The Falling (2014) 720p

Movie Poster
The Falling (2014) - Movie Poster
Drama | Mystery
Frame Rate:
Run Time:
102 min
IMDB Rating:
5.6 / 10 
Add Date:


Movie Description:
It's 1969 at a strict English girls' school where charismatic Abbie and intense and troubled Lydia are best friends. After a tragedy occurs at the school, a mysterious fainting epidemic breaks out threatening the stability of all involved.


  • The Falling (2014) - Movie Scene 1
  • The Falling (2014) - Movie Scene 2
  • The Falling (2014) - Movie Scene 1

Related Movies:

  • Through a Boy's Eyes (2018)

    Read More »

    When a boy becomes a young man, the way he sees the world can change not just his perceptions of those around him, but how others see him. As burgeoning desires come to the surface, there is the choice of either embracing and acting upon them, or burying them. In this selection of award-winning short films, we observe struggle and celebration through the eyes of boys not only becoming men, but becoming attracted to them.

  • The Hawaiians (1970) bluray

    Read More »

    The intertwined lives of two kindred souls with ambition begins when Captain Whip Hoxworth discovers that Nyuk Tsin has been smuggled aboard as part of cargo on The Carthaginian, which he captains, a cargo supposed to consist of only male Chinese workers bound for Hawaii. Nyuk Tsin was kidnapped from her Haaka village to be sold to a Honolulu brothel. She is spared when Mun Ki claims she is his wife, and Hoxworth goes along with his wife's suggestion that they can work in the Hoxworth household as domestic servants. Nyuk Tsin becomes known to all as Wu Chow's Auntie (Aunt of Five Continents) when her five sons are named after continents (with Mun Ki's wife in China regarded as their official mother). Whip founds an empire in pineapples, using Japanese laborers, after smuggling his first seed crop from French Guiana as Wu Chow's Auntie grows a family business in Honolulu around her sons. —Brian Greenhalgh

  • Appassionata (1974)

    Read More »

    Two teenage friends conspire to find out how much their youthful sensuality can disrupt one of their households, headed by a dentist and his mentally-ill wife. —


Falling Flat

I had the (dis)pleasure of seeing Carol Morley's The Falling during an evening with my housemates. Having read a brief summary of the plot of the film, as well as having viewed an online trailer several months in advance, I was intrigued, if somewhat confused. Neither the synopsis nor the trailer gave much away concerning the storyline. Now, having seen the film in its entirety, I can safely say I'm none the wiser. If anything, I'm much more confused. The film focuses on schoolgirl Lydia's (Maisie Williams) almost obsessive, lesbianist relationship with Abbie (Florence Pugh), a fellow student, who falls ill after having slept with Lydia's brother. Following her death, Lydia begins to show similar symptoms and collapses numerous times before the teaching staff. Before long, all the other girls follow suit, resulting in an epidemic that the tutors swiftly attempt to sweep under the rug. Meanwhile, Lydia's agoraphobic mother (Maxine Peake) remains disturbingly unresponsive to her daughter's behaviour until the film's final moments. Throughout, the film raises several questions, like 'what's causing this epidemic?', 'why is Lydia so deranged?' and 'why is Lydia's mother afraid to leave the house?' But the biggest question on my mind whilst watching the film was 'what's the point in this tripe?' As you can probably tell, this is one of those pretentious, moralistic and metaphorical films that is supposed to maintain some kind of underlying meaning or social commentary. The problem is that it's never made clear what this commentary actually is. Is Morley saying that early sexual activity is wrong? Or is she providing a commentary on the restrictive educational system of the late 1960s? Or both? Or neither? God only knows. What's more, a number of questions remain unanswered. For example, one of the girls, Titch, remains immune to the so-called epidemic, but it's never explained why. In addition, Lydia's bizarre romantic and sexual relationship with her brother (yes, this actually happens ? as if Morley couldn't have made the film any weirder) doesn't seem to serve much purpose. I'm half-expecting someone to respond to this by arguing some deeply profound metaphorical jargon to the contrary. Don't bother. It's controversial for the sake of being controversial; pure garbage. As some other reviewers here have already noted, the acting and cinematography are mostly of a high standard; Maxine Peake is no less than outstanding in her role, making her the film's only truly convincing character. The other characters are burdened with weak, horrific and sometimes laughable dialogue and cheesy faux-horror movie acting. Scenes in which the group of girl-friends are seen linking arms, chanting Abbie's name and dancing in a circle, are particularly excruciating, not to mention somewhat comedic, as are the fainting scenes, of which there are too many to have any impact; it just comes across as ridiculous. Why Lydia constantly feels the need to perform some interpretative dance piece before collapsing is anybody's guess. Despite this, the young cast's acting abilities are far from abysmal, but with no logical narrative or decipherable plot, this is hardly enough to save the film from falling flat on its face. It's slow, it's repetitive, and laden with shameless attempts to be controversial and innovative. The fact that this film has critics in awe is extremely worrying, and it makes me wonder whether people know what makes a good film anymore. On a vaguely positive note, the title is appropriate. There is, indeed, a great deal of falling that occurs in this film. In fact, any fans of seeing people repeatedly fall over for no discernible reason are in for a real treat. Unfortunately for the rest, you may risk falling asleep. 3/10

Painfully pretentious.

Saw The Following last night. ***SPOILERS*** I was really excited - British director, great trailer, great poster and a pretty good cast. However it was truly awful and a real insult to film makers. In the credits there were so many development people, BFI, BBC, so many producers and so many different bodies I couldn't believe that something so weak could have been produced. I was also amazed at the incredible repetition of cut away shots, the same shot of the moon three times, the same shot of the tree, all the cuts aways clearly shot on the same day at the same time and then the most feeble direction I have ever seen. No vision, no direction, no cinematography, shot like a TV movie, nothing we haven't seen here before. It was clear that the director does not know where to put a camera to get the best shots, and the very weak framing shows that the cinematographer didn't have a clue OR was trying very hard to re-invent the wheel and give us a challenging window on the world. Oh please. This has been done to death since 1910. Clearly they had struggled in the edit to make the story work from the scenes they had shot, and used ever GCSE film making cliche from 'flash frames' to cut away to shagging that I would expect 1st year students to use in 1972. Yet critics are saying it is brilliant "A new Auteur." I think critic's lack of understanding of how a film is actually constructed, made and shot, leads them to see things that a real film maker would just say, "oh they have cut to that shot because they've lost focus on that shot, or the eye line is off, or they haven't got enough coverage, or this shot is dead." The premise was so good, the concept sound, but the execution was truly dreadful the director/writer clearly did not know what to do with the source material and drew no conclusions and no interesting plot lines and the bit about incest was just terrible. The fact that this is in the top 5000 films at the moment just shows what damage the critic and distributors do to cinema and cinema audiences. If you speak to anyone who actually makes movies non of them will give this a high rating. I try so hard to support British films, and this tries my patience so hard.

Somewhat underwhelming

Always best on IMDb to ignore the entire crop of 5 starred reviews. They are either deliberate plants to puff the film or starry eyed peeps of little discrimination. I really wanted to like this film. More than decent cast; great location; credible period (late 60's) After 20 minutes I was struggling to keep my eyes open. Several people in the audience just got up and left. Can't quite put my finger on it. It kept hinting as social 'issues' but nobody actually verbalised them. Lots of serious thesps giving deep and meaningful looks, but never saying anything. And why do directors think everyone in the 60s chain- assemblies! They didn't!
Read More Reviews