So much average

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

This is a film which honors patience. It is not for those who need action-packed adrenaline stoking from beginning to end. This is a film for those who appreciate the slow build up to terror of a classic Gothic ghost story.The characters speak slowly in careful Victorian, but Midwestern American, English as the year is 1892. The camera reveals scenes with a languid, sensuality. Yet, there is a discomforting eerie quality that builds as the film progresses. Most of the scenes are outside or within a 100-year old haunted house. A few sequences are of a bleak landscape separating the house from town. The sound track has a threatening undertone. John encounters a rat-killing couple on a bicycle ride into town. The encounter is the first of increasingly bizarre experiences that John, his wife, and sister-in-law, Jennifer have, after renting the house with yellow wallpaper. Suspense builds, like waves, each reaching a bit higher, and the viewer's tension notches up.The film is wonderfully atmospheric and full of symbolic allusion (e.g., town represents safety, where there is civilization, but it is cut off by desert, forest, and distant mountains, thus unattainable for those caught in the web of terror). The stark Victorian mansion, at first, seems to offer a comforting respite for the grief-stricken family. John and Charlotte have lost their daughter in a fire that consumed their previous house. True to its Gothic literary antecedent, however, the house's hidden terrors slowly enrapture and capture its occupants. The descent into terror and madness is a slow but steady incline, not a dash from a spring board.John, a medical doctor, demands that the family maintain its rational, civilized understanding of reality and thus seek understanding of the inexplicable events that begin to occur after moving into the house. Charlotte embraces the irrational-supernatural aura of the house as a means to reconnect with their deceased daughter. Jennifer, the pragmatist, brings in a "ghost-buster" from back east. So, what force will prevail and will the 3 survive as they approach the final horror the house dishes up? The production is first class in all respects. The sets appear historically accurate to the Victorian era. The soundtrack music is wonderfully eerie and then shrieks like Psycho when the viewer's nerves are about to snap with tension. The acting is superb by all 3 of the main characters, and the walk-ons are appropriately creepy. The writing and direction bring to life for 21st Century viewers a classic Gothic tale of terror.

I like the film because it builds, not just the scenes,but the acting as well. the main characters have an intense lose in the beginning of the film, then they try to recover throughout the story afterwards. The acting is carried out in this regard from beginning to end and all the performances are well done. The lead man is very good, changing from deadpan-zombie in the beginning, to a decisive individual at the end. His lack of emotion in the beginning is accurate, and the females that are around him behave according to this. Very well done. Instead of just starting in the beginning on high notes, which is what most of television consists of (and lives and breathes by ..constant high pitched emotion with no build up.) A really well directed film with a moving soundtrack that is really built for film lovers. But not much for general viewers. One of those great, surprising films that makes one wonder how the film was ever made in the first place, or how was the financing ever secured. Not a popcorn film, but a great art film. Watch it for something different.

I just can't understand why everyone loves this movie! The acting was comically wooden, with the exception of the sister and the psychic. My husband gave up on it after 15 very painfully slow minutes, but I persevered with it. The story by the the way has NOTHING to do with the short story "The Yellow Wallpaper" other than a reference to the "rest cure" and place of women in Victorian society. And as mentioned by another reviewer, the main character is named Charlotte, a reference to Charlotte Gilbert, who wrote the short story. Oh, and there's an attic room with yellow wallpaper that the wife sometimes retreats to, but it's existence is Pretty arbitrary. THe plot was very broken up, and half the scenes take place in very dark rooms, making it difficult to see what was going on. The ending was a bit of whatever as well - it didn't seem to match the rest of the movie. it was an interesting premise, too bad it just didn't seem to flow. This could have been a good movie if: 1. They didn't call it The Yellow Wallpaper. False advertising! Why not give it it's own name? 2. The plot had some kind of flow to it, 3. better acting! Especially the male lead, who gave the most wooden performance I have EVER seen. Sadly, these elements were not there, making this clunker a discombobulated boring mess.

Knowing the original script would be somewhat different from the original short story; the creators of this visually exquisite, superbly executed sensation have succeeded in transforming Charlotte Perkins Gilman's fine prose into a masterpiece which will more than likely, become a Cult Classic. The musical scoring is beyond hauntingly superb, driving the sequences beyond thriller limits and maintaining wonderful classical refinements. The 'reveal' of the ending is shockingly appropriate somehow. Though many purists of Gilman's work may find this a bit disturbing, they cannot deny that much of her work has been highly honored in this innovative film version. All contributors deserve accolades. An exquisite accomplishment by director, Logan Thomas. August 11, 2016 - by Karen J Shoaff