Amethyst (I) (2016) User Reviews

Kaleidoscope of Wonder

[nogodnomasters · 1/10 · 29 July 2017]

Jared Masters was apparently tasked to make a film for a junior high project using a purple filter and no dialogue. This would have been a concept film 50 years ago. Amethyst, who apparently has never taken any acid, drinks a whole vial given to her my a "friend" Ember. She then wanders around a very well groomed estate in Richmond. That's the film. The end.

You always "babysit" someone on their first trip. That is the unwritten rule among illegal drug users. Violence is rare on such trips. Grace Klich plays Amethyst who can best be described as a poor man's Misty Mundae who keeps her clothes on. The pyramid on the poster display comes in at the last scene. I am sure there were a lot a symbolism and metaphors I didn't get, but the film wasn't worth thinking about. Grace Kilch is in nearly ever scene. It is like watching somebody else's acid trip...oh it is.

Didn't Jimi put the liquid LSD in his eye? Guide: No swearing (or talking) sex or nudity.

Ummmmm........

[tbuestrin · 1/10 · 18 July 2019]

If this was an 8th grade film project it would get a F.....

Aimless

[Leofwine_draca · 1/10 · 20 February 2018]

AMETHYST is nothing more than a student indie flick shot with just a single camera and a couple of actors. It involves a young woman who endlessly wanders an attractive countryside full of cultivated gardens, water features, and rural graveyards. Eventually she takes drugs and the rest of the film is shot with a purple filter. I got hints of Alice in Wonderland at times. There's no plot and very little talent on the part of anyone involved; one of those aimless independent features that they needn't have bothered shooting in the first place.

Amethyst is not a gem

[randibee · 1/10 · 24 March 2017]

I did review this film first and I see my review was removed. OK, first off, anyone who gives this film above a 2 rating I have to believe is affiliated with the making of this film. There's no way this film is worthy of anything except worst amateur film of the year award. This film is lovely to look at but a dreadful watch. Don't waste your valuable time watching this when you can be cleaning your oven.

Overlong and dull

[MissAnnThrope · 1/10 · 9 August 2019]

This might have worked as a 20 minute student film. But dragged out to 70 minutes makes this a real drag to watch. The music was nice, some of the visuals were nice. But you have to wonder if the makers ever dropped acid in their lives. I was ready to give this 2 stars, but that last message on the screen at the end of the movie blew that for me and just made me laugh. The beginning says it's based on a true story and I want to hear that story, because the last bit of text before the credits didn't seem so credible. Don't waste your time watching this. Or watch the first 20 minutes and then go do something else. Don't make the mistake I made.

Beautiful, lyrical, dream of a film.

[ulrichburke · 8/10 · 8 March 2017]

What makes this film special is the music, it's superb. The whole film's like watching a 70-minute New Age video - beautiful countryside, a couple like a visual ballet, the great, old house and the music enveloping all. I don't know why they call it a 'horror', it's not. It's not even mildly scary, nor does it want to be. It's just a lovely tour of an old estate with a couple showing us what learning to be in love together feels like. There's no dialogue because there doesn't need to be any. I don't even think there's any metaphors. Just the beauty of the music, the two lovers, the surroundings, all evoking memories of places you may never even have been to. To me, it's a dream I'll revisit whenever real life squashes me. Thanks, Jared, for giving me such a beautiful thing. I hope others see it the way I do, for they're the ones you've made it for.