Quick synopsis: A year on from a black friday tragedy (that the town doesn’t really feel haunted by), an axe-wielding killer is killing people, sometimes with an axe.
It may not seem like it sometimes, but I do genuinely love horror movies, they’re often on my list of favourite films. But they’re also my least favourite. Horror is all about personal taste. To some people, a certain film may be the best film they’ve ever seen, to some, they just won’t like it no matter how many positive reviews they see; it’s just not their type. It’s a lot like comedy in that sense (or porn, actually, now I think about it).
I know that some people love this film, and I can see why. It’s gory, has some very creative kills, and is unique. But it’s all just so miserable and pretty much every single character is a prick. You don’t really want to see anybody survive. All you want is for someone to appear and beat everybody on-screen to death with a shit-covered hammer. This is a common problem in horror movies; characters are so unlikeable that you cheer when horrible things happen to them. But they’re also characters who we have to spend all our time with, and that 90% of time spent being annoyed isn’t worth the small catharsis.
I try not to go into spoilers too much in my reviews but I feel I have to do so here to demonstrate a logical issue I have with it. It’s mentioned early on that nobody involved in the riot at the start was prosecuted and the police couldn’t do anything. The killer turns out to be the local cop. Now call me crazy but I don’t think it would be that difficult for a small-town cop to invent a reason to arrest or kill someone. Literally, all he’d need to do is say “They were speeding, they got aggressive so I had to shoot them”. Yeah, it wouldn’t make the deaths echo as much as they did, and it wouldn’t be as cinematic, but it would be a lot more effective, and he wouldn’t need to wait a year to do it. He could even pull people over and say he needs to check their car for drugs etc, then subtly cut their brakes. I know I’m expecting too much from something dumb, but if something is dumb it can at least have the decency to not be so utterly miserable throughout.
From a technical standpoint, it’s all fine. The performances are standard for a horror film, with Patrick Dempsey being the only obvious standout. It’s not helped by how generic a lot of the characters are, to the point where a climactic final scene involving finding dead bodies left me trying to figure out who those people were.
In summary, I get why people would be into this. But for me, it was a case of “too bleak, stopped caring”. The closing credits were pretty fun though.
Quick synopsis: Emily (Lisa Ambalavanar) adopts a sloth as a mascot to win a school election against alpha mega bitch Brianna (Sydney Craven). So far, so Mean Girls. The sloth then starts killing everybody.
As I settled down to watch this, I had one thought in my mind “When will that dickhead outside stop revving his car?” he eventually stopped and not because his car mysteriously exploded, and I had another thought “I hope this isn’t too serious”. The concept for this, a killer sloth, is ridiculous, and there was a slight concern that it would take itself too seriously. If they don’t lean into the inherent silliness of the concept, then it’s doomed. Thankfully, the film seems aware that it’s kind of dumb, even lampooning its own title by having a character say it out loud and being met with an awkward silence.
Sometimes the stupidity works against it. Yes, it is a stupid premise, but there are moments where the characters are treating it as such. Airplane worked because the characters took it seriously, it doesn’t seem like they are in this. The death of Mayflower (a character, not the ship populated by colonists whose ancestors would then complain about immigration) in particular goes on way too long due to the characters not taking it seriously. They make jokes, insult the soon-to-be dying, and just generally seem like they’re having fun.
Another downside is that some of the side characters are seriously one-dimensional. This really hurts the death scenes that take place in the montage because you’re not entirely sure who these people are. There is also an issue of “how exactly is the sloth hiding all these bodies?” I’m more forgiving of certain things in films like this. I’ll allow certain cheap looks or plot mistakes purely because it’s not meant to be taken seriously, that being said, the montage massacre doesn’t really acknowledge the sheer amount of deaths. You get a few “where the fuck is [character]?” messages but there’s no fear or consequences. Nobody is panicking about the missing characters. This is particularly strange as one of the main plot points is a leadership vote going on, so you’d think if a character is obsessed with making sure they get all the votes possible, they’d notice if their friends suddenly went missing.
