Category Archives: slasher

1970s, 1978, Grade, Horror, Review, review-movie, S+, slasher, Thriller, Year

Film Review: Halloween – 1978

March 19, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	John Carpenter
Principal Cast	Jaime Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode Donald Pleasence as Dr.Sam Loomis Nick Castle as Michael Myers Will Sandin as young Michael Myers P.J. Soles as Lynda Nancy Kyes as Annie
Release Date	1978
Language(s)	English
Running Time	91 minutes
Rating	Click to go to Review TLDR/Summary

The title sequence to Halloween is a work of art in itself. The iconic theme song plays getting the audience uncomfortable and entranced at the same time as the camera zooms in slowly towards an eerily lit jack-o-lantern. The camera seemingly goes into the void within the pumpkin before the setting and date are revealed.

John Carpenter’s iconic Halloween theme song plays the as camera zooms in slowly on a jack-o-lantern whose inner light seems to be flickering menacingly, complimenting the unsettling music which feels like something out of one of Argento’s giallo movies. Eventually the light from the pumpkin fades and the screen blacks. The menacing theme transforms into a Halloween mantra being collectively chanted by children as on-screen text indicates the setting is Haddonfield, Illinois and the date is Halloween, 1963. The screen blacks once again before the camera seemingly moves left, out from the darkness of the title screen to a view of a typical suburban house.

The camera moves left from the darkness and opens on the Myers house.

The camera moves forward and it becomes apparent that we’re in a point of view shot – the subject of whom is yet to be revealed. We move towards the house where we see a young man and women engaging in amorous activity. As the two move around the house in their playful flirtations, the young man picks up a clown mask. All the while the subject of the camera, the point of view by which we’re experiencing the scene, darts around from window to window to keep an eye on the two before they eventually make their way to the woman’s bedroom . When the lights go off in the bedroom, the camera’s subject runs from the front of the house to the back of the house, picks up a knife, and waits for the boyfriend to leave the house before going upstairs to where the girlfriend resides. At the same time, the soundscape which had consisted of only diegetic noises – the call of birds and the sound of footsteps – gives way to another distressing Carpenter track which creates a feeling of distress – is this what the camera’s subject hears or is this music coming from elsewhere?

It’s at this point the subject’s hand reaches out to grab a clown mask on the floor putting it on over their face, thereby obscuring both their own face and the camera’s view in a shroud of darkness. From this newly adorned “vantage” point, the subject walks towards the unsuspecting victim-to-be who remains in the nude. She turns and looks at the intruder exclaiming, “Michael” before being brutally stabbed to death. The camera’s subject, Michael (Will Sandin) as we know now, takes more visual pleasure in watching the knife glide through the air, penetrating and coming out, than he does in watching the damage being done to the body. He looks at the lifeless body for a moment, as if trying to process what has happened, before going downstairs and leaving the house from the front door where two adults, make his way to him and remove his mask.

Point of view changes and the camera looks at Michael, now revealed to be a young child in a clown costume holding a bloody knife. His face seems untroubled given that he’s just murdered his sister. Horrific doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the revelation that such violence could happen in a safe environment, let alone by a child. Echoing this sentiment, the camera slowly cranes away from the scene of domestic terror both giving the audience time to process what’s happened while letting the impact of Michael’s brutality be felt visually as an inexplicable shock that can’t be contained.

In under 7 minutes, Carpenter’s masterpiece delivers not only one of the best title card sequences in cinema but also one of the greatest opening scenes. Both movements serve as thematic calling cards for the movie while blending into one another, setting the groundwork for what’s to come both at the level of Halloween and at the level of the slasher genre. A journey through the “mind” of “Halloween” as we traverse from the jack-o-lantern’s inner darkness to the point of view of Michael, tying his subjectivity with both the holiday and the force of darkness itself. The location – a suburban house- and Michael’s geographical route- going from the front of the house to the back – makes it apparent that the supposed protection of the suburbs is unable to contain deviancy which will always find a way in. The intimate relationship sex and violence that serves as the foundation for all slashers is enforced by the chronology of events – Michael’s sister has sex and is then murderdered immediately after- the phallic nature of the stabbing itself – two types of penetration- and the transference of the mask – lover turned into murderer. Finally and most importantly, from start to finish, the tension never lets up. We start uneasy because of the music and end completely shocked by the events that transpire – perfectly primed for what’s to come.

The main story picks up 15 years later in Haddonfield on Halloween once again, this time on a young woman, Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis). Unlike our introduction to Michael, our introduction to Laurie is one from a distance, from a more objective neutral position. We observe her leaving her house, talking to her father, calmly walking the streets before running into one of the neighborhood kids, Tommy Doyle (Brian Andrews). As she goes through her daily pattern we learn that she’s a down-to-earth nerdy type with a keen sense of perception and end up getting in her corner empathizing with her. However, our growing fondness of her is matched by a parallel sense of dread, as we’re shown early on that an recently escaped Michael (Nick Castle) has taken notice of her and her friends. It’s the perfect set-up.

First we see the monstrosity of the villain whose point of view is given a special privilege by being the first vantage point by which we experience the movie. It’s shot as though its one cut, meaning we get to see every detail he sees. Despite the fact that we experience his subjectivity so intimately we are unable to understand it – why does Michael kill his sister on this night in this way? Then we see the domesticity of the hero whose point of view is framed more objectively. However, we’re able to understand her reasons for action and her motivations. It’s a conundrum in comprehension as the point of view we should be more intimate with-Michael’s- is the one that escapes us, demonstrating the imperceptibility of evil and the way it escapes understanding. By tying both these character introductions in the same suburban environment, Carpenter is able to set their journeys up in parallel, as though two sides of the same coin – the normal domestic order and the sinister chaotic underbelly inherent within.

This schema becomes more nuanced with the inclusion of the movie’s deuteragonist, Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence), who acted as Michael’s psychiatrist after the latter’s initial murder and is now obsessed with tracking him, Michael, down after his escape to prevent more violence. He spends the majority of the movie with law enforcement and can therefore be seen like Laurie, as an extension of a normal “acceptable” order. Thus the stage is set – a metaphysical battle in suburbia – between an unspeakable force of evil that can’t be controlled and the agents of “good” that desperately try to keep the peace by maintaining order. The movie reveals that the domains of safety we’ve constructed – homes, adult defenders, even institutions are unable to provide real security against evil.

Tommy (Brian Andrews) leaves Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis).

