User reviews

Even though his work was always wildly indulgent and overblown, I've enjoyed the unique excesses of Ken Russell's cinema, being fond of several films because they're good (if still excessive), flamboyantly bad, or some campy mix of both. He's always done best under pressure from a generous budget and strong studio or producer oversight.

Left to his own devices, and abandoned by the film industry, this farcical goof only tangentially related to Poe themes is silly, shrill, amateurish, sophomoric-ally sex-phobic, and aims to shock in a dated early 80s punk/New Wave cinema mode. Its wit is mostly a matter of horrible puns, community-theater "foreign" accents, and in-joke references. The performers ham in Russell's preferred over-the-top style, albeit without the skill of the professional actors he once used--none worse than Russell himself, who plays a mad doctor with a vaudeville Nazi accent and is not a pretty sight as his face has gone spotty-red and pustule- ridden.

That said, there are some funny touches--as in the "Premature Burial" upending, an early gag involving one of those singing/tail-waggling fishes on a trophy placard, or a late sequence exploiting a huge blowup children's slide--and even on zero budget Russell retains a knack for lending nearly every shot some sort of surreal flash. (Whether that means having an actor in a gorilla suit or utilizing a multicolored plastic Slinky.)

It gets better as it goes along, but there's still a feeling of glorified home-movie indulgence by an attention-hungry old man only further caricaturing his image as a filmmaker who never should have been taken seriously. That's unfortunate, because (skipping his TV work as a separate issue) from "Women in Love" through at least "Lair of the White Worm" he made strikingly distinct if always flawed contributions to the art form. (Russell will never get a Knighthood, unlike just about anyone else who's got a long high-profile career in British cinema, because he's just made too many movies HRH couldn't be associated with.)

It's funny how in art, you often see a cycle in which the Masters begin borrowing techniques from the very students they influenced, in turn creating whole new heights for the rest to aspire to. It could be argued that Ken Russell single-handedly pioneered the art of stylised psychosexual horror delirium and he's back to show that no one can do it better. It's a very modernised and flashy approach he uses here though, cribbed from his contemporaries and improved upon greatly. Shot on digital video and employing breakneck editing in the style of Greg Dark or Richard Kern, Russell's latest epic "The Fall of The Louse of Usher" is a whole new plateau of erotic mania for the others to aspire to. I'm not sure Edgar Allen Poe would be fully enjoying it, however...

Plotwise, it concerns Gothic rock star Roddy Usher (played by Gallon Drunk's James Johnson) who, upon being accused of murdering his wife, Sweet Annabelle Lee, is committed to an insane asylum. Under the care of the maniacal Dr Calahari (Russell himself, with a terrible fake German accent, chewing up the scenery admirably here) and the beautiful Nurse ABC Smith (Tulip Junkie), Roddy is plunged headlong into a roller-coaster ride of nightmare imagery and murder as the lines between reality and insanity blur into one great big psychedelic smudge. Somewhere at the heart of it all is a murder mystery (who killed Sweet Annabelle Lee?) and, amazingly, this is solved by the end. But the mystery itself is merely secondary to all the breathtakingly strange set pieces, bogglingly obscure Poe references and increasingly unpredictable twists in the tale.

Russell's eye for the bizarre and beautiful hasn't faded with age and, despite its low budget, "Louse" looks sumptuous and outlandisht. The costumes and production design are really quite remarkable, making best possible use out of the most peculiar props he could lay his hands on. Watch out for the tea cosy hat, the blow-up dinosaur dolls, the pharoah mask, the Playstation controller, the bouncy castle and, best of all, the talking 'Big Mouth Billy Bass' ornament (here playing the Egyptian God Osiris) if you don't believe me. On top of the visual weirdness, we're also treated to a series of catchy Gothic rock songs, courtesy of Johnson, that wind up as a cross between Sex Gang Children, Nick Cave and something you'd see at the end of a "Hale and Pace" episode. Astonishingly, this actually works!

