The Haunting of Bly Manor

joeyowen

The episode that mainly focussed on Henry was awesome I thought.  It was shot so well, and made his character far deeper than I thought it would be.  Trying to write this in a spoiler free fashion, but it was awesome

ThePrettyDamned

Just finished episode 4 and loving it.

Very different to hill house. Hill House was a true horror with lots of subplots, subtext etc - more classic horror. This one is a drama that is creepy. Very heavy, obvious themes with some really interesting side themes. Amazing performances, direction and lighting - absolutely beautifully shot. 

ThePrettyDamned

I don't know how anyone felt it was boring, absolutely loved it. Will have to re-watch. 

horse

Just finished it. Got worse with each episode for me. Not even sure it really made much sense.

Philly_Q

As usual, I'm weeks behind everyone else (which is an improvement on being years behind) but I've just started watching The Haunting of Bly Manor.

I've watched The Haunting of Hill House in the last couple of weeks and enjoyed it, although it has very little in common with the book.  So I thought I'd move on to the "sequel".  For starters, I didn't realise it was based on The Turn of the Screw - and in that respect, it's closer to the book, so far, than Hill House was. 

It was interesting to see so many of the Hill House actors in different roles, and initially I enjoyed trying to work out where they'd copied their accents from.  Carla Gugino has gone for a sort of posh Northern accent - Stephanie Beacham maybe?  And Henry Thomas is doing a weird strangled impersonation of Prince Charles, with a hint of Peter O'Toole.  The bloke playing Peter Quint is just doing Sean Connery.

But now I'm three and a half episodes in and gosh, it's boring.  The "horror" aspects are really poorly handled, which seems odd coming from Mike Flanagan.  Again like Hill House, they concentrate on a particular character for each episode then presumably it will all come together at the end, but those characters are dull and I'm finding it very hard work.

ThePrettyDamned

I've rewatched and still loved it.

It's not a horror, it's a gothic, with one horror episode. 

Philly_Q

I'm six episodes in now.  The last two episodes have all been playing with different characters' dreams and memories - not sure if that's an improvement or if it's teetering on the edge of chaos.  Only three to go, it could still work out OK....

@ThePrettyDamned have you seen the 1961 film The Innocents?  If you haven't, give it a go.

Philly_Q

So, I got to the end... quite enjoyed the last two episodes, although my initial reaction to the 17th Century storyline was WTF?

I think those two episodes, with a few tweaks, could almost have been stand-alone short films, but they made the rest of the series seem rather an unnecessary plod.  I think the whole thing could easily have been done in about 5 hours rather than 9.

ThePrettyDamned

Philly_Q said:

So, I got to the end... quite enjoyed the last two episodes, although my initial reaction to the 17th Century storyline was WTF?

I think those two episodes, with a few tweaks, could almost have been stand-alone short films, but they made the rest of the series seem rather an unnecessary plod.  I think the whole thing could easily have been done in about 5 hours rather than 9.

Sort of, but the whole point is to explore the characters and really round them out. It's often this stuff that you miss in a shorter horror movie (and why longer films like the thing and hereditary can be so strong - the character development is everything). 

I loved the 17th century episode. Probably my favourite, bar the two lines of terrible accent  

I like the length of the series, but one thing I did note is some episodes felt quite different. I only realised on second watching there were a few directors, and I felt this - I wonder if, had it just been MF it might have been slightly better. 

I'm rewatching Hill House now. It's absolutely stunning. I watched the first episode (this will be my 5th watch!) and it's every bit as effective as it was. 

I do agree it could have been shorter. There were a few dead ends in bly Manor too - maybe I would have liked more exploration of the uncle, but that sort of petered out a bit. 

Philly_Q

ThePrettyDamned said:
I like the length of the series, but one thing I did note is some episodes felt quite different. I only realised on second watching there were a few directors, and I felt this - I wonder if, had it just been MF it might have been slightly better. 

I'm rewatching Hill House now. It's absolutely stunning. I watched the first episode (this will be my 5th watch!) and it's every bit as effective as it was. 

I noticed the same regarding the writers and directors - whereas with Hill House, Flanagan wrote most of the episodes and directed all of them.

Fifth watch?!    I hardly ever watch things repeatedly, there are so many other things to see.  I know it can be interesting to watch something again after you know the twists (Shutter Island springs to mind), but even with films I really loved I often haven't seen them more than once.

ThePrettyDamned

Philly_Q said:

ThePrettyDamned said:
I like the length of the series, but one thing I did note is some episodes felt quite different. I only realised on second watching there were a few directors, and I felt this - I wonder if, had it just been MF it might have been slightly better. 

I'm rewatching Hill House now. It's absolutely stunning. I watched the first episode (this will be my 5th watch!) and it's every bit as effective as it was. 

I noticed the same regarding the writers and directors - whereas with Hill House, Flanagan wrote most of the episodes and directed all of them.

Fifth watch?!    I hardly ever watch things repeatedly, there are so many other things to see.  I know it can be interesting to watch something again after you know the twists (Shutter Island springs to mind), but even with films I really loved I often haven't seen them more than once.

I love horror, a lot, and it's sadly not often a real budget and time is awarded to it. 

And when it is, we sometimes end up with "It"... Which I really didn't think much of (although the popularity of it might be a great thing for the genre). 

I've seen the thing at least once a year since I was about 15... And I can almost recite alien  

Philly_Q

I have seen The Thing many times.    It was the first X certificate film I saw at the cinema (they switched to 18s later that year).  It's one of my favourites and the practical FX still look brilliant.

Agreed that horror movies rarely get a big budget, but that's one of the things I like best about the genre - people who want to make horror movies are usually genuine enthusiasts, and it's possible to make a good, effective horror movie for very little money.

For the investors, they're profitable too - make 'em cheap and turn a profit.  Horror geeks (like me) will watch anything.  There are loads and loads of really terrible horror movies, but they're still watchable - very few are actually boring.

historyisjunk

@Philly_Q  ; If you like horror films & their general low budgetness you might like this- https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181288/

If you haven't already seen it.

Philly_Q

historyisjunk said:

@Philly_Q  ; If you like horror films & their general low budgetness you might like this- https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181288/

If you haven't already seen it.

Coven!

I have seen it!   In the cinema, and I've got the DVD somewhere.  Must watch it again sometime.