Even the frame isn’t safe from Michael’s influence as he threatens to take control of any shot at any point. There are multiple moments in the movie where Michael appears for just a moment, usually as a kind of taunt to Laurie, before disappearing back into the background. He will only be seen when he wants. There are other moments where an objective shot of Laurie and/or her friends lingers for just a few moments longer than usual before Michael shows up in it, thereby transforming the shot into a point of view complete with the sound of his breathing invading the soundscape. Whenever any of the discordant themes play, our eyes immediately start looking at the screen alert that Michael is present. Passing cars go from everyday neighbors to a serial killer in the wait. Every bush goes from innocuous to a possible hiding spot where one will meet their demise. This anxiety over Michael’s presence is exacerbated by the way cinematographer Dean Cundey lights scenes, often times allowing only just enough light to see our victims’ faces and their immediate surroundings. When Michael eventually comes out it feels mythical, like he’s literally forming from the darkness – a callback to the transition from the title sequence to the opening which showed his point of view emerging from the blackness of the screen.

Combined with his physical appearance, it’s no wonder that Michael is so terrifying. His iconic white mask gives his presence an incomprehensibility that terrorizes by evoking the image of a human while being so radically anti-human, thereby causing an uncanny valley that’s disturbs us ^[1]Lay, S. (2021, April 8). Uncanny valley: why we find human-like robots and dolls so creepy. The Conversation. … Continue reading This effect is amplified because we know under the mask is a “human”, so our struggle at reconciling his existence with our ideas of normalcy is made all the more disturbing. In many ways he feels similar to the xenomorph from Alien – the corporealization of violence qua sexuality- a predator made from aspects of humanity taken to extremes . Given the introduction, we know the mask warps perspective shrouding everything in a darkness. His obsession with the mask thus cements his association as a harbinger of darkness. Thus, the movie transforms Michael into the truest form of the Boogeyman – he has the power to dominate the movie at any point, inflict violence on anyone, and is imperceptible. Transformed from a person into a force truly evil.

His presence only works because it’s positioned against the countervailing heroism of both Laurie and Dr.Loomis. From the very start Laurie demonstrates her intellectual capacity, demonstrated by the fact that only she seems aware of Michael at any point. Her perceptiveness gives her an edge up compared to her friends because she’s aware of the danger. Her wit and quick-thinking skills are utilized in ways that are intelligent, naturally line up with the plot, and don’t require some horrible exposition earlier on to set up. She’s one of the best models for the “final girl” archetype for a reason. Even in the moments where Laurie seems to be at her wits end she never loses her tenacity towards trying to solve the problem. Dr.Loomis, gives the movie a more cerebral philosophical side. As Michael’s former psychiatrist, he has a lot to say both about his former patient and the logistical problems that arise with trying to deal with genuine evil through normal social channels like the law or medicine. Pleasence manages to deliver the severity and dangers Michael poses in a way that grounds our seemingly supernatural antagonist in a very real setting. Some lines about Michael being pure evil could come off as melodramatic elsewhere, but here they feels as real and important as the everyday medical prescriptions we receive and follow. Without Pleasence’s delivery, Michael risks feeling too phantasmic and gimmicky. With his delivery, Michael becomes the Boogeyman incarnate.

Both characters are positioned as serious and resourceful. Both characters are positioned as being able to adapt to situations. Both characters are aware of Michael and what he can do. It’s precisely because the both of them are portrayed as heroes capable of saving the day that their subsequent inability to handle Michael’s reign of terror creates such a resounding sense of despair. If they can’t handle it, what hope is there for containing such evil?

It’s precisely because Halloween forces us to probe this question at every point – start to finish – that it has remained one of the greatest movies – horror or otherwise- from the date of its release. It takes the working parts of some of horrors best – the soundtrack from giallo, the camera movements from Black Christmas, the perversion from Psycho, and so on – and packs them into a tightly packed thriller that never lets up, constantly building up a palpable dread as it forces you to question how the characters will find a way out of the hellscape they find themselves trapped in. From the very start of the movie, we’re made aware of the stakes making every encounter feel unsafe. We’re left fully at the mercy of Carpenter, who relishes in teasing us with Michael’s appearance, making us almost beg for the violence to start so the tension can end. It’s no wonder then that Halloween has served as the archetype for the slasher-genre decades since inception.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Halloween is considered the best slasher for a reason and any fan of the horror genre owes it to themselves to watch the movie that pioneered/refined most of the tropes and camera techniques we’re familiar with today. The story of Michael Myers, the masked immortal Boogeyman, is timeless, violent, and genuinely frightening . From the iconic theme song to the brutality in each murder scene, it’s clear that Halloween is a cut above the rest in both presentation and execution. It’s plot might be simple, but Carpenter’s direction elevates it into a masterpiece that’s stayed scary since it first came out in 1978.
Rating	10/10
Grade	S+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

1970s, 1974, A+, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, slasher, Thriller, Year

Review: Black Christmas

March 19, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Bob Clark
Principal Cast	Olivia Hussey as Jess Margot Kidder as Barbara Keir Dullea as Peter Marian Waldman as Mrs.MacHenry John Saxon as Lt. Kenneth Fuller Douglas McGrath as Sergeant Nash
Release Date	1974
Language(s)	English
Running Time	98 minutes

If you’ve been keeping up with the site since the Halloween 2k19 Marathon (also known as when I first started this whole shindig), you’ll know I’m not the biggest fan of slasher movies. Growing up the only one I ever saw (and am a huge fan of) is John Carpenter’s Halloween. Thankfully, after taking a dive into the slasher cannon (Nightmare on Elm Street , Friday the 13th, Scream) , I’ve gotten fonder of them and wanted to catch up on the basics. After the mess that was Black Christmas (2019), I figured I’d kill two birds with one stone and watch the original Black Christmas, often hailed as one of the most important slashers from a technique standpoint. I went in curious and have come out a true believer. I’m happy to see that Black Christmas is not only my number one Christmas horror now (replacing Krampus) , but it deserves even more recognition and fandom than it currently gets.

From the moment the movie starts, you know something is wrong. The camera surveys a sorority house from the outside, like a voyeur. It’s made clear that we’re following the antagonist’s point-of-view through the beautiful and impressive at the time, first person shot. Just within the first few scenes, it’s clear there’s a very real danger waiting for the girls in the comfort of their own home. Soon after, the telephone rings as all the girls listen to the apparent ravings of some psycho-sexual pervert. As the night goes on, the girls are targeted one by one as they attempt to navigate the harrowing events they’re facing. It’s a setup that thrives because of its unsettling atmosphere. No gore. No awful jump scares. No absurd exposition. Every scare is well set-up, well executed, and well earned being viscerally jarring enough to shake you without disrupting the tension that’s building in the background. The movie dumps you straight into a state of anxiety and leaves you there from start to finish.