All in all, "Louse" isn't for everybody and if you didn't like Russell before, you're unlikely to appreciate him any more after enduring 90 minutes of this feverish plunge into the depths of his twisted mind. However, if you've a taste for genuinely weird cinema or fancy a colourful, entertaining change of pace from the dreary toss that passes for alternative film-making these days, I'd highly recommend it. For my mileage, it's just another shining jewel in his crown that reaffirms Russell as being the greatest imagination working in cinema today. I only have two questions: When can I buy the soundtrack? And where is Ken Russell's knighthood already? 9 out of 10.

Ken Russell has made some excellent films over a long career. He has also made some bad ones, but we can forgive him for that. This 'film', however, is unwatchable. I am at a loss to explain the positive comments posted on this site.

Let's be clear about what we're dealing with. This film is shot on a hand-held camcorder. The 'actors' appear to be random friends of Mr Russell. The plot is non-existent. Everything about this film is horribly, horribly wrong, from Russell's own heart-breakingly awful acting to the shoddily arranged orgy of inflatable dolls and dinosaurs. Post-modern? Now come on, that's no excuse. Not for THIS. Ironic? Post-ironic perhaps...? let's hope so.

This is not the Ken Russell we know and love; not at all. If you are new to his films, do not start here--start anywhere but here. If you like his films, my advice would be to avoid this like the plague, since it may well spoil your appreciation of his classic works forever.

Claims that the film contains complex symbolism etc. etc. etc. are unfounded. The cultural references, which an intelligent man like Russell should be in complete command of, are lazy and childish. And even to a person such as myself, who adores 'The Devils' and all its spawn in the realms of cult trash film-making, 'The Fall of the Louse of Usher' seems in extremely poor taste throughout. It leaves an unpleasant taste, even were it not for the sad fact of its having been made by one of Britain's greatest directors of the 60s and 70s. And so i have called it unwatchable. I have lent it out twice, and twice i have heard the same---neither could sit through it. I'm sincerely unsure whether i ought to admire those reviewers who have had the patience to watch it through, more than once as it may be.

As i conclude, i am still unhappy. This is because words cannot describe how awful this film is. It is simply beyond my power to explain. If it has found a sympathetic audience amongst some (as it seems to have done), then i suppose i am glad. But Ken, what were you thinking? Obviously this film went straight to DVD and had no general release. If you really wish to see it, try to rent it; buying it at full price is a significant risk, as you may, like me, end up hiding it away in a cupboard so you don't have to see it on your shelf beside classics such as 'The Devils', 'Women in Love' and 'Gothic'.

This is nothing more than a cheap ass home movie done by a director who should have known better.Its not that there is anything wrong with this being made but the look and feel of it is that of a goof made among friends over a weekend for their own amusement. Regrettably someone though the rest of the world would find it equally enjoyable and released it on an unsuspecting world.

The plot has Roderick Usher ending up in a asylum for murder where goth and allegedly racy things are going on. There music and jokes and tasteless stuff. Mostly there is an undying urge to turn the DVD off and put on one of Ken Russell's other films...anyone of them.

I'm a Ken Russell fan. I've always liked that fact that no matter what he did there was always something interesting to look at or see somewhere in the movie. Here there is nothing. Its a complete waste of time.

Oh how one of the cinema's great directors has fallen....

This film is dreadful. Badly shot, badly acted, with stupid off-the-cuff dialogue... there are a couple of decent scenes which come close to disturbing, but for the most part this is just like a weird episode of Rainbow.

On the plus side, everyone seems to be having fun, especially the nurse. With a decent script and a competent director (Russell clearly was in it for the fun of it) it could have been an average film. Sadly, it is tamer than an episode of the X Files, features terrible special effects (even Albert F. Pyun would laugh at this!) and is just plain ugly to look at.

A dreadful film, badly directed. Don't spend more than a quid on it. I bought it for a fiver and I'm bloody annoyed!!

I haven't seen the film ‘Dogboys' - the last movie Ken Russell made for television - however as it has both a reasonably encouraging review and cast, I am astonished that only four years later the director of a number of classic movies could produce a ‘film' whose technical ineptitude is only superseded by the range of third rate pantomime performances by the cast and pocket money production values. Let me make this clear as quickly as possible; this isn't a bad movie that deserves to become a cult classic because of any amusing camp attributes, this a home movie shot by some friends over a weekend that shouldn't have been shown to the general public. Anyone who watches this film will have their memories of Russell's good films forever tarnished.

