It is difficult to give even the most well-meaning film a prolonged chance when from the opening seconds it piles up one weak, inconsistent, illogical, or just plain awful moment after another. I understand the limitations of a tiny budget, and try to be tolerant about the probable unavailability of talented cast and crew, but it is an indication of the writer/director's skill (or lack thereof) if they maximize what they have and minimize every liability, or simply stumble blindly about as if they don't know good from bad .
With this film we are immediately assaulted by a sub-par musical score, flat digital photography, and conspicuously clean and neatly arranged settings and costumes which in no way helps us slip into a believably period, mid-19th century setting. From there we suffer through choppily edited scenes that randomly cut from one close up to another, one angle to the next, as if anything filmed had to be included; and dialogue that struggles occasionally to sound "period" but is immediately contradicted by anachronistic phrases and attitudes completely inappropriate to the time and place (although in all fairness, I have seen this flaw repeatedly in many high budget mainstream pictures - that doesn't make it any less intolerable). Obviously ambition outstrips ability or even directorial focus in A Sweet and Vicious Beauty. Within the first few scenes a big deal is made about how a character is told a road is too narrow for a carriage so he must ride a horse (which he is unaccustomed to) only to have the following scene show him told to find an "escort", who then takes him in a carriage, and they travel down a road that is almost two lanes wide and practically paved. He is then dropped off by his escort and no mention is even made about how he is to return to the town now that he has been abandoned without a horse which he was originally told was necessary. When he first arrives in town the same character is splashed by muddy water from the ONLY puddle on the street, which clearly dirties his coat (which is buttoned up over an additional vest) and yet in a following scene he is sent to a tailors where he says he only requires a shirt and is sold one. Does the writer/director not realize that there is a connection between what we hear from characters (i.e. what was on the page in the script) and what we see on the screen (i.e. the action as directed on the day)? When a character with only a muddy coat says he only needs a clean shirt are we to assume that the director is blind? Or not paying attention? Or just doesn't know better? It reeks of amateurish disregard and ignorance.
Other early highlights include a woman who is "ill" represented by heavy white make-up (only on her face) with large black circles around her eyes like a cheaply interpreted kabuki mask; a "haunting moment" as a door creeps open and the doctor slowly bends over to put his face right next to the doorknob so he's in a perfect position when a hand reaches around to grab it. Who bends over and puts their face inches from a doorknob when they think someone might be creeping into their room? What world does this writer/director come from?
I suffered through an additional twenty minutes of weak dialogue expressed poorly by struggling actors before I had to bail about a third of the way through. Once the nightmares and hauntings started, the film only slid further downhill and life is too short to torture myself for no good reason.
I give the film two stars for its premise, and subtract one because of how quickly and consistently that premise was betrayed by easily corrected directorial missteps.