Unlike the 2019 sequel/remake , the original takes its time exploring women’s agency from smaller issues like being told in patronizing fashions how to be secure to larger issues like whether or not abortion is morally okay. The genius comes from how subtle the social commentary comes of. Nothing hits you over the head screaming “MAN BAD” or “WOMEN MOST OPPRESSED GROUP EVER”. Instead, the story generates its thematic discussion by juxtaposing the differences in the way agency is accorded to men versus women in similar circumstances. For example, when the girls initially put in their call for assistance they don’t get a real response until things start becoming more serious. Meanwhile, when an elder gentlemen literally SHOOTS a police officer, he gets a slap on the wrist. Moments like these are littered throughout to constantly highlight the hypocritical standards by which women are judged. Whenever one of the girls ends up getting killed, their murder often transitions into a joyous, everyday, playful kind of scene. It’s almost like an sick demonstration of how violence against women gets crowded out/erased and the way the technique consistently used makes that all the more apparent.

Now what pushes the movie over the top is the wide array of fleshed out and memorable characters at its disposal. Jess is our no-bullshit, cooperative protagonist who’s trying to live her own life and keep the peace. Barbara is the foul-mouthed , highly independent, deviant lifeblood of the sorority and has some of the best comedic moments in the movie. She takes the role of the traditional “sex-d” up male side-kick and makes it fully her own. Speaking of funny, Waldman absolutely knocked it out of the park as the house mother, Mrs. MacHenry. She’s the perfect blend of sardonic and fake sweet and watching her put on her airs is a delight. I was surprised at how much I was laughing in the first and second acts , but with characters this funny it’s not hard to tell why. What surprised me is how likable,diverse, and developed the male characters are. Sure, there are your generic domineering chauvinists like Sergeant Nash. However, there are also well-meaning people like Lt.Fuller, who outside of his thematically necessary blind spots, acts like a decent human being.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	If you love horror movies or are a big fan of the slasher genre and haven’t checked this gem of a movie out you’re doing yourself a disservice. Black Christmas blends together a compelling story, layers of mystery, memorable and likable characters, and ties them all together in a way that demonstrates the trials and horrors of women’s’ agency without being preachy or too on the nose.
Rating	10/10
Grade	A+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report.

Pages: 1 2 3

2010s, 2016, A, Grade, Horror, Review, review-movie, slasher, Thriller, Year

Review: Hush

February 4, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Mike Flanagan
Principal Cast	Kate Siegel as Maddie Young John Gallagher Jr. as The Assailant
Release Date	2016
Language(s)	English
Running Time	81 minutes

Hush tells the story of Maddie, a deaf author, suffering from a particularly grueling case of writers’ block. Given her condition, she doesn’t notice when a nameless intruder stakes his claim in her house, hell bent on torturing her until it’s no longer fun and then killing her after. Little does he know that Maddie’s not ready to give in and she’s more resourceful than she looks.

This is the first Mike Flanagan movie I ever watched and is the first of many reasons why I will watch anything he makes (As of writing this, I’m only missing The Haunting of Hill House). Typically when I watch a movie, I have anywhere from a few to a lot of “Why don’t they just…?” or “That doesn’t make sense and would never happen!” thoughts. That issue happens far less often in a Flanagan movie because he spends time justifying every decision and helping the audience understand exactly what all the outs are. This movie takes great pain to humor the audience’s “what-if” scenarios, in a way that’s both logistically and visually satisfying.

The movie does a great job of establishing each of the main characters as individuals and as a cat-and-mouse pair that’s trying to take each the other one out. Siegel is excellent as the lead and manages to convey a lot of intention and emotion through excellent facial expressions and physical acting. She’s not allowed to talk in a traditional sense, so watching her “show” her thoughts makes the experience feel more personal. Within a few scenes, I was invested in her well-being and found myself rooting for her to win. She uses her circumstances and wit to constantly navigate the situation, so the movie feels unique in how competent the “final girl” starts off. It’s a refreshing change of pace that keeps the movie feeling fresh in a genre that needs new life injected into it. John Gallagher Jr. is unnerving as the unnamed assailant. He’s a total psychopath and the movie hammers that point in more than once. Early on, when he realizes Maddie is deaf, he decides it would be more fun to torture her and go in for the kill, because he could prolong it like a game. The cold, calm, and composed way John fulfills his actions makes it clear that the events in the movie are nothing more than sick and twisted entertainment for his character. Side characters are used effectively. None of them linger for longer than they need to and they’re presented as capable in their own right. It makes them feel like they’re real parts of the world, as opposed to throw-away characters meant to change the pace up and add new sources of tension.

Maddie’s condition is used to great effect and Flanagan has found a way to give her a voice in spite of her lack of speaking. Things happen in the background, and Maddie doesn’t turn around to look at them. It’s typical horror movie bad decision 101, but in her case it’s understandable because she can’t hear the noises of the “things” happening around her. It creates excellent square sequences where we see menacing things happen around her and know that she’s walking straight into harrowing circumstances.

Though the movie is deftly crafted and well-paced, it doesn’t do anything spectacular to change up the genre or make its themes refined. There’s a simple underlying story of defying expectations and using them to your advantage, but it’s only ever explored in one way. It’s relatable but not complex. That’s not a bad thing, but given how well executed and conceived the mechanics and performances are, the same level of nuance in the themes or story would have elevated this movie into something really great. Don’t get it twisted, this is one of the best slashers of the past decade. I just thought it had way more potential.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Hush is one of the best slashers of the past decade and is sure to entertain anyone who has a hankering for a bad-ass “final” girl. Deaf author vs sadistic psychopath plays out with a lot more finesse and nuance than you’d expect.There are innovative communication strategies, well executed chase sequences, and tons of chilling harrowing moments. Best part? It’s only 81 minutes, so you don’t need to spend a long time waiting around.
Rating	9.0/10
Grade	A

Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2

2010s, 2019, A+, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, slasher, Thriller, Year

Film Review: Us – 2019

February 1, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Jordan Peele
Principal Cast	Lupita Nyong’o as Adelaide Wilson/Red Winston Duke as Gabe Wilson/Abraham Shahadi Wright Joseph as Zora Wilson/ Umbrae Evan Alex as Jason Wilson/ Pluto
Release Date	2019
Language(s)	English
Running Time	116 minutes
Report Card	Click to go to Review TLDR/Summary

Note: This review contains spoilers regarding the first 40 minutes of the film as opposed to the site’s usual benchmark of 10-20 minutes. The same effort towards sustaining the intrigue and momentum of the film, especially in its second and third acts, is maintained in this review, and all plot details revealed are just meant to be a springboard to discuss the scope of the work in better detail. Nothing discussed should undermine the “best” portions of the film or the many mysteries that keep the story engaging.

