I just finished watching two seasons of The Vicar of Dibley, and I thought I would see Roger Lloyd-Pack (Bartie Crouch in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) in something more serious.He is a country gentleman whose son (Leo Bill, Alice in Wonderland, Kinky Boots) is schizophrenic and whose wife (Kate Fahy) is dying. He has to leave home, so he hires a nurse (Sarah Ball) to watch both of them.The son locks out the nurse and cares for his mother. This proves to be extremely embarrassing to Mom. And, if two pills are prescribed, then taking a dozen or more will get you better quicker. Mom went from embarrassment to fear.The sinking into schizophrenia is disturbing and frenetic and may upset some viewers, but it is an emotion packed film that bears watching.

I think it would be fair to say The Living and the Dead had me held in some sort of blind terror for more often than not. The film is so outrageous in the places it goes and the manner in which it acts when it gets there, that it's impossible to merely put aside the watching experience having seen it. The film is a freak-show, yes, of characters; visual tricks and constructed scares, but a calculated and carefully constructed one: one that I think will tap into a nerve within, whether you're a veteran of many-a horror films or not. The film is something like a little under an hour and half long, but when it had ended, felt as if it had clocked in at something like three hours; such is the grip of terror and unease I was in. Like a hypnosis session in which you're out for the count for all of about thirty minutes, but the deep-rooted places you may have been to during that time unearthing such discomfort and a sense of feeling, that the whole process feels like half a day's gone by.The film's premise sees it set up a perilous exchange between a middle aged mother and her twenty-something son in a large, pre-modern and isolated house in the country. She's physically unwell, suffering from some sort of extreme form of M.E. whilst he's a scatty, eccentric schizophrenic whose mannerism; movements and vocal tone is wildly inconsistent and unnerving. The mother is Nancy (Fahy), the son is James (Bill) and the family name is Brocklebank; something that I think instills a certain amount of pride into the household as father and husband of the piece Donald (Lloyd-Pack) seems to furiously defend them and their right to house there by way of a number of conversations over the phone with someone. It's this someone Donald must leave the property to venture out and see, and it's from here that most of the trouble unfolds.The film's tone is unbearably downbeat, beginning in the present tense with a greyed out Donald covered in injuries as he observes an ambulance advance down his property's long, lonely driveway towards him. His face is glum, rueful and regretful and a perfect teeing up for the events the film covers in instilling a sense that something's up: he's thinking that leaving that final time was a big mistake. In flashing back to better times, certainly the best times either of these characters find themselves in throughout the film, it's revealed Donald cared for both his wife and son accordingly; with the early exchanges coming across as calm and methodical in their feeling and construction what with static camera work and long takes. This is in stark contrast to when James takes over as the self proclaimed "man of the house", a title actor Leo Bill does well in his character's mixture of pleading and exclaiming, in what is a desperate attempt to try and prove to his parents that he's able to take on responsibility. The danger signs in this lie within the fact his strict medication diet of various pills and vaccine shots sit uneasily with the fact he's commanded by his father to hide from visitors and avoid the newspaper, instilling a certain child-like sensibility to him and acting as triggers to stoke a fire of warning.Leo Bill plays James as a sort of pastiche of Rik Mayall's character from popular 1990's British TV show 'Bottom', only rendered schizophrenic and far more mentally ill. Early on, I wondered if the man had an agenda; whether or not he was at all homicidal and indeed hated his mother which added to an intense element of unease. As the film switches perspectives in carer, a gradual shift in emphasis onto James becomes apparent in the conventions writer/director Simon Rumley applies. In switching from a mainly static camera complete with long takes which took prior precedence, Rumley then throws sped-up footage; bizarre angles; editing as well as distorted sound effects which amalgamate to form odd music into the mix, getting across a sense of chaos and somebody seriously ill-suited for the task. Rumley's tactics of applying a disorientating and off the wall aesthetic to most of the scenes James' acts as carer beautifully but disturbingly conflicts in a highly effective manner with this large, decrepit, centuries old manor house with which you do not associate the given conventions.There are killings in the film; somebody gets knifed and there's a fair degree of blood running on a premise that sees it bed down in one place as terror and uncanniness plays out, but don't let that lead you to think this is a Halloween sequel or some similarly underwhelming slasher film. One sequence which goes a long way in highlighting this odd combination of techniques and conventions to actually form something half-decent occurs nearer the end when, isolated and on their own, a young female supporting character creeps through the dark passages and corridors of the home unaware of what lurks around them but knowledgeable that there's a male lead, somewhere, who could very well react negatively if he sees or finds her. The whole thing is constructed like an age-old sequence in a slasher-sub genre flick, but the film sets a bar far higher. Roger Lloyd-Pack does a superb job, banishing any lingering memory you might have of him in a prior comedic role as we observe his envisaging of what might very well have gone on during his absence. Rumley's film is not all about shocks and scares; a sequence later on in which many family members have gathered in the house's main area is shot from high on up in the rafters, the camera just too embarrassed or ashamed to go to ground level and capture these people's expressions and reactions. I found The Living and the Dead to be a smart and affecting film.

