Awful doesn't even cut it. This comes under the heading of WORST MOVIES EVER MADE. Stupid story, incredibly poor acting (but then how could they act with such a stupid script{}. UGH, UGH, UGH all the way. If you read the synopsis or story line, or even the review of the 'short story' they try to convince you it's about women and mental illness. Poppycock and balderdash. It's just another run of the mill, idiotic vampire movie. The only mental illness here was that of the the author who wrote the short story. I just had to watch the whole movie just to see how incredulously stupid it would turn out to be. BINGO !! First prize for INCREDULOUSLY STUPID. What a waste of time!

This film takes a remarkable risk for a movie these days by avoiding cgi and using an impressionist approach to lighting its Gothic story.The moody, enigmatic atmosphere of this film is very unconventional for an American movie and the action and gore horror crowd may have trouble appreciating it. The intense Gothic atmosphere from the lighting, camera shots, and general cinematography is not something I have seen often in American films. It has a lot more in common with European films. The films of Werner Herzog came to my mind. The film evoked memories of the emphasis on enigmatic and creepy mood in the movies Nosferatu and The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser. The pacing and buildup also reminded me of the classic David Bowie vampire tale The Hunger. The unresolved questions and the unsolved mysteries are also very European. The film remains mysterious to the end and the final scenes daze and confuse more than they solve. What is real? What is dream, hallucination, haunting? Who are Eckhart van Wakefield and Burn in Hell Man? The inclusion of symbolic elements like the arid desert that needs to be crossed to get from the house to the outside world contributes to this also. I found the cinematography to be simply beautiful. I loved the shots with darkened characters silhouetted by the light shining through windows. The extensive use natural lighting combined with filters reminded me of the films of David Hamilton. The scene with the main character Dr. John Weiland going through the house with the candelabra as the only light is excellent and spooky. The play of the three main actresses is bang on: Juliet Landau, whom I saw in Ed Wood, Dale Dickey, whom I remember from True Blood, Veronica Cartright, whom I've seen in a lot of movies and in the TV show Daniel Boone in the early seventies when I was a kid! In fact, Dale Dickey is positively eerie at times! Aric Cushing has a very challenging role to deal with. A professional doctor and father who lost what is most precious to him in horrifying circumstances and has withdrawn into a sullen mood, deeply challenged to cope with what is happening around him and remain in control of himself. Not an easy thing to pull off. To his credit, he carries it off very well. Even though he has a small role, it was also fun to see Michael Moriarty at play in this film. The period reconstitution is convincing: costumes, make up, decors and scenery. Very good job for such a low budget. It also helps that the site and house they chose to film the movie is magnificent. The only minor issue I had with the film was with the music and the sound mixing. Don't get me wrong, the music is very good and contributes greatly to the mood of the movie. The problem was with the intensity of the crescendos which was distracting at times, the music feeling occasionally too loud with respect to the mood set by the visuals, or the crescendo seeming unnecessarily dramatic. The scene where Dale Dickey is wiping dust from a shelf and shakes the rag is the one that stuck most to my mind. I think the music being more subdued would have worked better. The voice mixing seemed a little off also in some of the talking head scenes where it gave a TV teleplay feel. But this is minor stuff. Highly recommended to those who like films that are all about atmosphere and mood.

First off I want to say (although one of the above reviewers mentioned it), it is blatantly obvious that this movie is inspired by the short story, not an adaptation of the short story. This has been done with countless films and pieces of literature. It is a very common thing to draw inspiration from either real life events and people or renowned fictional characters and retell their stories. The first clue is that the mother's name is Charlotte - coincidentally the same name of the famous author! And if you aren't certain at that point, later, in bed, Charlotte says she wrote a story called "The Yellow Wallpaper." One has to pick up on these little "hints" (aka blunt statements). Sometimes you gotta dig a little deeper, ya know?The film makes reference to the attitude that female education is of no use and this is a very important part of the film because the short story was a very important piece of feminist literature. When Gilman wrote the story there were many of her peers that questioned her sanity. Gilman herself suffered from severe postpartum psychosis. People questioned her sanity because her fictional character in The Yellow Wallpaper experienced psychosis and they wondered if Gilman was mentally sound. This film is supposed to be inspired by both the life of the author and the important piece of literature with its own twist. The death of Charlotte's child in the film, rather than the true to life psychosis experienced by both the author and her fictional woman while their babies survived, is merely a symbol for the separation of a mother from her child and the mental anguish she experiences. And that is only the beginning. Different taste is one thing but sometimes I wish some people would put more thought into the deeper meaning of things before they cast something aside.Although I would have liked a bit more clarity towards the end, the movie is so psychologically intriguing, the acting is excellent, the emotional display so genuine, and the use of color is exquisite. I love the way it was shot. There is something scary even in that aspect of the film! The sound effects and music are wonderful. I was terrified! I watched it alone in the middle of the night. I had to stop it twice and smoke a cigarette because I was so tense! It is so refreshingly different than the plethora of so-called horror films and psychological thrillers that rely upon gore or other elements that must top the previous films of its genre rather than setting it apart. This is truly a psychological thriller because the viewer is expected to - gasp - use their own mind to imagine, for example, what the hell is under that blanker towards the end ((shudder)) or what is in the dark (the scene where John went from room to room with that candelabra was too scary!), or what on earth is in that hole under the house! John simply reaching into that hole that I could barely make out was enough to make me scared! The director doesn't say, "I have no respect for my audience's ability to figure anything out or to use their own imagination since it has been all but destroyed by the over- stimulation of the senses of modern technology so I will show them everything and tell them everything and let them know when they should be scared or shocked." Bah. If you still have am mind that can stimulate ITSELF, see this film.

A real movie that has been developed for real entertainment, devoid of the fake images that Hollywood now depends upon instead of good acting, and creative scripts. Good performances by actors, seems to be a rarity in my eyes. This movie is fantastic, with actors actually and professionally performing their skilled trade that seems to be vanishing in big Hollywood Productions and replaced by loud music and fake imagery. Oh that Hollywood, they need to come back to earth! Extremely entertaining, beautifully and skillfully shot, scary and intriguing, an artful adaptation of the original short story, this movie seems to have it all. I am privileged to have seen this unique film and meet its creators.