Thousands of tunnels exist underneath the Continental United States with no known purpose.

The film opens with a quote explaining that there are thousands of tunnels underneath the Continental United States. Many of these passages have no known purpose and are thought to be empty. The quote disappears and the film cuts to a television screen which the camera slowly pushes in towards.

First, a weather report for an incoming storm plays. The number “11” is featured in the frame in three separate locations – a sign of things to come. Second, an advert for “Hands Across America”, a fundraiser meant to generate funds for the homeless via donation and a public demonstration of persons linking their hands across the country, proceeds in detail. The channel is changed by the viewer, a young black girl, Adelaide (Madison Curry), whose reflection can be seen on the screen temporarily. Finally, an advert for the Santa Monica Beach proceeds. Thus, the tapestry of the film is established: a storm, the number “11”, a mirror reflection, a symbol of unification meant to help the disenfranchised, and a beach for persons to enjoy a vacation in.

This image of the beach is replaced by the beach proper. Adelaide and her parents attempt to enjoy the festivities present at the location. Her father wins her the “11th” numbered prize, a Michael Jackson Thriller t-shirt, and the family unit departs to explore the grounds.

Adelaide (Madison Curry) heads towards the hall of mirrors.

The trio splits apart and Adelaide finds herself roaming the grounds of the beach and its festivities by herself. She comes upon a man holding a sign reading “Jeremiah 11:11.” The Bible Verse in question proclaims: “Therefore this is what the LORD says: ‘I will bring on them a disaster they cannot escape. Although they cry out to me, I will not listen to them.” The preceding signs of “11” take an ominous tone, especially in conjunction with the aforementioned storm – something wicked is coming.

Adelaide descends a set of stairs and the mood gets eerier. She comes upon a Native American themed hall of mirrors titled “Shaman’s Vision Quest.” Thus, the indigenous is transformed into a commercial specter promising an internal revelation. The young girl drops her candy-coated apple – an Edenic symbol and a snack food associated with Halloween- on the shore before venturing into the abode. The foreboding feeling continues to build as a storm begins to rage outside – the ominous pieces showcased in the opening rear their heads in successive fashion.

Inside, Adelaide is thrown off guard first by a random power outage which forces her to traverse the darkness, a mechanical owl that frightens her, and then by a series of mirrors which distort her reflection and make the exit to the attraction impossible to locate. Her journey inwards transforms into a reflective labyrinth with no way out. Afraid, she starts to whistle the “Itsy Bitsy Spider” in an attempt to calm herself down. But as she proceeds to try and find through the maze of mirrors, she runs into a doppelganger – a corporeal copy of her instead of a reflection in glass. Her face breaks out into shock as the camera closes in on her expression before quickly cutting to the gaze of a rabbit staring into the frame.

In contrast to the opening push in on the television, the camera pulls back from this new visage, as though concluding the initial movement and tying the two together, and reveals a host of rabbits, all of which are trapped in sequential cages spanning the entire room. The blood red title card drops, calling back to the dropped apple from earlier and signaling an impending sense of violence.

The composition of this new room seems to be a classroom setting but outside of desks and rabbits there are no identifiable markers to make sense of where we’ve been transported to or why Adelaide’s scream has been answered with the gaze of an animal. The words of Jeremiah make this jarring edit all the more concerning. Is the cut to caged animals a deified sign of abandonment in response to Adelaide’s horror or something else entirely?

Instead of an answer, the momentum from the camera pulling out continues as the film cuts to a view of a lush, green forest. A car is seen driving through the greens. A sticker on the back of the car informs us that a family of four – a father, a mother, a son, a daughter – are traveling together. The symbolic representation of the family conveys all the information that’s required to understand this unit’s breakdown, but the camera cuts to reveal the individual persons behind the figures, imbuing the symbols with a content that personalizes them. A grown up Adelaide (Lupita Nyong’o) and her husband, Gabe (Winston Duke), are taking their kids, Zora (Shahadi Wright) and Jason (Evan Alex), to their beach house for a fun-filled vacation.

Adelaide arranges a host of toy animals “hand-to-hand” across a sandy plane, recreating the “Hands Across America” image.

However, while things appear to be normal within the family, it’s apparent that the past still haunts Adelaide. While her family engages in a variety of shenanigans that helps us get a feel for their respective personalities – Jason is a playful trickster, Zora is a moody teen, Gabe is an energetic and playful father – Adelaide drifts from the present to the past, reliving her confrontation with her doppelganger and its aftermath. At first, she recounts the therapy session her parents took her to following the event. It’s revealed that she lost her ability to speak following the encounter with her Other self and built a line of toy animals “holding” each other’s “hands” across a beach-like backdrop; this image of unity, a reference to the “Hands Across America” advert from earlier was her object of focus in the face of trauma. Suddenly, she snaps back to the present and notices a spider crawling under a larger, inanimate model spider – an “itsy bitsy” spider and its unalive Other casting a shadow over it.

Adelaide (Lupita Nyong’o) stares at a stuffed bunny in adoration.

Later on, she curiously picks up a stuffed bunny and looks at it with affection – a perplexing connection given the nature of the cut from her encounter with her Other self to the caged rabbit. Despite seemingly not encountering the creature herself, her encounter having ended with the confrontation and never approaching the hidden room containing the furry creatures, the animal has a hold over her. Along with the doll, she finds a picture of her from her youth in dance garb. This younger self materializes in the present, bringing her trauma to the forefront of her psyche and cementing the connection between the furry creature and the past that still haunts her. The web of symbols continues to get more intermixed amongst one another.

When Gabe mentions wanting to take the family to the Santa Monica Beach for the evening, Adelaide quickly refuses. She fears giving her trauma more control over her psyche via a confrontation with the arena in which she experienced it. Yet, her family’s, namely Gabe’s, passionate pleas get her to acquiesce to a short visit.

Gabe’s boat presentation doesn’t go as well as he hopes.

He calls the family out to bask in his new boat purchase, albeit one that barely works and seems far from pristine, before the group leaves for the beach. His short-lived material celebration starts the journey on a dour note. The mood shifts towards a jovial attitude as Luniz’s “5 on It” plays on the car radio, prompting the family to sing along and share in the experience – fitting given the lyrics’ emphasis on paying one’s fair share (for drugs). However, as they get closer to the supposedly serene vacation spot, they notice police officers dealing with a deceased person. The camera lingers on a sign in the corpse’s hand just long enough to reveal that this is most likely the same person from Adelaide’s past who held and is still holding the Jeremiah 11:11 sign.

