythologised species, part-legend and part hazy reports from often unreliable sources. The Sasquatch, the Mothman, even the Chupacabra…and, in new British movie Lord of Tears, we have an interesting mash-up of creature legend and pagan ritual, a film choc-ful of more ideas than it can ever truly accommodate, but worthy of credit for trying very earnestly to establish a new horror mythos in a world of lazy handycam rehashes and fan-baiting remakes.
After the death of his estranged mother, teacher James Findlay (Euan Douglas) is declared executor of her will and inherits the family estate, of which part is to be found in Baldurrock, in remotest Scotland. However, in a letter left to him, his mother advises him never to go to Baldurrock; it was the source, she said, if some great mental trauma in his early years, and the reason that she thought it better that he be brought up elsewhere. Well, this is the movies, and no one ever follows that sort of sane advice, do they? Not that he even needs to go to Scotland in order for his tenuous peace to be shattered at all, though; as soon as he’s reminded that anything ever happened to him, James begins to experience nightmares, and in particular, he dreams of a strange, owl-headed figure which scares him as much as an adult as it – apparently – ever did when he was a child. James feels that he needs closure on all of this, and so he travels to the family home in order to investigate further. There, with the help of an American woman living in the area, begins the unravelling of a mystery.
First things first; in writing for this site I encounter a lot of screeners in an average year, and it’s becoming increasing rare – as sites grow many and funds grow low – to receive anything beyond your basic blank disc in a plastic sleeve, let alone a boxed disc (and more and more, you’ll get a download code instead of a disc at all) so it was a pleasant surprise to get a very stylishly packaged DVD here; rather than a DVD-sized box, what we have is a CD-style fold out with a booklet, and the evident intention in mind that the monster of Lord of Tears ain’t out of stories yet. In fact, in its ambition the film crams in a massive amount which, in an ideal world perhaps, would have been spread out over more than one movie.
This is a film which wants to do something different, and it’s unusual for an early feature (director Lawrie Brewster’s second) to really go for it in this respect. It has classic horror at heart, name-checking the likes of The Innocents and – perhaps expectedly – The Wicker Man, but it also wants to achieve something of its own. All of this is to be admired, and certainly goes a long way with this reviewer. However, for me, this is a film which is at its best when it’s low key. Throughout the film, and from the first scenes, Lord of Tears utilises lots of flashy, cut-away scenes, adding surreal notes to the mix which detract from, rather than add to the horror on offer. It also uses masses of incidental music which felt very high in the mix and rather overpowering, especially compared to the audio in the film. A more softly-softly approach would have helped to create the atmosphere which, let’s face it, with locations as good as the ones used here, may well have sprung up organically. On those occasions where the film allows us to barely-glimpse something, the sort of motif used so well by a film like The Innocents, it works best.
Now, I’ve mentioned that the film doffs its cap to a lot of classic horror, and in one respect it does what a lot of British movies have felt they must do down through the years; namely, casting an American in a lead role. Evie Turner (Lexy Hulme) fulfils a dual purpose as a love interest and as a character involved in the film’s twist, but I have to say – with respect – that I didn’t feel she worked well here, and that some of her scenes – again, with respect – should have hit the cutting-room floor. To Euan Douglas’ quiet, even nervous performance she seems incredibly overblown and unbelievable, but then, when directed to participate in a ‘sexy’ scene which seems to consist of slow-mo modern dance which demands a lampshade as a ‘sexy’ prop, then what’s a girl to do? Perhaps this was intended as light relief or even seriously as titillation, but I couldn’t quite believe my eyes.
Still, dance-off notwithstanding, and although the film needed to itself thinly in order to get to its explication, I liked that it at least wanted to up the ante. Pulling in elements of lots of disparate mythologies, adding a little extra and then coming up with an original yarn isn’t the easy option these days. Yes, Lord of Tears is outlandish and yes, there are some issues with it, but it gets credit for its ambition. Last but not least, it’s nice to hear David Schofield’s dulcet tones in his guest role here, and who knows? Perhaps that strange owl-headed figure will be back yet…
Lord of Tears receives its première at the Bram Stoker International Film Festival on 25th October 2013.