Now onto the upside; it’s very fun. You may be dumbfounded, but you won’t be bored. I mentioned how underwhelming some of the side characters are, but the ones we do get a decent look at are amazing. I do have to commend how characters are introduced: by their social media splash pages, so you INSTANTLY know everybody’s personalities. It’s unsubtle as hell, but it suits the film style so it doesn’t look out of place. It would help if we were given their real names instead of user names, so we know how to actually refer to these people. But I do appreciate how smart the splash page stuff is. It’s fun, it’s inventive, and it suits the social media age that we’re now living in.
I also appreciate how real the sloth looks. I can’t say for certain but it looks like it was mostly in camera effects, so puppetry/animatronics instead of post-production CGI. It looks kind of goofy, but it does work. The sloth attacks have some actual weight to them and feel real. There are moments where it’s kind of unsloth-like in its movements, but it mostly just looks right. I also appreciate how it is a new idea rather than just another f*cking sequel or reboot. It also closes the film in a way that is definitive so it doesn’t NEED a sequel, but keeps it open-ended enough that there COULD be one, maybe sloths in space? Doing things that astronauts do (but doing it real slowly because they’re sloths).
Another highlight; is the performances. It is a weirdly British cast for a concept that is SO American, but at no point do their accents fail. To the point where I was going to point out how Tiff Stevenson is far too English to be in such an American film, then looked into the cast and turns out pretty much all of the leads are English. The best performer is without a doubt Bianca Beckles-Rose, who doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page at the time of writing. I can tell her performance is good because the character is essentially a stoner, and they can sometimes be the most annoying characters in horror movies because how they’re only used for stupidity. Beckles-Rose injects Zenny with enough realism that she feels like a fully fleshed-out character. This is the only thing I’ve seen her in but I would love to see her lead a rom-com or YA action franchise. I loved every single second she was on screen and I’m looking forward to see what she does next.
So in summary; watch this if you’ve got Paramount+, it’s worth a stream, and I think originality should always be rewarded. You might not think of it as the best film of the year, but if you get some friends around, get some drinks and some pizzas in, and watch it whilst being fully aware of how ridiculous it is, you’ll have a good time.
Quick Synopsis: Mike (Josh Hutcherson) gets a job as a night security guard at an abandoned family entertainment centre with animals are that animatronic, sociopathic, hydromatic, why they’re greased lightning! Wait, not greased lightning, murderers, I’m always getting those two mixed up.
Should start this review of Five Nights At Freddy’s (FNAF, pronounced Fon-arf) pointing out that I really don’t give a shit about youtube culture. I watch Dead Meat and History Buffs etc, but the whole “hey guys, it’s your boy here” bullshit accompanied by atrocious camera cuts, overacting reactions to everything like “So I was playing Mario and OMG you guys, OMG you guys, I found a coin”. As such, I’m not really a part of what seemed to be a huge selling point for this movie; that it featured popular YouTubers. It is based on a famous franchise, but when I had conversations with the intended target audience the things they mentioned were the potential cameos. I’m glad that they didn’t cast them as main characters, but the fact that cameos are the main features of a film is a bad sign.
I’ll admit, I’m not that familiar with the franchise, but that shouldn’t matter. I’ve seen some comments about the negative review FNAF has got, basically saying “A lot of the negative reviews are from people who haven’t played the games”. Well, yeah. It has to be good enough to stand up on its own merits, it’s not a sequel, it’s a separate iteration, and the games should be irrelevant. You shouldn’t need to be a fan of the games to enjoy this film.
Thankfully, it’s a pretty easy film to follow, there are no moments where you feel you had to be a fan of the franchise to understand what was going on. There’s no doubt that it would improve things, though. Because there’s still a level of excitement for seeing characters and references on the big screen. I’m assuming that’s why fans of the game like the film anyway, as there’s not really anything else going on. It’s a horror movie without gore, without suspense, and without scares. The performances are good though, mostly. There’s one moment where Josh Hutcherson is a little too OTT and it feels like he’s “acting” rather than being, but when he’s a scared and withdrawn adult haunted by his demons, he nails it. Matthew Lillard is great as always, but his being seemingly cast as a throw-away character almost feels like a spoiler as to who he really is. Piper Rubio outshines all of them though. She’s only 8 years old but never misses a beat, even when she has to express some relatively complex concepts. I haven’t seen a child perform this well since McKenna Grace in Gifted. Her relationship with her brother, and her need for social acceptance, is a core part of the narrative of FNAF. The moments where it dwells on that are the strongest parts of the film (that and the animatronic work which is sublime).