I'm just going to get this out of the way before I trash: I liked The Living and the Dead for what it was. A simple, psychological horror/drama that was brilliant and did exactly what it set out to do. So why the low score? Because as brilliant and disturbing as it was, there was nothing really special about it. It was short film turned into a full-length movie. It fit more into the "that's cute" category than the "I got my entire money's worth here" category. That was the major problem I had with it: it wasn't anything that deserved a full-length movie, necessarily. If the runtime and price were both cut in half, this would have gotten a much higher score for me.I guess I'll just start out with saying that this was one of the few movies I've ever seen that genuinely disturbed me. There was little to no blood, but the subject matter gripped me emotionally and hit home and it disturbed me. Will it disturb everyone? No. Will it disturb most? Maybe, but I doubt it. It's an acquired taste. The movie banks on you being emotionally affected, and if you're not, there really is no point in watching it because you'll be bored out of your mind. The Living and the Dead is relative in every aspect of the word, and I can't give it a definitive "this sucks" or "this was good" because it varies person to person. That isn't true about most movies, unlike what people want to believe, but that does apply here. It's your call.As for the aspects of the film that aren't relative: The acting is pretty good. The story isn't entirely original, but it isn't typical either. The camera-work is well-done for the kind of movie it is. The pacing gets a little bloated, but nowhere near as bad as it could have been. Everything was well-done in the technical stance. The story was borderline brilliant, though I can see why people would disagree.Overall, if you're looking for a psychological movie that will disturb you, this is worth a shot. I haven't seen a truly disturbing movie in years, but this was almost a little too much for me to handle. Almost. But that was based on my emotional engagement, and that is relative. Just watch it and make up your own opinion.2/10

I first heard about this film by reading a very brief description in a magazine about new DVD releases.The cover art was captivating and dark.At first I thought it was a ghost story or some other type of horror movie before I realized it was a psychological drama. I especially liked Leo Bells acting playing a very mentally challenged young man.He moves in a unique way because of the characters mental state. The super fast motion of the son off his medication gave me an adrenalin rush.It was effective but hard on the eyes.It was a nice contrast to all the other characters in their normal state moving slowly through life.It seemed very isolated and lonely in that big mansion and I could see why the father needed a break from it all and left.Also convincing was Kate Fahy playing the disabled mother.The movie had it's share of confusing moments. Just when you think it's over it starts over and you are not sure if what happened actually did or if it was a dream or delusion.One minute the wife is confined to a bed and the next she is playing caregiver to James.And at times it's hard to tell whether it's James who is ill or his father Donald as it flashes between 2 different reality's.Or it is years later and an aging Donald is remembering his past.I will have to watch it again to try and figure it out better.