Livid

Livid-720P

Livid-480P

Livid-360P

source: Livid

"Livide" was a major disappointment for me, especially after I was thrilled to get to see it after what I read on the back of the DVD cover. This movie was nothing at all as what I had expected it to be. The storyline, well I will not go into detail here and give anything away. But I will summarize it briefly; it is about a young girl who takes on the work as a caregiver and comes to learn of a supposed treasure in the house of an old, withering, dying woman. But the house holds a terrible secret. Right, well first of all, you need to go about 45 minutes or so into the movie before anything even remotely worthwhile starts to happen. And even after that, then the movie is a bit too surreal and far-fetched to properly catch my liking. What works out well for the movie is the imagery and the camera work. There is some really nice shots in the movie and the contrast of colors is just spectacular. So visually, then "Livide" is a great movie and I would rate the movie higher if this was a factor important enough to lift up the movie, but it wasn't. The people hired to portray the various roles were doing good jobs with their given roles and characters, however they were just struggling with a rather ridiculous storyline. Effects-wise, then "Livide" was actually quite upbeat. The special effects were nice to look at and worked out quite well. The make-up effects too. So thumbs up for this part. The storyline goes from dull and slow-paced, so strange and somewhat surreal. I supposed this movie is a matter of acquired taste, however personally, I didn't really care much for it. For a horror movie, it was fairly tame.

In the last decade there certainly has been a significant cycle of French horror films. Quite a lot of the most famous ones have focused on the more sadistic end of the genre, presenting torture, gore and general nastiness in new, often unusual, ways. Livid clearly indicates that Gallic horror comes in many shapes though, as this one relies considerably more on atmosphere rather than full-on violence. Its story has three young thieves breaking into a remote mansion one Halloween night; the only resident of this villa being a very elderly comatose former ballet teacher who they have heard has a 'hidden treasure' stashed away somewhere in the house. The trio, however, encounter far more than they could ever have bargained for and a night of uncanny horror ensues. This film is typified quite a bit by being a hybrid of genres. It's not strictly a haunted house film, although it often feels like one, it has fairy tale aspects yet could never be exactly described as a pure fantasy and while it does rely largely on atmosphere it often has scenes of visceral violence. This undefinable aspect is amplified further by a storyline that wilfully never makes complete sense and has many aspects that hang in the air somewhat. Unlike a lot of other people seemingly, I can't say any of the above really bothered me at all. In fact I thought it added up to a distinctive bit of Gothic horror. It's very nicely photographed throughout and the detailed, dusty interiors of the house are an interesting setting. There are many macabre things in here and some are quite strikingly different; the clockwork corpse being a good example of original thought from the film-makers. Pleasingly, it does get quite scary from time to time as well, with the evil old woman and her undead daughter being pretty sinister adversaries and interesting creations. As the story progresses flashbacks are used to explain events. But these generate as many questions as they do answers and by the end there is a definite enigmatic quality to much of what we have just seen. This ambiguity has been earned though; sometimes it's best for a dark fairy-tale to not reveal all its secrets.

You may know the filmmaker from the movie Inside. If you expect this to be the same OTT movie, then you better stay clear of it, because it isn't. This movie is more of a fairy tale (if you want to call it that, because it still is horror). While it's often obvious where this is going, you still wonder about the motivations of the characters and their actions. Then again, we are used to worse. The actors are good enough to pull you through it. The ending might swing some people towards the negative or positive side (depending on which side they were before). I think it's a thing you can't see entirely coming at you (at least that's what I think about it).

Considering what an utter piece of crap "Inside" was, it's a good thing I didn't know that "Livide" came from the same pens and minds – otherwise I would have avoided it. While with several loose ends, the plot of "Livide" is infinitely more logical than the legendarily idiotic and sadistic-for-the-sake-of-it "Inside": this – in spite of "Livide" being a supernatural horror film, whereas "Inside" is a thriller. Still, at least "Inside" has a lot of style going for it (if only zero substance), having hinted that its creators might be able to achieve something worthwhile eventually; and they did, a surprisingly good job. "Livide" is a refreshingly original take on the by-now very worn-out vampire genre. Frankly, if I see another set of fangs going into a screaming maiden's neck, I'll either puke or break my jaw yawning. "Livide" is nothing of the sort though; in fact, vampirism isn't even revealed until about an hour into the movie. Once it is, it is given a whole new spin for the viewer to have fun with. Not to mention how well-filmed all of this is; French movies rarely disappoint in the visual department. Plot-holes abound. 1) What happened to the three young zombie dancers, and who are they? 2) Was Lucie's mother (Dalle) some kind of a witch or perhaps even a vampire herself? 3) Did Lucie and Anna switch minds or not? There is evidence to support both options. 4) Why did Lucie not panic like her male companions, but chose (?) to "go with the flow"? Why did she give Ms. Dracula her hands for a telepathic session for exposition? From the scarce information given, it is quite impossible to connect all the parts of the story into a cohesive whole. On the other hand, there are advantages to the story's unresolved, and later even further deepened, mystery. The viewer doesn't always need to have everything drawn for him. Besides, it is so much easier to forgive loose-ends when a movie is executed so well. And it's unpredictable, which is always both a blessing and a rarity, not just in horror films. I always criticize French cinema for being "style over substance", but the style suffices this time around, and the semi-complete/confusing but original premise and events make up for the logic flaws. And anyway, there are no aspects of "Livide" that make it overtly cretinous; merely a little "unfinished". I do have to wonder though what the French have against little girls. Dozens of their films deal with underage Lolitas having affairs with ugly, aging men; an annoying tradition of pedophilic themes that is almost uniquely French. This time around no young girls flirt or have sex with smelly old men, but an innocent little girl is savagely butchered and dismembered. France, leave them girls alone! Frcrissakes, extreme violence against children should be a no-no in films, I'd think that would be quite obvious.

This film starts off well with the premise of a young in-house carer for elderly people being shown the ropes on her first day on the job by an experienced carer. It seemed as if the film was going to build on the hinted (super)natural rapport the young girl seems to have with the acute patients, but this does not happen. instead, after we are introduced to a comatose old woman residing in a secluded old mansion and there is a casual hint dropped by the experienced carer that there may be a treasure in the house, any further character/plot development is abandoned for a breaking and entering treasure hunt in the house by the young girl and her two male friends. what ensues is a thrown together series of Gothic clichés straight out of a Cradle of Filth film clip: undead ballerinas with their eyes sewn together, rooms with mirrors as the only entry point, vampires (or maybe it was zombies - wasn't really explained), dolls with scary animal heads, some sort of a never explained light in the grass.... etc. all of this is about as scary as... a Cradle of Filth video, but one with the running time of 93 minutes. if you are still curious about the film i suggest you simply play the trailer on youtube with the sound muted whilst listening to your favourite metal track on itunes. you will see all the gory parts, maybe have a bit of boogie around the room and add 91.5 minutes back into your day. -seriously! the film footage not shown in the trailer adds absolutely no value to the experience.

Well I guess it's safe to say Inside was a fluke... There are a few promising ideas here, but the music box / creep show / pedantically telegraphed presentation pretty much annihilates any enjoyment one could expect to extract. Overscored, overstyled, tonally incoherent, devastatingly underwritten, and most often, just plain dumb. I just finished watching it, and I'm honestly still in shock that it was just so... abysmal. As my review must be 10 lines long, I will attempt to say something positive about the film: I did like the very end, but man, the drudgery required to get there... From about the first time a taxidermied animal (sitting at a tea party, no less) inexplicably moves, I was on the verge of turning it off. Yeah, that's about as positive as it gets.