A big issue is that you’re constantly reminded of better films. Willy’s Wonderland explored similar concepts a few years ago, so whilst watching FNAF my brain was like a politician who just voted to criminalise homosexuality, I just couldn’t stop thinking about Willy. I’m not sure if that joke works outside of the UK as I’m not certain “willy” is slang for penis in the US etc, but I’m sure now that I’ve explained the joke, that’s only made it funnier.
Like I said, when it’s not a horror movie, when it’s a family drama dealing with loss, that’s when it’s at its best. The horror aspects just don’t work. Probably because of the rating, it’s incredibly bloodless, with obvious camera cutaways obscuring what you want to see. This would be fine if there was an air of menace, but there’s not. The lack of menace isn’t helped by how it feels too written, there’s no grounding it in reality. I don’t mean in terms of “well this would never happen, robots wouldn’t be that sophisticated”, I mean it in a “these characters only exist in this film”, you don’t get the feeling anything has happened before the film starts. Put it this way; if you lived in a small town and there was a family restaurant that has been abandoned for years, you’d notice wouldn’t you? And if a bunch of kids went missing and the owner of the restaurant was accused, you’d notice, wouldn’t you? And if the owner of that restaurant then got a government job helping unemployed people back to work, that would be a story, wouldn’t it? But the main character has never heard of the restaurant before he starts working there, isn’t aware of children being kidnapped, and didn’t link it to his brothers’ disappearance. He also doesn’t seem to have done anything about the dead bodies that pile up, one of which is in his house and is a woman he’s had an intense legal battle with. But nope, nothing indicating he’s been accused of killing her, no indication about what he did with the body, we didn’t see the aftermath, so there is no aftermath. It’s lazy, and it’s an issue that could be easily dealt with if the screenwriters were paying attention. But who needs rewrites, right?
Quick Synopsis: Bullshit medical charlatans con cancer patients out of their life savings, one of whom is the Jigsaw killer, smart move.
I have a complicated history with the Saw franchise (see my review for Spiral), I have all of them on Blu-ray except for Jigsaw which I have on DVD, I’ve seen 4 of them at the cinema, and I even liveblogged the (at the time) complete franchise a few years ago for Halloween. Yet if you were to ask me what my favourite 50 horror films are, outside of possibly the first one I don’t think any of them would feature. If I was to mention some of my least favourite moments in cinema, and another list of my favourite moments, the Saw franchise would feature a lot more in the first list than the second. It’s a franchise of wasted potential. I’ve insulted them a lot, but if I was asked to write and make a new film in any horror franchise, it would definitely be a Saw one.
Saw X (pronounced how a person from Boston would say “socks”) is probably the best Saw film yet. By which I don’t mean the most enjoyable, or with the best deaths/motives etc. I mean it’s the one that feels the most mature. When it comes to horror movies, people tend to use “mature” as a shortcut for “lots of blood, swearing, and nudity”, but to me, true maturity is in restraint (not restraints, that’s a different kind of mature content). It’s in trusting that the audience is with you, so you don’t need to resort to constant deaths and shock. I know a lot of people watch this specifically for the traps, but for people who are willing to wait and show a little patience, it’s the most rewarding one yet.
Saw X is also helped by how independent it is from the other entries in the franchise. Amanda Young being in it does mean that if you’ve watched the first three then you’d have a better understanding, but I don’t think it’s essential. It provides you with the very basic necessary details so even newcomers won’t be lost. The post-credits scene probably does require some background knowledge, but in a post-credits that’s allowed.
