Review: Hush
The only thing more terrifying than a low-budget Brit horror movie is a low-budget Brit horror movie made by someone you know...
(For more on how Mark Tonderai came to direct Hush, watch his interview with BBC Film Network.)
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions






Comment number 1.
At 12:34 13th Mar 2009, NeonmanCarpool wrote:Have you ever had to tell a friend of yours that their movie sucked?
Anyway, this film looks brilliant. It looks like a tense, mind-rinsing thriller/horror. Splendid! Though it'll probably be fifty years til it comes out here, in Australia.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 12:52 13th Mar 2009, Numpty wrote:I saw Hush a few weeks ago at the Dublin film festival. Have to say it was pretty mediocre... not quite bad enough to be one of those "not taking itself too seriously" horror flicks, and not quite good enough to be, well, good.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 13:57 13th Mar 2009, filmgeek27 wrote:Saw this film a few months back at the Cornwall Film Festival and loved it. I thought it was an original take on the genre with a great twist
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 15:16 13th Mar 2009, Ian Schultz wrote:Have you ever had to tell a friend of yours that their movie sucked?
Mark told his friend Terry Gilliam that "Brother's Grimm" sucked
p.s I personally like it but saying that if Gilliam had a shit in a bag, I would probably like it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 23:21 13th Mar 2009, Blodget wrote:Just got in from having seen it. Good audience as well as a good film, though some of them did talk a little too much for my liking.
But yeah, good fun film.
If a little TOO shaky camera-wise at points.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 16:11 14th Mar 2009, Blodget wrote:HERE'S a question for Kermode, which I was mulling over for most of Bronson (which I enjoyed far more than I wanted to, it was great)...
What's Kermode's view on why it is that characters beyond 'sanity' are often far more likable or involving than the norm?
For example - The Joker, Nikolai (Eastern Promises), Tyler Durden, John Doe, Alex DeLarge etc etc. And last year's big Oscar contenders, Anton Chigurgh and Daniel Plainview (obviously the best of the bunch).
Obviously it can just be that they're NOT the norm (ie not us) but is it because cinema is a distancing device (not in the Brechtian V-Effekt sense)? If it is I find it odd that a character like Krug in Last House On The Left aren't quite as compelling; perhaps this being an offshoot of quite how deadpan LHOTL is. But then Leatherface is hugely intriguing and Texas Chainsaw is just as harsh. Maybe this is in fact what marks Last House out though, the dullness of both the violent perpetrators: the gang and the family.
This has become a real digression.
In essence, what's Kermode's view on why cinematic nutters are often the most compelling things on screen?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)