Watching the film at the first London Sci-fi film festival I got increasingly depressed as the film progressed. I would be lying if I said the film didn't have any redeeming qualities as the lead actor was relatively competent (although perhaps in a half decent film he wouldn't shine as brightly) and the music and songs were reasonably catchy. However a film is the sum of its parts and as every other aspect of this production is best described as scraping the floor below the bottom of the barrel it seems supercilious of me to compliment any of the elements that went into its creation. I imagine a great many people who own a camcorder make stupid films with zero production values designed solely to amuse their family and friends. I also imagine that if any of these films were shown theatrically everyone involved in their production would be incredibly embarrassed if not actually humiliated by having an aspect of their private lives shown to the general public. I respect the Ken Russell who made films between 1956 and 1998. Based on a viewing of this film a member of the audience would assume it was one of those home videos I previously mentioned. On learning that it was made by a director who was once lauded for his style and imagination, one could only imagine he was inebriated throughout the entire production process. I cannot stress how much a disservice the release of this film does to Mr. Russell himself. If this was made purely for the entertainment of his family and friends I can only assume that this cinematic presentation was due to the efforts of a circle of sycophantic hangers-on who are only interested in furthering their own careers or have a malevolent desire to cause the director harm. This is why I feel wary of even praising the lead actor because by staying with the production after having seen the first day's rushes he cannot have any respect for his director if he even had an inkling that the film would be shown to anyone outside Mr. Russell's circle of friends. On leaving the festival myself and a couple of friends were asked to comment on the film. After a long diatribe from each of us, my friend inadvertently called the event ‘a convention' and was dressed down by the woman interviewing us. Ironically a Science Fiction convention is the only venue this kind of lamentable self-indulgent zero-budget film making is shown. It is usually made by self confessed fans and amateurs who know it is only being made as a joke and will only be seen by like-minded individuals. At the risk of being repetitive: please don't take this review as any sort of criteria for seeing the film, doing so will only damage your memory of Ken Russell's career and will be a waste of your time. There is a great pantheon of trashy low budget film making which will entertain you and even a large selection of bad Edgar Allan Poe adaptations made in recent years. If you do have so much time on your hands that you can spend it watching irredeemably bad movies watch one of those instead.

This does not warrant discussion. If anyone else watches this film, I pity them the lost hour and a half of life. If your idea of entertainment if watching a home movie by a senile film maker whose ability was questionable at his best, then go ahead and watch it. It has no script, acting, plot, style, flow, action, technique, ingenuity, class, rawness and does not qualify as "so good it was bad," possibly so mediocre it was mediocre.

Not one of his yes friends. He has always expected me to be honest about whatever he has done. That even includes his choice in divorcing his muse Shirley Russell. He literally left her for women searching for something to make them famous for no talent of their own. There are things here that are quite clever due to a no budget production. Poe's castle is one much humor especially it's fall. However the female lead a Lisi Tribble/Russell, Kens last wife will go down as the woman that was Ken's fall to obscurity. She even convinced him to join the short lived Big Brother. She clearly did not have Ken's best interest here or anywhere, for that matter. She solely ruined his legacy.

In 1970 Ken Russell made "The Devils", and before now was regarded as his most notorious movie. Now it seems he wants to top all the shocks he's ever done in any movie, and he succeeds with this independent production. Instead of dealing with a meddling studio, he gave the establishment the finger and made this movie all himself. Louse of Usher is about a rock star convicted of murdering his wife, Annabelle Lee. Roddy Usher is sent to an insane asylum directed by Ken Russell who plays Dr. Calihari. While under the care of this crazy doctor, Usher is subjected to various unconventional methods of treatment. That's the plot. Now here's the catch: this film has no structure. It is filmed with sporadic music videos. There are phallic symbols and blow up doll orgies not to mention topless nuns. I haven't seen a frenetic Russell film like this since the classic "Crimes of Passion." I hope this DVD makes a ton, so the elder poetic artist can keep doing that wonderful shock stuff a little longer. Not for children or prudes.