Now onto the bad; the ending is somewhat underwhelming in terms of catharsis. Saw has never decided to not take an opportunity to be cruel to those it feels deserve it (and in the case of Joyce in Saw 3D, those who don’t deserve it), so the fact that we are given one of the most despicable humans in cinema history should mean we are given a hugely satisfying scene, but it never really comes. If anybody deserves to be put through hell it’s some of the characters in this, but we’re denied it for some reason.
It’s also not helped by how utterly pointless it feels. There’s a moment where John Kramers’s life is in danger, yet we’ve seen him die in another film so we know he survives. This entry doesn’t add to the mythos, doesn’t change anything we thought was true etc. It just exists, like it was written without the knowledge of what’s to come. It feels like it’s just plugging in gaps which weren’t there to begin with. It feels more like a cheap comic book that would be released between movies than an actual movie which is a shame. It also has the same problem most of these have had; it feels very insular. You don’t get the feeling that this is a world in the grips of a mysterious serial killer. There are almost no indication that Jigsaw is being hunted by the police, no moments where he has to escape possible prosecution etc.
Really, this whole franchise was f*cked by the decision to kill John Kramer so decisively in the third film, it’s been spinning its wheels since then and it knows it. This brings me to my next point; they don’t really refer to him as Jigsaw that much in this. They do refer to him as Kramer quite a lot, and as someone who has been watching a lot of Seinfeld lately, it’s difficult to get past.
Quick Synopsis: When a group of friends discovers how to conjure spirits by using an embalmed hand, they become hooked on the new thrill — until one of them unleashes terrifying supernatural forces.
Talk To Me has a rotten tomatoes score of 95%, and the lone negative user review on Metacritic is from someone complaining about how it’s “too woke” and not representative of current American racial demographics. This is a stupid criticism of a film that’s set in Australia.
So other than that dickhead, most reviews are highly positive from both critics and audiences. But I have to say; I don’t get it. I mean, it’s good. Everybody involved is clearly talented, especially Sophie Wilde as the lead Mia (side note; Mia is the name of my cat. So every time someone said “Mia! No!” my brain automatically added “stop pissing there, go outside”). Joe Bird comes off as a multiverse version of Barry Keoghan, and I mean that in a positive way. The Philippou Brothers (best known as RackaRacka on youtube) are obviously talented directors. It’s not that I didn’t like the film; I just felt it could and should have been a lot better.
The gap between the potential and the reality is huge. I can’t exactly pinpoint why. I think part of it is there are some scenes that feel like filler. The first two parties where the characters interact with the hand (and then it gets out of……hand in the second party) could have been combined into one. There also could have been more done with the guy from the opening; who appears in the opening scene, gets stabbed by his brother, and then is completely absent until one scene later on where he provides information that could have come from anyone, then disappears again. If you removed him from it then the only noticeable hole in the script would be that you don’t have an opening.
I also feel the possession scenes could have been done better. The characters describe it as almost euphoric, like it’s akin to certain drugs. But the film doesn’t really let us FEEL that. If you turn the sound off and watch it, you’d have no idea that the characters are experiencing an intense positive rush.
It’s a shame as with a few tweaks this could have been among my favourite films of the year. But I sense that everything could have been better. This must have been how Metallica fans felt after listening to St. Anger
Quick synopsis: Trapped on an isolated farm, Pearl must tend to her ailing father under the watch of her mother. Lusting for the glamorous life she’s seen in movies, Pearl’s temptations and repressions collide and she starts killing people, one of which she leaves near the entrance of her house, literally sending her to the Pearl-ey gates.
I actually wasn’t a fan of X, it just didn’t vibe with me. So I went into this with slight apprehension, worried that I might end up being bored very early on. The good news is, I didn’t dislike it for a long time of it. The downside, the longer Pearl went on, the less love I had for it. I loved the stylistic choices, and the performances are incredible. I just, I dunno, at some point I just stopped caring. Once I got past the Wizard Of Oz feel, I wasn’t that engrossed by it. It’s not helped that I didn’t like any of the characters. The titular Pearl is a sociopath, her mother is unbearably cruel, and the projectionist seems a little too date-rapey. Also, they’re not quite despicable enough to be villains. Pearl is driven mainly by her ambition and desires to leave her farm (which anybody who has seen X will know she never does), Pearls’ mother recognises that Pearl is capable of great evil, so she is trying to protect the world from her. So you can’t really truly despise them either. In a film full of colours, all the characters are too morally grey to feel too strongly about.