It’s not just her repression coming back into fold within her psyche, but the event itself seems to be repeating – a beach, then the quite literal sign from Jeremiah. If the pattern follows, confrontation with the Other is next. Fittingly, the soundscape transforms and an eerie chorus takes charge with a background chant. The sound of drums introduces a sense of discord as the family makes their way across the beach, casting large shadows, doubles, against the sand.

The mood turns temporarily jovial again as the group makes contact with their wealthier friends, the Tylers, who immediately engage in frivolities, boasting about their materialistic interests and highlighting the still-present class differences between the two families; even with a summer-home and a boat, the Wilson’s still experience a disjunction between their expectations of “wealthy life” and their reality. However, a series of unnerving coincidences continue to prop up during the groups dialogue, becoming increasingly disconcerting for Adelaide, who stays on a razor edge the entire time, watching over her family and ensuring that nothing happens to them.

Soon after, Jason momentarily disappears going towards the bathroom, passing by the same hall of mirrors his mother went into years ago during her fateful encounter. However, the location has gone through a transformation, and the indigenous décor has been replaced by European iconography; the Native American mascot has given way and been replaced by the wizard Merlin as it’s the European stand-in who now promises to reveal one’s “true” self. This seemingly innocuous transformation imbues the idea of the “Other” as a double that the film has been building with newfound colonialist undertones. This idea is accentuated when a red frisbee randomly falls onto the towel Adelaide is sitting on; an image of a blue dot is completely covered with a physical red circular object- a callback to the dropped Edenic apple from her youth and a repetition of the double as a replacement.

When Jason returns from the bathroom, the pressure building up culminates in a violent experience: he sees a loner bleeding out on the beach, seemingly unaware of the world around him. The air is rife with malevolence and it seems that something terrible is about to happen as history is on the verge of repeating. But Jason is immediately “rescued” by Adelaide, who refuses to allow her son to go through the same trauma she did when left to her own devices all those decades ago. The Wilson family quickly departs and leaves the scene before anything else can threaten to happen.

Adelaide (Lupita Nyong’o) reaches out to Jason (Evan Alex).

Adelaide tries to reestablish a sense of normalcy back at the home. She reaches out to Jason and holds his hand, showcasing a sense of affection and solidarity with him given his off-kilter experience. But then the clock hits 11:11. Jeremiah’s warning refuses to go away and no number of assurances can hold back the tide of problems he prophesizes to come. Adelaide knows as much when she sees Jason’s drawing of his extreme encounter; violence is on the way and it can no longer be stopped or ignored.

She starts to come undone as her walls break down; the trauma of her past cannot be compartmentalized any longer. Suddenly, she finds herself telling Gabe about her history on the beach and her fateful encounter with her doppelganger; despite being able to get away from her Other, she lives in fear of eventually being caught by them and subject to something heinous. Gabe tries to lighten the mood with some humor, but the power, as if in response, goes out; just like the funhouse all those years ago, Adelaide is forced to traverse the darkness and find a way out, this time with family in tow.

But try as she might, she can’t run away from her destiny and finds herself face-to-face with a group of doppelgangers, one matching each of her own family members. This group, fully unified in a hand-to-hand embrace, stands in shadowy silhouette, ready to confront their “other” selves, our protagonists. For close to 40 minutes, Peele has let the respective elements – rabbits, reflections, shadows, Jeremiah’s warning, doubles – build up against a vantage point alluding to systemic violence – classism and imperialism – before finally allowing the battle between the self and its Other to “truly” begin in explosive fashion.

At a surface level, this story about doubles is unnerving in its own right and comes replete with its own associated motifs and undercurrents – the ideas of the loss of self and the encounter with unsavory elements that one tries to repress. And at this level, Peele certainly allows genre elements to play out in visceral, brutal fashion as the encounter marks the start of a series of escalating, violent clashes between the mirrored selves. However, the beauty of Us, stems not from these identifiable moments of subjective violence but from the way such moments reveal the “zero-level standard” of an “objective” violence that operate unseen in the background ^[1] Zizek, S. (2008). The Tyrant’s Bloody Nose . In Violence. introduction, Picador. . By placing identical but completely different persons, objects, and musical choices against one another and intermixing between them, Peele forces us to confront the ideological basis we use to categorize similar looking phenomena into completely distinct categories.

The ever-present doubling necessitates a navigation as every reflection brings with it its own set of questions. Characters don’t just meet their doubles at an individual level, but they also experience that double at a familial and social level – every structure, big and small, is presented with its mirror image which becomes more fragmented the bigger it gets. This makes the opening of the film before the confrontation all the more relevant, as even subtle characterizations become pivotal in examining the way differences bleed from the micro to the macro and become terrors that must be confronted.

Even the musical choices – inspired tracks which include the Beach Boy’s “Good Vibrations”, Fuck Tha Police by N.W.A, and the aforementioned “5 on It” by Luniz – play into this introspection as the context in which they play changes and symbolically restructures the nature of what the lyrics are getting at, sometimes within the same scene in which they’re introduced. No sound-image is as simple as its initial presentation and the constant juxtapositions force the viewer to navigate a maze of reflections, much like Adelaide did, in order to find the “truth” within.

It’s only by the end of the film that the nature and power of this “truth” is revealed as it operates both as a structuring mechanism within the narrative as a whole and as the grammar the film proper utilizes in jumping from scene to scene, demonstrating that the true horror comes not from an identifiable subject acting maliciously as much as it does from our symbolic interpretation of that violence qua violence – horror is what we make of it.

However, this message becomes muddied in the final act. Unlike Denis Villenevue’s Enemy, another doppelgänger horror thriller which commits emphatically to a surreal and less grounded worldbuilding in its storytelling approach and opts to use symbols as points and counterpoints to guide the viewer forward in a maze of meaning, Us bizarrely pivots to trying to ground its narrative in a sense of realism that immediately makes it seem absurd. We’re so attuned to the interplay of the symbols and the nuances behind them because of Peele’s dedication to getting us to engage with the film in a more cerebral manner that the film’s decision to explain the mystery in more concrete, definite terms ends up distracting us from what came before. Focus becomes split as suddenly the concern shifts from trying to understand the way violence operates vis-a-vis said symbols to the mechanics behind the way the narrative unfolds – a regrettable choice as its in this latter section that Us is far better at showing than explaining. It’s like reading poetry, filled with metaphor and analogy, and then being interrupted by mechanic prose which disrupts the melody; consequently, the poignancy of what came before feels less so.

