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 .
Talitha Bateman as Janice Lulu Wilson as Linda Stephanie Sigman as Sister Charlotte Anthony LaPaglia as Samuel Mullins
Release Date
2017
Language(s)
English
Running Time
110 minutes
Sketches for the Annabelle doll. The Annabelle doll takes center frame as Samuel (Anthony LaPaglia) makes its other body parts. Samuel brands the doll’s box. Esther (Miranda Otto) and Samuel (Anthony LaPaglia) tickle Annabelle (Samara Lee).The Annabelle doll starts innocent enough as a toy. It’s creator lives a happy life with his family and everything seems right.
A man begins to create the infamous “Annabelle” doll introduced in The Conjuring. He gets to work crafting the different parts of the toy; its hollow face takes center frame as it waits to be filled in and made whole. The finished doll is put into a box which the dollmaker, Samuel Mullins (Anthony LaPaglia), brands with his seal.
As he finishes, a note is slipped underneath his workroom’s door: “Find me.” Samuel gives chase; the note marks the start of a hide-and-seek game with his daughter, Annabelle (Samara Lee). He finds the young girl and promptly showers her with affection along with his wife, Esther (Miranda Otto). The loving parents dote on their daughter; the Mullins family is whole and their residence radiates with warmth.
The camera rotates and sweeps around the church……to reveal the Mullins family. The family waits on the road as their vehicle stalls out. Annabelle’s doll lays broken on the road. The title card is branded in with flames. The story moves 12 years forward – Annabelle’s gravesite becomes a threshold. But things turn for the worse very quick. The camera whips and flips around a church to signify the changing fates. Annabelle is brutally killed and the joyous mood collapses. The childlike innocence of the doll is broken in as the title card is “branded” in. The tragic site becomes the cursed threshold the orphans cross.
But these happy times are doomed to come to an end. The camera whips and flips around a church signifying the shift in fates while the family makes their way out of the service. On their way back home, their car stalls out and the trio waits on the road; something awful is about to happen.
A car approaches in the background. We notice it creeping in. Esther calls attention to the vehicle. The horrific realization of what’s to happen begins to dawn. Yet, when Annabelle runs in front of the car to retrieve a stray bolt and is promptly killed, the shock is all the same. Her broken doll occupies the frame: innocence has been destroyed. The title card is “branded” in with flames; the seeds of this horror story have now been sown. Then, the film cuts to 12 years later on a view of Annabelle’s grave-marker, and a bus of young orphaned girls passes by on route to the Mullins residence. Their crossing of the tragic threshold signifies the something sinister approaches them as well.
Janice and Linda hold onto their dolls. Janice (Talitha Bateman) uses the stair-helper. Janice (Talitha Bateman) is framed against the hellish glass-paned balcony. Janice (Talitha Bateman) sits by the stairs as Annabelle (Samara Lee) stands in the background. Janice and Linda’s invocation of the dolls draws a harrowing connection given Annabelle’s death and the nature of the demonic entity we’re familiar with. This feeling is confirmed as Janice explores the house. She enters an evil domain where what seems to be the spirit of the deceased Annabelle waits for her in the looming darkness.
However, the girls inside the vehicle are none the wiser to the horrors that await. They’ve struggled to find a place to stay while waiting to be adopted and the group’s caretaker, Sister Charlotte (Stephanie Sigman) sees the invitation from the Mullins to stay as a blessing from God. Meanwhile, a duo within the girls, Janice (Talitha Bateman) and Linda (Lulu Wilson), sit with their own dolls closely in hand, hopeful that the Mullins residence is just a stop on the road to their dream of being adopted together by a nice family.
They make their way into the residence and director David F. Sandberg gives us a tour of the abode in a James Wan-esque one-shot that sees the girls traverse their newfound home. At the end of the house tour, Janice gets into a stair-helper machine meant to help her manage her polio-related mobility issues and get around the house. Excitedly, she gets onto the machine and heads up the stairs to explore her new environment.