I think I need to watch more Ti West, as it is possible I just don’t like his writing style. Others do, and I can see why. He writes like a 70s horror writer, so you know that no matter what, it won’t be stupid, and it will take its time. His stuff mainly seems to be very slow burns, which normally I like, but I feel it didn’t really lead to much this time. It’s like watching a car slowly roll down a hill, you expect it to crash at the end, but instead, it just slows down gradually and comes to a stop.
Everybody involved is obviously talented, Mia Goth gives an incredible performance, one scene, in particular, is a master class in acting where she just gives an unbroken monologue to her friend. Tandi Wright is also great as the mother of Pearl, I wouldn’t trade her for another girl. That’s a reference to this song btw, I haven’t just decided on a really weird sentence structure.
Matthew Sunderland gives a weirdly good performance considering his character can’t move, but his eye work is tremendous. There is a definite love for the art here, the fact that Ti West, when he needed an illicit film, didn’t just invent one, or find a random one, he actually showed A Free Ride, which is seen as the earliest American porn movie that is still available for viewing today. It’s obvious he knows his shit, it’s just not for me.
If this was a short film, I’d have loved it. If it actually did more with the concept than the “we have an idea”, I’d have liked it. But as a feature? For a film which features genuine pornography, there’s surprisingly little meat. Also, it’s weird this received a US cinema release in September last year, and a Blu-ray/DVD release in November, yet didn’t come out here until March. Wtf is up with that?
Quick synopsis: People from Woodsboro get stabbed, this time in New York
I am a massive fan of the Scream franchise (despite only managing to catch one of them at the cinema), so a new one is always welcome. They don’t just work as slasher horrors, but also as murder mysteries, you watch them and look for clues to work out who the killers is, and why. The duel genre nature of the franchise is one I’ve always been a fan of, so I was looking forward to this. Scream movies have always started well, and have always been unexpected. The first one killed off Drew Barrymore, the third one killed off returning character Cotton Weary, the fourth was….well it was very weird, the fifth one started with the person who was attacked surviving, and this? This started with someone being brutally murdered, and the killer unmasking himself. It’s a shockingly different way to start the film off, and I love it. I’ll say this now, it’s genius. It subverts expectations twice, and both times it blew my mind and got me very excited.
The ending? Not so much. Scream 3 gets a lot of shit for the killer reveal, but it was still a lot better than this. In the third one, there was still some ambiguity about who the killer could be and what their motives were, we were presented with numerous possibilities, but enough clues so that we could possibly figure it out (but maybe not the “why”). Scream VI does the opposite, it’s blindingly obvious who the killers are. When you have a character say they “had” a son, and also have them talk about swearing revenge on those who hurt his family, it’s not difficult to figure out that they’re the killer, and the motive. Related to this, if a character in a slasher movie dies off-screen and you don’t see the body properly, they didn’t die. This is incredibly obvious to everybody who has seen a movie before. It’s an incredibly disappointing reveal, even more so because it starts wonderfully.
The rest of Scream VI is fun to watch, well, as fun as watching people get brutally murdered can be. The kills are disgustingly brutal, it gets really specific with where the knife goes. Someone being stabbed directly in the throat will always be a manner of murder that stands out more than just stabs in the back or chest. That being said, there is a scene where someone gets stabbed in the chest repeatedly and the sheer violence of it is shocking, so there is a way to do something as simple as that in a way that makes it stand out.
Usually, “[killer name] in Big City” is a sign a horror franchise has gone off the rails, second only to “in space” as a sign that the movie is going to be shit. I actually like the way they use the location here. New York is loud, so it is conceivable that somebody can be stabbed in an alleyway and nobody will notice. I will respect this for not doing the obvious scenes in Times Square etc. It is in New York, but it’s not a tour of the landmarks. Instead, it is a way to introduce different horror set pieces, the scene on the subway system is incredible, although it was ruined in the previews (as was the scene in the bodega). There are moments where it does get a bit too “You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us!” Spider-Man-like.