I've just had the pleasure of seeing the premiere of this extraordinary movie in London - it's a trashy, hallucinatory riot that just proves what can be done with a shoestring budget and lots of enthusiasm.

It's rare to see any movie these days without having been exposed to a large amount of hype, reviews etc, before even entering the cinema. Here, I had no idea what to expect. In some ways it's a shame that this film is likely to receive the critical acclaim and cinema release it deserves: but this also helps to keep it a delicious underground secret. Search it out and enjoy.

The rarest thing of all is to see a cinematic genius and artistic visionary like Ken Russell take full command of a movie, shooting it at home on digital video without interference (or budget) from a studio.

There are several ways that people have attempted this in the past: we have Lars von Trier's Dogme manifesto that used video to create a documentary-style gritty realism. Then there was the Blair Witch, which was more an exercise in clever marketing than a real innovation: the video medium was used - as in von Trier's movies - to convince the audience of the reality of the situation. Alan Cumming and Jennifer Jason Leigh's recent 'Anniversary Party' was shot on DV but pretended to be celluloid, showing that a low-budget video could look like a much more expensive affair.

But with the Louse of Usher, Russell goes with the video grain, revelling in the cheap nasty look of DV, and creates a hallucinatory world from deliberately cheapo blow-up toys, joke-shop props and even bouncy castles. The ugly, contrasty look of DV enhances the crumbling white makeup and tombstone teeth of the characters. Far from the documentary-style realism of Dogme, Russell creates moments of decadent synthetic visual madness that fully suit the video medium.

It's hard to imagine that this project was initially intended to be a studio-funded, medium budget film: the whole concept is so suited to the bargain-basement production values. The deliberate use of cheap blow-up plastic toys reminds me of how John Carpenter used a beach-ball for the alien in 'Dark Star'... instead of trying for something a bit more realistic and expensive looking, both directors choose to use their low budget to humorous effect by exaggerating the cheapness of the props.

Then there's the plot... oh yes, the plot.. umm... poaching Poe's plots and themes and whipping them up alongside fetishy gore-trash and terrible double-entendre jokes hardly makes for coherency. Other wild Russell films have much in common with this movie in its crazed mess of a plot... but that's not what we're here for. In fact, the disorientation is deliberate - we're being shown the muddled state of a crazed musician's mind, in great style and humour.

The cast (an a-z of 'underground') and all who took part were contributing their free time at weekends, and clearly having a huge laugh in the process. Tulip Junkie as Nurse ABC Smith stood out especially- a gorgeous, kinky, trashy presence. Russell's own performance as the deranged Dr. Caligari is, of course, hilarious - and central to the manic feel of the film.

Essentially an art movie put together with all the enthusiasm and messy imagination of a home movie, the fusion creates something entirely new, totally tripped-out and hopefully a great inspiration to any film-makers who worry that DV can't be used artistically, stylishly. Bravo Ken.

I'm not sure if it was because it was a slow Sunday afternoon or the fact that I'm having a thing for blokes with bad teeth (is that redundant?) but I didn't dislike this movie as much as I probably should have. I love Ken Russell...everything I have seen of his from The Boyfriend to The Devils.(We share birthdays!)I think that if a director is one of those filmmaker's who has a strong flavor, a distinct original style that one enjoys, it is hard to deny even his lesser moments. This movie is probably only for die hard Ken Russell fans like myself. I don't know anyone I would recommend this film to...but that is more of an insult to those I know than the movie itself.

I have loved Russell's films for years, but this one tops it all. It is inventive and stunning beyond belief. Made on a shoestring budget, but with the flair of a Hollywood blockbuster, it has humor, irony, great self-conscious acting and the biggest arsenal of consumerist gadgets since, well, Russell's own masterpiece The Lair of the White Worm. Stunning set-pieces, great visuals and a surprise-a-minute. Russell has turned to underground film-making once again (that's how he got started in the late fifties). The financial restrictions have forced him to be truly creative again. The result is this film, made on digital video. If ever a film was rightfully called mind-blowing, it's this one. There's nothing quite like it, nor is it likely there ever will be. One of the most extraordinary films you are likely to see. Ever. SEE/RENT/BUY IT NOW!

this movie is brilliant. ken russell does things with a video camera and very, very little money that put to shame darn near every big director working today. this movie is in the same vein as russell's 'lisztomania'. high camp, played well, with astounding art direction. the campy, over the top acting, is very well done. i was surprised by the skill of these mostly inexperienced actors. it's not easy to play a campy role well. this will be a movie for repeated viewing.

i noticed several 1 or 2 star scores for this movie. that's to be expected with this style of movie. it's not for most people. many people get lost and annoyed, if the narrative is not straight, and it's very campy. i see, in this movie, another artful movie by one the best filmmakers.

