The Power of Fear

2006 "The classical christian tale about the ultimate power of faith"
3.9| 1h19m| NA| en| More Info
Released: 11 November 2006 Released
Producted By: Lizard Cinema Trade
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Info

Ivan, a cynical journalist, is assigned to investigate mysterious events in a small town. During his first night, he is seduced by a strange and mysterious girl. As they embrace, she transforms into a hideous demon. Ivan fights the creature, managing to strangle it. But it is too late, Evil has been unleashed. When Ivan is charged for the brutal murder, he feels his last hope disappear. As he is overcome by the dark forces trying to pose as his soul, Ivan comes to realize that his only hope lies in his power to find the faith that he once lost

Genre

Horror

Watch Online

The Power of Fear (2006) is currently not available on any services.

Director

Oleg Fesenko

Production Companies

Lizard Cinema Trade

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime.
Watch Now
The Power of Fear Videos and Images
  • Top Credited Cast
  • |
  • Crew

The Power of Fear Audience Reviews

Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece
Pluskylang Great Film overall
Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional
Aiden Melton The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.
abrill-900-493845 I watched this on Netflix. I am going to dissent from the other reviews, and say I once I got past the awful dubbing, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I hadn't seen any other versions of the story upon viewing this.The art direction and special effects are fantastic. The scenes inside the sanctuary are simply stunning. I never got the impression that this was supposed to be America.It has one of those ephemeral European feels that are reminiscent of Hammer Horror films, or Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka. A world that resembles our own, but lies just outside its borders. This feeling is captured in the forest, in the village, and on the river.This story is told through the lens of cultural faith in Christianity. One need not be Christian, nor believe in vampires, to appreciate the struggle that plays out of a single man attempting to stand against an overwhelming force of evil.You just might enjoy it more with the sound turned down. It is a shame Netflix doesn't have a subtitled copy.
dbborroughs Nikolai Gogol's story "Viy" has been filmed again and released to home video in the US via Faith Films.The original story concerns a priest who has to watch over the body of a witch with only his faith to protect him. Greatly expanded and set in America, though clearly filmed in Russia (the houses,clothing and furnishing are all wrong despite the English signs), this is an odd film that doesn't really work.Part of it is the weird setting that tries very hard to be backwoods America but clearly isn't.There are also some weird, intentionally oblique moments as the main character being a reporter at the start and a priest a short time later. I'm not sure why they did that, even after watching the making of piece on the DVD) The other problem is the dubbing which is beyond awful. Its done in such away that everyone speaks when their lips are not on camera- or if they are the voices don't even remotely match the lip flaps. I don't know if its Faith Films fault or that of the producers who made the film hoping to dump into the West (revealed in the making of piece).The film isn't very good. As I've said it has all sorts of technical issues that just make this an odd ball curio. Despite some really good looking horror images the film never works as a horror film. As film to engender faith its much too confused in this retelling to amount to make anyone feel anyone closer to god.Given the choice I'd give it a pass, even at a bargain bin price. My advice would be to find the 1960's version of the tale called Viy which will bring both some shivers and some understanding about a belief in god.
Bill357 It's not that great either.I thought it was better than a lot of the Saw knock offs and the pretentious political crap disguised as horror movies that I've been picking up lately at the Wal-Mart.The dubbing was very poor and the plot was weak but I wasn't exactly bored to tears either. I think anyone who reads the back of the DVD box will pretty much know what to expect.However, the cinematographer and production designers were first rate. Their work was reminiscent of the Italian films of the nineteen sixties and early seventies, Mario Bava etcetera. They should be in Hollywood making better movies.Did anyone notice that after the lead actor's hair was scared white, he bore an uncanny resemblance to Bob Geldof?