The big story leading up to the release was the absence of Neve Campbell, who refused to make an appearance due to Paramount deciding not to pay her enough because they’re bastards. I have to be honest though, I’m not sure what she would have done in this. There’s not really a Sidney Prescott-shaped hole in this story. If there’s a sequel then there will have to be a discussion about bringing her back, but the story they’re telling here? She would have seemed superfluous. They do explain her absence, and it’s a way that makes sense. Without Neve, Scream VI focuses more on the characters introduced in last year’s Scream. The only legacy character to return is Gale Weathers, but Courtney Cox only appears in roughly 4 scenes. Her character seems to have reverted to her Scream 1 persona, in a character development that doesn’t make much sense. Her scenes do feature a nice reference to how she and Ghostface have never really spoken much, but aside from that, Gale’s scenes seem a bit superfluous.
Not quite established enough to be a legacy character, but also returning from this is Hayden Panettiere’s Kirby Reed, who was last seen (and introduced) in Scream 4,or to give it proper (a.k.a, stupid) title: Scre4m (pronounced Screfourm, obviously). It is nice to see her back, not just in this franchise, but in Hollywood in general, with this being Hayden’s first film appearance since Custody in 2016. Kirby’s character arc is a great examination of how characters react to events like this, although I would like to see her explored more in the future.
The rest of the cast is great too, Melissa Barrera keeps her upward trajectory, but I feel this does slightly stall the momentum Jenna Ortega is on from Wednesday. Not due to the quality of the script, but there are moments near the start where her performance seems a little bit weak. Not “OMG this is terrible” level, but it feels like she’s operating at a slightly lower level than everybody else. In a film full of Lennon and McCartney, she’s a George Harrison; still very good, but overshadowed.
So in summary; go see this. It’s very good, although you may get a headache from how many times the “How did they survive that?” alarm in your head goes off.
Quick Synopsis: In the late 1990s, a video archivist unearths a series of sinister pirate broadcasts and becomes obsessed with uncovering the conspiracy behind them.
To start, I should clarify the title, it refers to when someone hijacks a television or radio signal to broadcast something. So when I refer to an intrusion, that’s what I mean. For a real life instance of it, look up the Max Headroom incident. I mentioned that to both explain the concept of signal intrusions, and also to explain the “Max Headf*ck” excerpt I used. It wasn’t just me being crude, it was actually a super pretentious reference.
That’s not better is it?
These reviews are personal opinion. They always have been, and I’ve made no attempt to hide or deny that. That’s why some films which aren’t technically great get worse reviews than others. It’s why stuff like Table 19 (Rotten Tomatoes Score: 26%) receives a more positive review than Don’t Breathe (Rotten Tomatoes: 88%). There are some films which I just don’t gel with. Movies are all about preference, there’s no point in me recommending a film to someone if I know they won’t like it, just because “it’s directed really well”. I say all of that to preface this: there are some people who absolutely love this film and consider it one of the best horror films of the year, but I’m not among those people.
I get what the film is going for, and it has moments of true greatness. Everybody involved is obviously incredibly talented, it does a lot of things better than most horror films. I particularly like how it displays the film title on colour bars on-screen within the film. I don’t know why but I like when films make the title card exist within the film itself. I’m also a fan of how it used sound, particularly in the intrusions themselves, where there’s almost a wall of sound that the audience is banging its head against. The intrusions themselves are genuinely creepy and disturbing, which is always good. This film also creates a really compelling story and mystery that you want to find out.
That’s where it let me down. It is so concerned with being mysterious and asking questions, that it doesn’t answer those questions. You can get away with that if it’s a weird and esoteric film, but this is mostly normal (with the exception of intrusions). If it went into weirdness more then the lack of a cohesive narrative would have been acceptable. I’ll clarify what I mean by “lack of cohesive narrative”, it’s possible to describe this plot in a way that makes sense, but it involves missing out on a lot of the details. Details like “who made that phone call?”, “Where did that character go?” etc. So the synopsis makes sense, but the plot does not. I know some people like mystery, and I do at times, but not when it’s like this. Mysteries should enhance a film, not be used as an excuse to not answer questions. I recently watched the rerelease of the classic John Carpenter version of The Thing. That ends with an unanswered question: are both the characters still human? That’s a question that people have discussed for years. But if the film started with that question, and had a spooky voice stop the characters from making progress in answering it, then it would be annoying.