Compared to his Peele’s previous effort, Get Out, which has a far smaller scope in what it wants to target but is far more concise in getting there, Us can feel haphazard, but the ambitions behind what it wants to say make it just as interesting, if not more so, to discuss and analyze. If one is willing to suspend their sense of disbelief for just long enough, they’ll walk away just as changed as the characters do by the end of this shadowy encounter.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Though it stumbles in its worldbuilding by the final act, the ambitions behind this doppelganger story offer far more than meets the eye as its examination of violence and the way its conceptualized reveal the source of “true” terror.
Rating	9.6/10
Grade	A+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2010s, 2019, A, Black-Comedy, Comedy, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, slasher, Thriller, Year

Review: Ready or Not

January 20, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Matt Bettinelli-Olpin Tyler Gillet
Principal Cast	Samara Weaving as Grace Le Domas Mark O’Brien as Alex Le Domas Adam Brody as Daniel Le Domas
Release Date	2019
Language(s)	English
Running Time	95 minutes

As someone who loved Samara Weaving’s performances in both The Babysitter and Mayhem, I knew I had to watch this movie. I didn’t even watch a trailer – I just went in expecting to see a fun Weaving movie. I got that and so much more. Ready or Not is funny, clever, and brutal all at the same time.

The story follows Grace as she’s made to play a game of hide-and-seek after marrying into the wealthy Le Domas family. Except in this game, getting caught means being killed. What follows is an intense cat and mouse situation where Grace and the Le Domas family constantly seek to out maneuver the other party. What keeps these moments fresh is the circumstance under which the game is played and the family operates. I won’t spoil it, but the movie keeps you guessing on what’s really going to happen the whole time. Up until it was over, I didn’t know what was actually going to happen.

Even after having only seen the movie once in theaters and once for this review, I can remember most of the characters and their personalities fairly well. This movie, unlike a lot of other ones with big casts, doesn’t feel like it wastes any of its characters. There are clear motivations for each member – which is even more impressive when you realize how large the Le Domas family actually is. Yes, some of the arcs or backgrounds aren’t amazing or profound, but the fact that they are there at all is impressive.

Weaving absolutely kills it in her portrayal of Grace. She’s funny, wide-eyed, resolute, bad-ass, desperate, and everything in between. Her energy shines through and makes it really easy to root for Grace. It gives you a reason to care about the story and I found myself invested in the outcome. I think Brody’s performance as Daniel (Grace’s brother-in-law) was also fairly well done. He showed complexity and nuance and has some of the best character moments in the movie.

The movie’s discourse on families is interesting and doesn’t feel ham-fisted. Grace wants to be in the family because she’s always been alone- so for her family is a safe place. Meanwhile, her husband Alex resents his family for the practices they engage in so he wants to run away – but he still feels the need to follow tradition- which highlights just how strong family can influence the ordering of our desires. The way the parents evaluate their children’s’ spouses speaks volumes in what qualities they consider valuable. The perversion of family values is where the movie shines and the way it frames that discussion in relation to wealth adds another layer to think about.

Now for the problems. There are some character decisions in the third act that feel a bit off. They’re not incomprehensible, but they feel like they could have been developed a bit more so they wouldn’t feel as sudden. There are also some procedural issues I had with what knowledge what characters had about the mystery at the core of the plot. It feels like certain people should know things that would radically change their actions, but they don’t. Finally, there are moments where the camera feels/is handheld which takes away from the grandiose aesthetic. I wish the shots were stable throughout/moved only during more action-y scenes. This issue felt even more prominent on my second viewing. None of these problems are enough to make the movie bad, but they do lessen the themes the movie builds towards.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Ready or Not is a clever twist on the comedic slasher genre. The plot is well-paced and will keep you guessing about what’s going to happen up till the very end. There are some story issues that creep up in the third act, but they can’t detract from the absurdly fun journey/ending. If you enjoyed Knives Out, you may also like this. It’s weird – but this movie feels like a spiritual horror version of that one.
Rating	9.0/10
Grade	A

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2010s, 2013, B, Black-Comedy, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, slasher, Thriller, Year

Review: You’re Next

January 18, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Adam Wingard
Principal Cast	Sharni Vinson as Erin A.J. Bowen as Crispian Davison
Release Date	2013
Language(s)	English
Running Time	94 minutes

I swear after I first saw this movie, I was certain a sequel would drop eventually, but unfortunately it seems like that’s not the case. It’s a shame because You’re Next has all the ingredients necessary for a classic slasher movie: stylish kills, great villain design, a dry perverse black humor, and a wonderfully bad ass main character in Erin. The premise- a rich family is targeted by unknown assailants and have to fight for their lives- is simple enough, but its execution shows a real understanding of the craft.

What immediately set this movie apart from others for me is how thought out the story feels. Character motivations are present even for the bad guys so everything has a human element to it. Erin is immediately likable and is a great protagonist to latch onto. Sharni is a bad ass and from the way she carries herself up to the way her character takes charge, it’s apparent that she’s not going to be a pushover. The killers each have different face masks corresponding to a different animals which represent their personality traits. It’s subtle character work that goes a long way in making the group of villains feel distinct aesthetically. The members of the rich family feel nice and distinct in the few moments they get to interact with each other. I wasn’t expecting so many characters to feel so unique.

The reason the characters feel so memorable is because of how odd they all are. The family might be rich, but that doesn’t mean they’re any more functional than a middle or lower class family. The earlier scenes where they play off each other are great, even if the delivery of some of the lines feels wonky. Someone’s always got something strange enough to say to add a “unique” sense of humor to scenes. I personally thought the movie was hilarious (intentionally). I appreciate dry in-your-face humor that’s predicated on the absurdity of what occurs. I think it’s a more acquired taste so if you don’t think it’s funny watching it, I wouldn’t be surprised. But I think watching it from the point of view of a comedy makes the viewing experience more memorable and might be something you consider trying out.