But as the camera pans from a hellish red-stained glass balcony that envelops the frame to reveal Janice emerging from the end of the structure, it’s clear her journey is going to evil places. The next shot confirms as much as a young girl that looks like the deceased Annabelle shows up in the looming dark space to the right of Janice which threatens to envelop her.
Far from being a godsend, the Mullins residence is a malevolent location fraught with demonic forces that seek Janice out from the outset. It’s from this backdrop that Sandberg and writer Gary Dauberman seek to not only explain how the Annabelle doll came to bewithin the larger context of the The Conjuring franchise while making sense of the convoluted logic of the previous franchise entry, Annabelle(also written by Dauberman), that attempted to do the same but also tell Janice and company’s story in a compelling manner in its own rite. Juggling one film is difficult enough but course correcting a former entry while maintaining a tonal consistency with it is a whole other task, and Creation deserves praise for mostly succeeding in its efforts.
The film improves upon its predecessors failures in two distinct fashions: first, it engenders a sense of goodwill towards its protagonist, Janice, by showcasing her personal struggles and developing her interactions with other characters to make her feel sympathetic; second, it streamlines the narrative to focus on Janice and her personal battle to furnish faith in a seemingly desolate world instead of trying to posture and tack on additional overarching, possibly conflicting thematic ideations.
By keeping the narrative and thematic throughlines easy to keep track of, the film is able to bracket its more generic supernatural set-pieces around a story that’s emotionally compelling enough to hold interest; simple parallels serve as markers that make tracking Janice’s journey through the otherwise contrived horror trappings easy to comprehend. Her friendship with Linda serves as a counterpoint to the potential possession by the Annabelle-like specter; one girl represents a path towards a fantasy while the other gestures towards nightmares. This dichotomy is extended through the presence of the film’s different dolls. Both girls have their own more innocent dolls and see them as extensions of one another. These figures represent a faith in a future where they’re together in the same home. Meanwhile, the Annabelle doll represents an evil that seeks to take refuge within, making a home out of its victim – an inversion of the idyllic dream shared by the girls.
However, the film does stumble occasionally when it shifts focus to the other girls – far less interesting characters who serve as little more than reminders of Janice’s alienation. Their segments create moments of temporary visceral engagement that leave little lasting impact, especially in the context of what the film sets out to do; the constant barrage of them, especially in relation to such tangential characters, end up raising questions regarding why the demonic forces present have not swiftly dealt with whatever they needed. When we see the evil entities wreak obscene havoc in spite of safeguards, it becomes hard to ignore when it then then pulls punches and leaves like the most obnoxious “practical joker” after getting a reaction. Cutting out these bloated sections would help the narrative maintain its momentum and avoid undermining the tension generated by the supernatural set-pieces related to Janice’s story.
Thus, while Creation is a step up from its predecessor and does a much better job at establishing the foundation for the Annabelle doll, it never becomes greater than the sum of its parts – a shame given Sandberg’s competence at building the set-pieces proper.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Annabelle: Creation, sees Director David Sandberg tasked with righting the mythos surrounding the Conjuring franchise’s Annabelle doll. While he manages to establish a background story that works, both as explanatory mechanism and narrative in its own right, the constant barrage of temporarily upsetting but overall unmemorable horror set-pieces drag the better parts of the movie down. It’s competently put together and features performances that will get viewers to care, but it’s a disappointment given the skill hinted at.
Rating
7.3/10
Grade
C+
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Mckenna Grace as Judy Warren Patrick Wilson as Ed Warren Vera Farmiga as Lorraine Warren Madison Iseman as Mary Ellen Katie Sarife as Daniela Rios
Release Date
2019
Language(s)
English
Running Time
106 minutes
I didn’t like Annabelle. I did likeAnnabelle: Creation. Both Wilson and Farmiga have been great in the other Conjuring movies they’ve been in, so when I saw the trailer for this movie I had real hope. The Warrens and Annabelle – maybe it could be as good as the movies in the main franchise. The movie even starts off with a bait, introducing Ed and Lorraine as they’re on their way back home with the Annabelle doll ready to be stored away. They get it in it’s iconic case and emphasize its power. Then they disappear from the movie and we get to the absurd mess that is the main story line.