It’s not helped by how reminiscent it is of last year’s Censor. It’s not close enough that it feels like the same movie, but it is close enough that comparisons are inevitable. It’s a bit like someone took the script of Censor, played Chinese Whispers with it, and then made a film of the resultant script. It’s bad luck as I think they were developed around the same time, so there’s no way they influenced each other, it’s just bad timing on my part to have seen that first. I do feel bad about comparing the two, but I think part of that is due to how disappointed I am with this film in general. I love the unique idea of it, and the performances are all fantastic. Harry Shum Jr will get the plaudits, and rightfully so, but I feel you can’t ignore how talented Kelley Mack and Jennifer Jelsema are when they’re on screen. Mack, in particular, has a very bright future if she can pull off more performances like this. That’s what this film is to me, a possible footnote in a future favourite film. Jacob Gentry directs it wonderfully, and his choice of jazz music for a lot of it instead of a more traditional horror movie score is inspired.
If you’re a fan of more esoteric, dreamlike cinema, then you’ll appreciate this. If you prefer more straightforward watching, then I’d say avoid this as you’ll find it frustrating.
Time changes a film. Despite the fact I have only watched it once, my opinions on IT: Chapter 2 are very different now than they are when I left the cinema after seeing it. Now I’ve had time for the mistakes of that film to bounce around my head a bit more, the inconsistencies in plotting have made themselves known. I have the opposite feeling with this film, I came out thinking “that was okay”, and if I reviewed it immediately, or even that day, this review would mostly be about how disappointed I was with it, how I’m worried Peele has slightly lost it and the lack of a big twist and that special “something” let it down, that the film veered off into strange diversions that just slowed the plot down.
But I just couldn’t forget about certain parts of this film, and then I realised certain things. My brain recognised thematic continuity, it realised the diversions weren’t really diversions, they were character explanations that said a lot about humanity and how they exploit things for entertainment purposes. It’s ironic that this film is about being watched, as it seems to be spending its entire runtime staring back, judging the audience for their participation in cruel acts. Once this film had time to breathe and spread itself through the recesses of my mind I realised this is actually genius. I’ve heard of a film being described as a slow burner, but “a week after you leave the cinema” is taking the piss a bit. A lot of people won’t like that, you don’t want to have to sit there and analyze a film to enjoy it. You shouldn’t have to delve deep into the themes to enjoy a film, but I think you do for this. An alien invasion film should be mass-market, and though Peele’s previous work has been highbrow, they’ve also been instantly accessible in a way that I’m not entirely sure this is.
I mean, it makes sense as a film, but if you watch it and don’t think about it, then it’s just going to be “okay”, if anything it’s going to seem too simple. It’s only when you think about it that the complexities reveal themselves. It’s kind of frustrating that that’s the case because it means it’s hard to defend this film without sounding like an obnoxious prick “no no, that was there because it’s about how that animal was being watched by a room full of people showing their teeth and it interpreted it as a violent gesture and lashed out. This ties into the main themes because humans feel they can control things when they can’t, they forget basic animal instincts and get cocky which leads to their destruction, it led to the deaths on set, and to the mass deaths in the theme park, it’s ALL CONNECTED”.
It’s a shame as this VERY smart and deserves plaudits. It looks fantastic, there’s a lot tension when there needs to be, and the performances are amazing. I do highly recommend this, but there is a chance you just won’t like. It’s one of those “1 or 5 star” films, I don’t think there’s an in between. But I’d rather that than a “meh” film.
Quick Synopsis: An ageing film star (Veronica, played by Alice Krige) retreats to the Scottish countryside with her nurse to recover from surgery. While there, mysterious forces of revenge emerge from the land where witches were burned.