Thirty years ago, I sat in a movie theatre stunned to my very bones watching THE DEVILS. Director Ken Russell worked with big budgets and big stars then. Now, that's not the case, but the feeling of being stunned remains the same. FALL OF THE LOUSE OF USHER blows you away. It's as simple as that. Russell has made a low budget, feature length video with no producer or movie company looking over his shoulder. The result mystifies because, on one hand it's a puerile, tasteless, and totally delirious send up of just about everything connected with pop culture; on the other, it's a playfully mature work of art that can indeed be taken seriously if one can withstand its brutal and disorienting assault to probe the meaning of Russell's vision. It's like this: cross the Jackass boys with Jean Luc Godard and add a little ATTACK OF THE COCKFACED KILLER, and you get, relatively speaking, a point of departure for discussing this movie. Russell plays with his digital camera like a teenager in puberty, but the sophistication of an elderly artist is there, as well. This is not the least bit surprising to me when you consider Russell's obvious need to create. While others sit around and wait for the phone to ring, Russell gathers all these young folks at his house and goes for it. Given the ghastly state of most straight to video fare, much of which has been shot on video, one can only hope that those with money who produce will see the value of this director and let him go, go, go some more. The movie is great, and Ken Russell is even greater. Thank-you for stunning me so.

It seems that camcorder cinema is here to stay, so Ken Russell has made a film with his camcorder that re-writes all the 'Dogma' rules; an astonishingly inventive, powerful, rude, gory, inspired and funny film, full of colour. Some of the acting is a little too large for my liking, not least from Ken himself as the keeper of an asylum asked to take charge of a rock singer who may or may not have murdered his wife. It ends with the Usher family being reborn as the ghosts of mischievous children, and a Fall of the House of Usher staged with such wit and imagination I almost fainted with astonishment and laughter. A midnight movie classic!

As a lifelong admirer of Ken's work I was very disappointed with this film. Not in the making of the film using home video, not in Ken's artistic vision, but in the muddle that his scripts and latest written work have become. Take away the producer looking over his shoulders as a critical friend and you have the pensioner trying to regain his long-lost youth in a kind of disordered teenage romp. Parts of the film raised a smile but only in a kind of 'shouldn't he have got over that at the age of sixteen' sort of way. Ken is so much better than this and I look forward to Tesla & Katherine with anticipation. Best forget 'Louse', I think!

This movie, the 30 minutes or so of it I did watch, really filled me with horror. It is scary to think that this is Ken Russell without professional crew, editor, producer. The film really imparts the lesson that you do need a studio you do need backing you do need at least a few different expensive craftsmen for every pixel on the screen. I would be loathe to criticize Russell cause of his past work. Man Ray used to say that it is hypocritical of a critic to endorse one work by an artist then to reject another. But this movie looked like something you'd have to sit through at an underground film festival ca 1971 like Trisha's Wedding. And what moves me to speak badly of it is that although I doubt he meant to make this point, he has, and its not true. You don't need all the money in the world to make a great film you just need to take lots and lots of care or do lots and lots of shooting and lots and lots of cutting.

As far as using non actors to do scripted dialog, well George Kuchar does that a lot better too, using the awkwardness for comic effect rather than just having everyone yell constantly. But in the case of casting I think the ineluctable lesson is that unless you after a very particular kind of comedy, you shouldn't give non actors lots of scripted lines. The little darlings should be led by the nose through improvs into what looks like acting (in fact what often looks like very very good acting).

George Kuchar is a hugely important role model if you want to work outside the system. He has shot innumerable gorgeous films on 16 mm for say $600 per 20 minutes. He mostly works with video now.