Despite nailing most of important stuff, the movie suffers from a lack of impact. What I mean is that we barely get a chance to gauge the characters relations among each other, so when people start dropping it doesn’t feel like anything.It’s a shame because the few moments they talk to each other had me laughing, but all of that is pushed to the wayside for immediate action.That might be good if you just want a constant source of action, but that’s not my cup of tea. The movie also struggles to balance its tone at times. It wants to be funny but then acts too seriously at other moments to let the humor breathe. It makes it hard to process, especially when the third act starts.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	If you like weird humor that’s dark and kind of perverse and also enjoy gory slashers, then You’re Next is made for you. There’s a sensible story, aesthetically interesting villains, and a great protagonist waiting to be discovered. Just be wary of strange tonal shifts and bare-bones characterization.
Rating	8.2/10
Grade	B

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2010s, 2019, B, Black-Comedy, Comedy, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, Science Fiction, slasher, Thriller, Year

Review: Happy Death Day 2U

January 18, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Christopher Landon
Principal Cast	Jessica Rothe as Tree Israel Broussard as Carter Phi Vu as Ryan
Release Date	2019
Language(s)	English
Running Time	100 minutes

I was so happy when I saw that Happy Death Day was getting a sequel. I actually went to this movie on opening week and remember leaving the theater feeling immensely satisfied. After watching it again recently, I’ve come to understand why. It’s like every problem I had with the first movie has been resolved in this one. The movie makes the brave decision to ACTUALLY expand on the ideas (if only all sequels could do this) which help it carve out an interesting little niche.

The movie picks up immediately after the first one and it’s revealed that the cause of all the time loops is Ryan’s science invention. After a series of mishaps, Tree ends up sent to a parallel dimension and is forced to find a way to escape the baby faced killer again. The sci-fi addition to the franchise gives it some much needed personality and makes the gimmick something more interesting. The way the characters end up reacting to the new knowledge gives us a ton of fun creative scenes that really push the black comedy aspect.

Characters from the past movie get more to do in this one. Because it’s a new universe, everyone shows a different side of themselves which gives Tree a lot of room to navigate and form new opinions. It makes people from the first movie feel more layered and is a fun play on the butterfly effect. It also gives the movie a more poignant emotional core that really made me feel for Tree. Speaking of Tree, Jessica Rothe kills it again in her performance. She’s given more room to have fun in this one and she takes a lot of pleasure in it.

Unfortunately, the one area the movie didn’t really improve on is the horror element of everything. The killer and their motivation in the first movie was pretty whack so I was curious to see how it would play it out in this one, and while it’s believable to an extent, it also feels kind of out there.

The pacing of the movie also feels off- there’s one moment in the third act where it feels like the movie has a natural ending, but then it keeps on going. It’s not that the extension feels bad. In fact, what happens makes a lot of sense- but it feels like it’s missing the polish the rest of the movie had. Maybe a subplot should have been removed and some events should have happened in a different order. I don’t know. It’s just a weird anomaly. The end credit scene does give me hope that the third movie (Please come out) does some crazy stuff, so here’s to that.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Happy Death Day 2U takes everything that was good from the first movie and amps it up. There’s a more interesting story, better character building, and even more fun levels of absurdity. The movie is more science fiction that it is horror, so if you’re expecting focused slasher you may want to look elsewhere.
Rating	8.4/10
Grade	B

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2010s, 2017, Black-Comedy, C+, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, slasher, Thriller, Year

Review: Happy Death Day

January 18, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Christopher Landon
Principal Cast	Jessica Rothe as Tree Israel Broussard as Carter
Release Date	2017
Language(s)	English
Running Time	96 minutes

Groundhog’s day meets teen-comedy meets slasher movie –Happy Death Day isn’t incredibly original, but what it lacks in creativity it makes up in unabashed fun. The story follows Tree, a troubled sorority girl who finds herself trapped in a sinister loop that restarts every time she’s killed by a baby masked killer. As she desperately tries to figure out who’s coming for her she’s forced to confront her fears – both physical and emotional.

If there’s one reason to watch this movie, it’s Jessica Rothe’s performance. She gives the story a real personality which keeps it feeling spunky and fresh as opposed to tired and outdated. She’s rude, unresponsive, and miserable with herself and everyone around her. Watching her slowly come to realize her situation and adapt is charming because of how expressive and energetic Rothe acts. She sells the story and is why I enjoy the movie so much despite how predictable its story beats feel. Performances from other members of the cast are adequate with the campy and emotional elements given the proper respect.

The way the story unfolds is logical and makes sense. The identity of the killer is only revealed to attentive viewers at the hour mark because up till then the misdirection is done fairly well. I was particularly impressed with how layered the time cycles/loops were in both setting up the story and developing characters into something more than cardboard cut-outs( albeit not by much) . The movie knows when to switch up the pace, so no moment feels like it overstays its welcome. It’s definitely a movie I love putting on in the background or watching if I’m trying to perk up more.

Unfortunately, the narrative stability is achieved at the cost innovation. The story doesn’t really add too much to the die-live again formula. There’s a unique concept related to the time loops, but it never gets developed in a meaningful thematic or narrative way. It’s only used to get the story from one place to another. This sucks in particular because the concept could have been that unique element to push the genre in a new direction- to give something new to the die-live loop type of movie. There are also some logistical issues that make the nature of the killers eventual reveal more confusing. It feels like if the story spent a bit more time building up their backstory a lot of these issues could have been resolved. The movie stops short of where it needed to be to be a genuine classic of sorts, but that shouldn’t stop you from giving it a watch if it sounds even remotely up your alley.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Happy Death Day is funny, filled with energy, and has some cute “awuhh” moments. It doesn’t fully utilize the potential of its premise, but it does enough to remain interesting from beginning to end.
Rating	8.0/10
Grade	B

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2010s, 2015, B+, Black-Comedy, Comedy, Grade, Horror, Review, review-movie, slasher, Year

Review: Dude Bro Party Massacre III

January 18, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Tomm Jacobsen,Michael Rousselet,Jon Salmon
Principal Cast	Alec Owen as Brent / Brock Olivia Taylor Dudley as Motherface Patton Oswalt as Chief of Police
Release Date	2015
Language(s)	English
Running Time	103 minutes

Despite what its title would imply, Dude Bro Party Massacre III is not a sequel to a well established franchise. Instead, it’s a criticism of privilege and insulation from punishment, an introspective look into frat culture and the social construction of masculinity, a fun satire of horror and slasher tropes, and is dumb and over the top in the best possible way. You can take out your brain and just enjoy the spectacle or you can have fun with the underlying themes- the movie works well for diverse crowds.

The plot is structured like a VHS tape- with an overarching slasher film and a series of advertisements in between- like someone recorded the movie as it ran on TV. The main story line follows the notorious Motherface, a killer who targets fraternities. The story is absolutely bonkers and goes in places I never expected. I can say with absolute certainty that most of ya’ll haven’t seen anything like it. The ad portions are fun, short, and to the point and never feel like they takeaway from the main movie.The absolute chaos of the movie also keeps repeated viewings fresh. If you like unique and interesting kills in an 80’s fashion, this movie has them in spades. The practical effects are great and I loved the ingenuity behind certain executions. You can tell there’s a lot of love that went into this.