I am aware I have huge gaps in my pop culture knowledge, so forgive my ignorance when I ask this question: is Alice Krige a big deal? Because after watching this, it feels like she should be. She carries herself brilliantly in this. If anyone is looking to remake Sunset Boulevard, you’d be hard-pushed to find someone to step into Gloria Swanson’s shoes than Krige. But also, don’t remake Sunset Boulevard you dicks. Her performance is a real highlight in this, it feels slightly exaggerated, but only because the character is a fading actress, so her whole personality is exaggerated. If she was too “real” and grounded you wouldn’t have that “she used to be a star” feeling, and if she was TOO exaggerated she wouldn’t feel real, and some of the moments would come off more comedic than creepy.
The supporting cast all have their chance to shine, although you sometimes wish some of them were in it a bit more. It’s only 95 minutes long and I feel another 10 minutes or so might have helped it. There are glimpses that Malcolm McDowell’s character is highly regarded, but if the film had more time then we would have had a better glimpse of how famous he is in this universe. Is he a “known in Britain” actor, is he a “known by film buffs” actor, or is he a “respected and known by the world” actor? If we knew more about that, we would know more about the influence he had on Veronica’s life and it would help to flesh out the story. He is on verge of knighthood, but is it a “and now you’re put out to pasture” one?
I feel like “Post #metoo horror” is now a genre. In the last few years, there has been a definite increase in female-created horror films about women fighting back against male oppression and patriarchal power structures. I don’t know enough to judge whether there’s been an increase in those stories being made, or whether the ones being made now have more eyes on them, either way, stuff like this is very important to see. But since it is a delicate subject, it can be tricky to pull off well without seeming like it’s retreading old ground. There are moments where this does dip into the cliche, particularly with some of the visuals, and “this area is where witches were punished” is used a lot, to the point where it feels like it’s replaced “ancient Indian burial ground” as a horror trope. It does take it into an interesting direction though. It’s not enough that “bad shit went down here”, it’s not a therapy retreat where the people there praise the earth as being good for your health “because of all the ashes from women who were burnt as witches”, so its not enough that bad stuff happened, it’s the commercialisation of those awful events. Burning women wasn’t enough, they’re now exploiting their memories and deaths. It would be like if Dachau sold foundation powder mixed in with ashes from the rooms. It’s dark, horrific when you think about it, yet not entirely surprising. It does feel like that moment is there to influence the character, it doesn’t seem to go as deep into the notion of systematic oppression as it should.
This is the feature directorial debut of Charlotte Colbert, who also wrote it. She has a bright future in horror. Her main background is in photography and multi-media sculptures, and her knowledge of photography comes through in some of the ways the film is shot. She approaches them in a way that tells you the story with the way everything is framed, you could watch this with the sound off and still get a pretty solid idea of what is happening, based solely on the choices of shots used. Of particular note is when Veronica arrives at the lodge. Before that, you think it’s going to be a film about isolation and her losing her mind with nobody near her. So when she opens the door and is met with a room full of people you’re just as shocked as she is. Then there are a lot of really claustrophobic shots of everybody approaching her, it does a great job of putting you in her shoes.
Just because you can watch it in silence, doesn’t mean you should. Clint Mansell does a fantastic score, as he normally does. And the sound design is pretty fun throughout, there’s a moment where someone’s hand starts burning, and the sound is weirdly wonderful, it’s almost crackling, as if the world itself is coming apart.
That leads to the downside though, the film is very stop-start, it doesn’t keep momentum well at all. The fire incident, for example, doesn’t really have a narrative follow-up. The narrative is where Colbert’s inexperience as a writer shows. It tries to do much, and sometimes feels like it lacks identity. It has a lot to say, and I feel that if it tried to say less, it could end up saying more. There’s enough material here for three films, but now Colbert has put them all in the same film, it will make it harder for her to explore those themes again without it feeling like she’s retreading old ground.
In summary: a noble effort, and one with a lot to say. It’s definitely worth watching if you can, but you do feel it’s slightly on the cusp of something much better than it is.
Troubled Productions 