Fredegonde POSSIBLY VERY MINOR SPOILERSThis movie is billed as the first Russian horror movie. Unfortunately, as far as I am concerned, "The Witch" (its Russian title) will take a place of dishonor in the gallery of horrible Russian movies. It is based on Nikolai Gogol's story "Viy" which is a classic in Russia. "Based" is the key word here since no familiarity with the story is required. Instead, the less you know about Gogol, the better. It is a unique production because we are quite used to directors taking stories from other cultures and adapting them to their own culture. The spate of American remakes of foreign films is a prime example, but then again, Sturgess turned Kurosawa's Seven Samurai into The Magnificent Seven with splendid results, and Kurosawa transferred Shakespeare's Macbeth into Japan to make an incredibly powerful Throne in Blood, while King Lear became a riveting Ran. However, with "The Witch," we have Russians transplanting a Russian classical tale onto the American soil. The movie was shot in Estonia in English with the aim of dubbing it into English using American actors and have reasonably synchronous lip movements. As a natural consequence, lost is the colorful Ukrainian background for the story, in comes a drab American small town seemingly lifted from some outdated horror book manual. Gone is the boozy seminarian Khoma Brutus, instead we have a boozy journalist who is about to win Pullitzer prize, and who at the same time writes about X-Files-like events and frequents Miss Boobs contests. (I never thought Pullitzer prize was given for that kind of writing, now I humbly stand corrected.) In a strange nod to Russianness, the journalist is named Ivan Berkhoff. They should've named him John Smith because it is impossible to get more hackneyed, clichéd and generic than this movie. Berkhoff goes to a town named Castleville, gets stranded on a dirt road, staggers on until he finds a dilapidated house and is rather un-welcomed by an old crone. All that to the accompaniment of a radio announcement about the forces of evil being at their most powerful, and people better staying indoors and avoiding water. Need I mention that it's raining really hard? After a few supposedly frightening scenes which had me laughing, the story finds our journalist dressed as a priest, he's mistaken for a priest, and the local sheriff tells him his daughter who died after being brutally attacked wanted the new priest to pray for her for three nights. At this point, the action supposedly starts. Those who have time to kill are welcome to it. What is wrong with this film? Everything, starting with the dialog and down to the prop department. The dialog which I heard in Russian was clearly originally written in English, and it was compiled exclusively from clichés and platitudes picked from American films. The actors just as clearly struggled with English because the timing of their speech was labored and unnatural, and the Russian dubbing followed suit. The acting is mostly atrocious, and not only because the actors find it often difficult to talk but because they don't have anything approaching a range of facial expressions. For the most part, they're just blank or you wish they were. The only exceptions being the sheriff played by Lembit Ulfsak, a fine Estonian actor, and Arnis Lizitis who plays a wheelchair bound resident of Castleville. Oh, and a rooster of course who's absolutely natural on camera! I know actors complain of being upstaged by dogs and cats but when Nikolaev is upstaged by a rooster it is a sad testimony to the general quality of acting in the film.There wasn't a single scary moment in the entire film, and there wasn't a single original moment in the film either. Mind you, this comment's coming from somebody who's rather inexperienced with horror. The film is filled with standard moves used in horror movie since the genre's inception. At a critical moment, the camera lingers lovingly on a kerosene lamp. The lamp promptly goes out. It must have seen a few horror movies, too. An example of supreme idiocy comes at another moment, a character jumps out of a bathtub and runs at the camera. He's wearing something the looks like loincloth! It doesn't get any more idiotic than this!Those in Russia who liked it claim it should've been advertised as a mystical thriller. I wasn't thrilled either. It was run-of-the-mill from start to finish. I particularly enjoyed the fact that the entire population of the little town behaved as if they knew exactly they lived in a horror movie, except they weren't quite sure whether it had zombies or not. Therefore, some of them acted zombie-like just in case. The makers of the film say it's about finding faith. Such a fine collections of idiotic actions, stupidly contrived moments, and, yes, clichés, doesn't deserve to be about finding faith. The movie is so thoroughly and utterly fake it deserves only to be an exhibit in a wax figure museum.