Nothing like going into something blind and having it blow your socks off. This is some emotionally brutal stuff, the last film to kick me in guts like this was Session 9 (which this shares some DNA with, along with The Babadook, The Shining and, peculiarly, Withnail & I). Leo Bill's performance seemed a little too mannered at first, but I bought into it after a little while, from there on in it felt devastatingly authentic. Bleak as it undoubtedly is, director Simon Rumley balances tragedy and comedy so perfectly that it often blurs the line between the two, had he not nailed that balancing act so completely, I might not have got through the brisk 79 minute running time without wanting to go outside and lay down in the road. Really, really excellent stuff, going to have to give Rumley's follow up Red, White and Blue a look now.

I blind bought this mistakenly thinking it was some kind of zombie flick (put the words 'living' and 'dead' in a film's title and I automatically think of zombies), but I couldn't have been more wrong. The Living and the Dead actually deals with the all-too-real horrors of schizophrenia, and the terrible impact that such a condition can have on a family.Roger Lloyd-Pack plays Lord Donald Brocklebank (not 'bottlebank', as I first thought), financially challenged owner of a run-down stately home, father of grown-up schizophrenic son James (Leo Bill), and husband to critically ill, bed-ridden Nancy (Kate Fahy). When Donald leaves the family home for a few days to sort out finances, James—keen to show his father how capable he can be—takes it upon himself to look after his mother, barricading the house against her nurse.Of course, James proves to be a far from ideal carer, unable to adequately look after himself, let alone his mother; as time goes on, his schizophrenia goes from bad to worse, exacerbated by a careless approach to self-medication. Slowly, he becomes a danger to both himself and his mother.Although The Living and the Dead is far from what one would traditionally term as 'horror', trust me when I say that what writer/director Simon Rumley depicts in this film is terrifying. Watching a person gradually descend into a personal hell and turn against his mother is harrowing enough, but there is also the suffering endured by Nancy due to her own illness: in one memorably nasty moment, the poor woman suffers the humiliation of soiling her bed, being carried to the bathroom covered in her own crap, and stripped naked by her son. Another very unsettling scene shows James injecting himself with anti-psychotic drugs, jamming the needles into his arm, leaving them jutting from his skin, and then having a turn and knocking them sideways. Yowch!In a bold move by Rumley, the story then enters territory that REALLY messes with the mind: the visuals become totally chaotic and it becomes unclear as to what is reality and what is delusion. It also emerges that the story is being told using the 'unreliable narrator' style, coming from several viewpoints and casting doubt on the accuracy of all we have seen. This 'alternate perception' technique, which implies that Donald may be the one who is mentally ill, not his son, might lead to lots of confusion and uncertainty, but since we're dealing with the subject of schizophrenia, it seems an apt treatment.So... to summarise: no ambling undead, but plenty of ambiguity; no gut munching, but a visceral experience nonetheless; and no bullets to the brain, but enough emotionally distressing and downbeat content to scramble the viewer's mind for a while.7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for IMDb.

I shouldn't even get this piece of waste of time one star. I'm sitting here considering this one of the worst movies i have ever seen - and i've seen some crap in my time.The sorry piece of movie will of course give us all some bad taste in our mouth when they make awkward and embarrassing scenes like seeing a retarded son trying to help his mother when she is seriously ill and crying, scenes where the retard tries to force his mother to eat pills because "the more you take, the better you will get". But that doesn't make the movie better, touching, scary or anything else than a bad taste in my mouth and wanting to seeing this sorry movie. So lets just say that the one star i'm giving is for making me feel bad.The effects are really annoying - fast forward style effects, annoying sound. Mental-patient seeing visions effect look like a joke with a painted guy with something weird on top of his head - i guess he is supposed to look dead (and even with this they fail miserably) and he has got something that looks like a new years party decoration on top his head.Even the ever so faulty and stupid story of the family with a sick son and mother has so many annoying mistakes and just poor judgments in it that i hate this movie. I would never recommend this movie to anyone, not even my worst enemy or as looser-practical-joke recommendation to my best friends... DO NOT WASTE YOUR LIFE ON THIS!

Joe Hitchcock, that is. One reviewer said Rumley is no Werner Herzog or David Lynch. Hell, he's not even Werner Klemperer or Richard Lynch.In all fairness to "The Living and the Dead," the actors do a fine job in portraying their parts. However, the film suffers from numerous plot holes because it feels like Rumley has absolutely no knowledge of caring for a terminally ill or disabled person. If someone needs a wheelchair to get around or assistance to go to the toilet, you don't put the toilet chair or the wheelchair far from the person that needs them. And what in the hell was the telephone doing on the first floor? In "Sorry, Wrong Number," Barbara Stanwyck had the phone next to her bed, and that was during Hollywood's Golden Age. Had I been in Donald's shoes, I would have made sure the house was more accessible, made it so that there was a phone near my wife's bed and didn't leave for London until Nurse Mary was in the house. However, that's just me.Another problem with this film is that various camera tricks and scenes lead the viewer to think that there will be a twist ending. However, the only thing we are given is seemingly endless and irritating scenes of James running through the house at speeds similar to John Wesley Shipp in "The Flash" television series. At least there was a reason for Shipp running fast. There's no reason for James doing this. Perhaps Simon Rumley confused artistic with annoying and redundant."The Living and the Dead" tries to pass itself off as a film like "Memento" or "The Usual Suspects," but it comes off as something that disappoints the viewer in the end.