Wasted premise

This movie centers on Enid, who works as a film censor in Margaret Thatcher's England, deciding what cuts need to be made to movies (mainly horror films) before they can be released to the public. Her humdrum lifestyle is disrupted when, while reviewing a film by a minor horror director, she spots an actress that resembles a grown version of her younger sister, who either disappeared or was kidnapped when they were both children. Enid grows obsessed with this obscure horror actress and determined to make contact. It is here where the movie, to paraphrase one of the actor's dialogue, loses the plot.

The acting is mostly great and the grim Thatcherian ambiance is effective, but the story doesn't live up to its trappings. Enid experiences a psychotic break when encountering the actress she believes to be her sister on the set of her latest horror movie, confusing fantasy with reality. Even on a low budget indie feature, I find it hard to believe someone would confuse acting on a movie set with real events, with various crew members standing around watching the proceedings.

Throughout the movie, Enid insists that by working as a censor she is protecting the public. Is that the point of this movie, that family trauma combined with watching so many uncut horror movies causes Enid to lose touch with reality? I don't think that's a message--delivered via a horror movie--that many horror fans would agree with, that horror movies really ARE harmful to us. And the movie doesn't even commit to that message; there's a subplot about a killer who may have been affected by a movie that passed Enid's review, but late in the film it's revealed that the killer is unlikely to have seen the movie. So what are we doing here?