The editing in this movie was terrible-flashing from one face to the other than cutting the ending to pieces. What happened? Did the son save the father and they gave their revenge? I have no idea, it made no sense.
Very boring also and sooooooooo slow I almost did not get through it.
Pass at all costs.
2 out of 10.
I thought the beginning was too slow paced, up to when the father was "killed". After that it was a bit faster but nowhere near the pace we see in more recent films.
This is the kind of pacing you get in a lot of British films from this era. I'm not knocking it as I am a Brit myself, it's just not to everyone's taste.
http://centuryofobscurity.blogspot.com/
Reviewing films 100 words at a time.
Ordinarily, I think it's tacky to cut and paste your opinion all over the same forum, but since this thread is specifically about editing, pardon my bad form:
"At least one apparent plot device went unused. The early scene (a still of which appears on the poster for the movie) that showed the daughter filling an atomizer with some smoking liquid went nowhere; she just put it in a drawer and I never saw it again. Perhaps I missed it. But it seems to be either bad editing, or a pretty lame 'red herring'. "
I've since watched it again and tried to pay closer attention regarding the smoking atomizer but still never noticed it again.
I really WANT to like this movie, but it appears to be sort of a slap-dash nepotism project for Michael Gough and his son and daughter-in-law (or was it future daughter-in-law? I forget.)
"At least one apparent plot device went unused. The early scene (a still of which appears on the poster for the movie) that showed the daughter filling an atomizer with some smoking liquid went nowhere; she just put it in a drawer and I never saw it again. Perhaps I missed it. But it seems to be either bad editing, or a pretty lame 'red herring'. "
Surely that's what the mother and daughter pour into the father after they've shot him?