Though the film intentionally tries to fail the Bechdel test, it absolutely feels like a feminist movie. Yes, the main characters are the brothers in the feature fraternity, but the movie makes it painfully obvious that all the members have participated in pretty horrendous stuff, despite how comical it all plays off. Motherface’s journey as such almost feels justified. It’s a slasher movie where you simultaneously for and against the “villain”. However, the movie still takes time to explore the nuance of a fraternity and the ideas of brotherhood related to it. Despite their problems, the frat members aren’t all malicious dudes. Some of them enjoy the experience because it gives them a sense of bonding that helps them feel less alone and isolated. It keeps the movie from ever feeling preachy.

Despite how much I love the chaos of the movie- at times it feels like misdirection for midsdirection’s sake. There are moments that are ominous and meant to trick a first time viewer, but they never feel like they pay off in the themes. So their fun but feel pointless. The movie also kind of drags on in the end. Don’t get me wrong – I love the ending. It’s amazing. But it also had me going why? These aren’t huge issues but I feel like they kind of muddled the point.

Report Card

TLDR	Despite being too absurd for it’s own good at times, Dude Bro Party Massacre III is a surprisingly topical satire that’s sure to leave you smiling by the end of it.If you want a fun movie to watch with friends put this on (as long as people are okay with gore). It should delight a lot of audiences. It’s smart, unexpected, and feels like a roller coaster in the absurd.
Rating	8.8/10
Grade	B+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3

2010s, 2019, F, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, slasher, Thriller, Year

Review: Black Christmas (2019)

December 26, 2019 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Sophia Takal
Principal Cast	Imogen Poots as Riley Aleyse Shannon as Kris Lily Donoghue as Marty Cary Elwes as Professor Gelson
Release Date	2019
Language(s)	English
Running Time	92 minutes

(NOTE: When I first wrote this review I had not seen either of the previous Black Christmas movies. As of the most recent edit I have)

Earlier this October, I ended up watching Green Room for my horror movie marathon . I loved Imogen Poots performance in the movie (it stood out to me), so when I saw that she was going to lead a fun looking slasher flick, I had to go ahead and watch it When the movie started I was enthusiastic and don’t get me wrong- I liked a lot of moments. However, I was left disappointed by the ending and the abundance of missed opportunities. This movie had real potential and squanders it by throwing nuance and subtlety out of the window in favor of an absurd resolution that actively hurts the movies themes and renders character arcs dissatisfying.

Poots plays Riley, a sorority member who’s recovering from an assault she experienced on campus. The film is incredibly topical and deals with a lot of issues regarding rape culture and the treatment of assault on campuses. The look into sorority life and mixed feelings about what sisterhood entails are interesting and well established at the beginning of the film. Does commitment to the cause require sharing stories against survivors wills? Poots is great and portrays the struggle she faces with a genuine sincerity that makes rooting for Riley natural. Cary Elwes is hilarious in his campy over the top role as Professor Gelson, a chauvinistic professor who’s a bit too partial to his former frat house. His introduction is great ( in an awful kind of way) and I liked it. He’s also the only redeemable part about the third act so credit is due.

Early kills are also shot well. Yes, they’re obvious and the set up doesn’t feel unique or awe inspiring, but they’re well executed. The first death in the movie set my expectations with how nice it was in both the manner of kill and its aesthetic presentation in the snow. The deaths that follow never reach the same highs in style or impact. That’s pretty bad because we never get to know or learn anything about this character which means a nameless characters death is better executed and has more of an impact than characters we actually get to spend time with.

Early on the film does a great job of establishing the real fear women face everyday. The fear of walking down a street with an innocuous fellow coming down behind you. Even if he’s just out and about and doesn’t mean anything, there’s a palpable fear about the “what if”. Moments like this are littered in the first two acts of the movie and present a horror story grounded in a real kind of feminist critique. The horror is predicated off the power structure that normalizes violence by creating conditions that help men more than women.

Unfortunately, all this subtlety is thrown away by the third act and the interesting themes about empowerment vs martyrdom vs autonomy get completely sidelined for a “hurr durr man is evil” ending. It’s disappointing because it feels like the movie wants to be and feel “woke” in the most neoliberal way, so it sacrifices nuance to just preach common and boring tropes. “Raping women is bad” should not be the benchmark movies aspire to be progressive or meaningful. “All men are bad” likewise doesn’t do anything for the issue except bog it down in muck and make explicit decisions in regards to rape culture impossible to pinpoint. Things like culpability, susceptibility to culture, and the invisible pervasive of power systems feel like jokes by the end of the run-time. Rape culture is a topic that requires nuance and subtlety – something I thought the beginning of the movie hinted at, but I was woefully off. To say I was sad with how everything ended is an understatement. This movie isn’t just a disappointment. It’s a genuine travesty and feels like an insult to feminist theory and praxis.

This would at least be tolerable if the violence or carnage was fun but as I’ve already indicated neither of those targets hit the mark either. In fact, the third act is marred by horrendous cuts, shaky camera, and a genuine want to cover up the action as opposed to displaying it. As a result, any feeling of goodwill vanishes by the end of the third act. Somehow the movie thematically fumbles the ball undoing all the little work it did near the beginning and visually fumbles by not playing up the kills or having nice action set pieces. To come from the original Black Christmas to this feels like a huge step down and a disservice to the amazing social commentary that movie manged to present in the 70’s. Hell, even the 2006 remake of the movie is fun to watch because of how mean spirited and dark its willing to get. This most recent remake can’t even do that. It genuinely feels like a chore to get through and is not a movie I’ll be revising any time soon.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Black Christmas is bag of missed opportunities that ends up a lot more disappointing than expected. You’d think the story of a victim-turned-survivor fighting for her life against a deranged killer would take more advantage of the #metoo movement, but instead it botches any attempts at depth for contrived story moments. There are some nuanced moments that show promise but they’re never developed in meaningful ways. Is it the worst movie ever? No. Does it deserve the hate it gets? No. Is it a movie that undermines itself and pale in comparison to its predecessors? Yes. Save yourself the time and just watch the original.
Rating	3.6/10
Grade	F

Pages: 1 2 3

The Critic's Sanctum

Category Archives: slasher

Film Review: Halloween – 1978

REPORT CARD

Review: Black Christmas

REPORT CARD

Review: Hush

REPORT CARD

Film Review: Us – 2019

REPORT CARD

Review: Ready or Not

REPORT CARD

Review: You’re Next

REPORT CARD

Review: Happy Death Day 2U

REPORT CARD

Review: Happy Death Day

REPORT CARD

Review: Dude Bro Party Massacre III

Report Card

Review: Black Christmas (2019)

REPORT CARD

A place for fun and rumination