Reg Traviss directs this 2010 suspense/thriller film which features Charisma (the brunette from 'Buffy' the TV series) Carpenter, Paul Sculfor and even features a turn by Justin Hawkins from the band 'The Darkness'. In 1992 some anarchist environmentalist protesters are butchered in the middle of the English countryside while trying to prevent the construction of a motorway. Flash forward 15 years into the future and Susan Golden (Carpenter) is a top selling novelist, she moves into the country estate with her husband where the butchering previously occurred. After some time she starts seeing things and is slowly driven mad. A massive plot twist at the end shows how and why the madness occurred but don't worry, it made for another best selling novel that her husband could sell for his own gains. The acting is wooden and unconvincing, at no point did I feel that Carpenter and Sculfor were close let alone married. The plot was predictable, after about 15 minutes of the visions I'd worked out what would occur at the end. This felt more like a low budget Hammer House film which is an insult to Hammer more than this film. There was occasional nudity and gore but not enough to write home about. I've read some of the reviews on here which suggest the twists and turns are deeper than they appear on the surface and therefore are brilliant but I strongly disagree, I found this film duller than dishwater and won't be in a rush to watch it again or recommend it. I'm awarding this 3 out of 10 and even that I feel is a big more generous that it deserves. More drama than horror, more yawn than thrills. Happiest when the credits rolled.

Charisma Carpenter does a reasonable job here as Susan Golden, an American crime writer who relocates to England (Somerset?) with her English husband, David, played by Paul Sculfor. He's not so convincing though and, if this film were to work, he would have needed to be. However, the script writers have a lot to answer for in giving him such rubbish dialogue.Glossing over the first five minutes which features a bunch of eco-warriors getting slaughtered (and that's not a reference to the Special Brew they drink), the pace here is just too slow. The wooden acting, predictable plot through the middle of the film and unsparkling dialogue all conspire to make this hard work to get into.Ricci Harnett, as Peck the cock-flasher, has been in some better things than this. He just needs a bigger part (ahem!…).I was interested to watch Justin Hawkins in a straight part, as I only know him as a rock star. Guess what he appears as here? Yep. And is he any good in that part? What do you think?This could be edited into a half-decent 30 minutes, maybe 45. The last few minutes, tying everything together, were well done, which gets the film a second star. But as it stands, it's really not very good.

Huge Buffy/Angel fan and watched this on the Horror Channel (wow, actual horror on the Horror Channel, rare these days) largely because Charisma Carpenter is in it (just as I only watch Gossip Girl when Michelle Tractenberg is on as Georgina). Not the best film in the world but glad I watched it. I actually met Charisma at a convention a few years back (just as beautiful and charming in real life) and seeing her hairstyle in this I realise now she was in the UK filming this at the time and had just taken the weekend off to earn herself an easy $20,000 signing 2000 autographs (including my copy of Playboy with her posing nude).The Good; really did remind me of Hammer House of Horror and a lot of the old horror anthologies you used to get. I later learned that I was spot on, this is a remake of a segment of the 1983 horror anthology 'Screamtime'. It's shocks are very good, the violence suitably nasty and a good performance from Charisma, similar to her scenes in the Angel ep 'To Shanshu in LA' where she's losing her mind. They throw a lot of sex into the mix too, not only with the cheating husband and his scantily clad bimbos but the scene where Charisma gets drug raped by his henchman (or does she? The way she grabs his hand during their sex makes you wonder if she's actually surrendered to her dark desires and become a willing participant in her own ravishment?). The twist in the tail is a kicker, very clever and probably what attracted everyone to a remake in the first place. I had to rewatch it a couple of times before I realised that she's being tortured not by visions of what HAS taken place as everyone thought but by premonitions of what's GOING to take place. Good news for her as it means she'll no longer be driven crazy by it once it's happened and can get out of the asylum to enjoy spending her royalties, bad news for her cheating rat husband and the poor folks who moved into their house. The Bad; The cheapness of the production shows through in many scenes. Will we ever have an American film set in the UK where they don't drive past famous landmarks such as the Houses of Parliament? (Interesting in 'Screamtime' the sub-stories were all set in Britain but framed by a overall story set in New York to give it transatlantic appeal). Some of the acting by the supporting cast is pretty rubbish, I'm not sure what Justin Hawkins of the band The Darkness was doing in this, he's not David Bowie. It's pretty obvious from the start that the husband is trying to 'Gaslight' Charisma, he may as well have 'villain' stamped on his forehead. So all told, enjoyable film and I'm glad I watched it. 7/10

EDIT- At the time I was writing I was not aware that it was in fact a "Remake" of the second story in the 1983 film "Screamtime". Therefore you can understand why I thought that it was a direct rip off of this particular movie. Being very fond of that particular short, I was a bit upset because I thought someone was ripping it off! Amusing in hindsight I suppose. For your enjoyment here is my original review and feelings written before knowing it was a 'remake':: I will keep this review short but I'm still in shock after seeing this movie. Not because it was scary, not because it shocked me, not because I was bowled over by its brilliance. No, simply because I've never shook my head in disbelief at such outright plagiarism in a movie.Clearly the Director was really really hoping that no one had ever seen the fantastic little anthology horror film "Scream time" from 1983, more specifically, the second story in this film "Dream house". Now the stories in "Scream time" are relatively short since it's an anthology movie so in order to pad out "Psychosis", the director had at least to attempt to introduce some other little elements to attempt to keep things interesting before the scene for scene stealing begins. Unfortunately these elements are dull, lots of sex which is not thrilling in the least and flat acting. The movie falls flat very quickly overall to be honest and towards the end and dotted throughout, the 'hallucinations' of Charisma Carpenter are about the most interesting thing happening. Her name is the most charismatic thing about the movie, it's never scary due to some dull direction, predictable soundtrack and characters that are never in the least bit likable at any point. It starts off initially with a "slasher film" type prologue which really does nothing for the rest of the film, only serving to confuse and then we watch as Carpenter slowly descends into the "Psychosis" of the title. On my first viewing I already picked up on how much it was stealing from the "Dream house" episode of "Scream time" to the point where I was pointing out things before they even happened. I could not believe it. The director should be rightly ridiculed for such stealing and I'm sure more and more people will pick up on this as they see it. It's a shame because movies like this will get lots of exposure and acclaim from people none the wiser where as "Scream time" remains unreleased on DVD anywhere in the world and is a far more scary and interesting little 80's film. Spoilers------ Charisma's Hallucinations are wholesale lifted from "Dream house". This will make sense if you've seen it. She constantly see's someone in black playing with a football outside in her garden but when she goes out to tell him off she's gone. 'Dream house' -The main actress constantly see's a little boy riding on a bike outside in her garden but when she goes out to tell him off he's gone. In "Psychosis" the husband calls a Psychic to the house to investigate after Charisma has complained about all the visions she's been seeing and the psychic tells Charisma that there is nothing there at all. Almost exactly the same scene happens in 'Dream house' and the Psychic tells the husband she is possibly mad. Towards the end, when the murders start to play out more extended, the madman stabs the victims repeatedly and at one point, charisma grabs a telephone and throws it at the vision, (the madman is strangling the victim using the telephone) which promptly vanishes. In "Dream house", the murders are playing out and the actress grabs a telephone and throws it at the vision of the man stabbing and strangling the victim with the telephone wire which promptly vanishes. At the end, Charisma's husband (Charisma is in a mental hospital after all this) greets the "new owner" and we are introduced to the new people moving in, all of whom we've seen previously in the visions like the kid playing with the football etc. In "Dream House", exactly the same thing happens. The husband welcomes the new owners, says they hope they will be happy there and all around him, the people we have seen being murdered are working around him, like the decorator painting the window and the boy riding the bike. The husband gets into his car and is attacked from behind, has his throat slashed and goes into a fit, holding his foot down on the accelerator. The radio announces that a crazed murderer has escaped from a mental hospital and is on the loose. It's quite sad that it's so obvious really. Clearly this director though he would get away with it but I reckon it's going to come back on him at one point or another. Watch "Scream time" and the "dream house" episode if you can get a copy. It's infinitely better than this poor excuse for a copy of a movie.