The movie follows Judy, the Warrens daughter, and the mishaps that occur when her parents go off…to do something? Anyways, she’s left with her babysitter Mary for the day. Mary’s friend Daniela then comes over and opens and touches everything in the Warren’s demonic possession room. Then Annabelle gets loose and releases OTHER DEMONS to be menacing to the girls and the movie chronicles their miserably boring endeavors to fight them off. Another Annabelle movie where Annabelle doesn’t do anything of her own account. It’s like what’s the point of making these spin-off movies if you’re not going to actually expand on the character or make them more menacing in their own right.
Speaking of menacing- nothing in this movie is. All the “monster of the weeks” are poorly set up through lazy exposition and have no meaningful significance to any of the characters. They’re all just cheap attempts at recapturing the magic of creatures like the Nun or the Crooked Man but they don’t work. It’s sad because the movie is actually shot pretty well. There are some nice tracking shots that amplify the tension. If the scares took advantage of those the movie could have been so much more effective. There are plenty of great scenes early on where there are just scary apparitions in the background waiting- but the movie doesn’t know how to deal with them outside of fake-out jump scare. It gets repetitive which makes the 3rd act of the movie feel like the same scene happening in succession.
The whole movie just feels like a missed opportunity. So many cool ideas don’t get teased out properly.Exploring the life of a child ostracized because of her parents demonology background is interesting and I thought the movie would be a family drama centering around that issue. Instead, it’s ignored and never develops into anything meaningful. Exploring the Annabelle doll’s actual power? Nah, let’s let her summon other spirits instead. Have a good reason for someone to enter the room and do anything? Nah, we can just skirt around the issue and give her some vague sad backstory. It’s all just unsatisfying, especially when all the pieces to resolve these questions are present in the story. Heck you could even have the babysitter and her friend- just introduce them naturally and have the inciting incident be more believable. I don’t know – it just feels sloppy.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Annabelle Comes Home feels like a series of missed opportunities wrapped up into a generic feeling horror movie. The Warrens are barely in the movie , so don’t hold your breath if your expecting this to feel like The Conjuring. It’s just a sad imitation.
Rating
4.8/10
Grade
F
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
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 .
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 .
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 .
Andrea Riseborough as Detective Muldoon John Cho as Peter Spencer Betty Gilpin as Nina Spencer Lin Shaye as Faith Mateson Frankie Faison as William Matheson
Release Date
2020
Language(s)
English
Running Time
100 minutes
I’m a huge fan of Ju-On and it’s first English remake The Grudge (2004). Both movies were formative in fostering my love for horror and scaring me senseless. So when I saw the remake trailer, I felt a sense of nostalgia on top of the impending sense of doom. Remakes usually aren’t the greatest and the January release date only made that sense of dread more palpable. On top of that, the first remake was good enough , so it felt weird to want to try and add something new again. However, that sense of trepidation gave way to slight optimism when I realized that Nicolas Pesce was directing the movie. I loved The Eyes of My Motherand felt that maybe he could deliver a moving remake of a beloved movie. After having just seen the remake, I can confirm that it’s indeed a mixed bag of emotions. The plot feels messy and stretched too thin and the scares feel repetitive and predictable. In spite of this, I found myself thoroughly enjoying some moments. The film has it’s flaws – but it also has cool ideas that I wish it had run with more.
The movie has a main plot and then 3 additional subplots all taking place at different times between 2004-2006. The primary plot follows Detective Muldoon as she finds herself entangled in the “grudge”- a curse that kills anyone that comes into its proximity. The main issue with the movie is that the main plot is pretty boring by itself until the final few moments and a few macabre scenes in the second act. Riseborough is relegated to being an exposition scene and literally just helps Pesce cut to the other more interesting subplots. Each of the subplots deals with a separate family and their own experiences interacting with the “grudge”/each other It’s funny because seemingly the most important subplot is only touched near the end of the film. The subplot featuring the Spencer family is heartfelt and had me feeling something in spite of the messy plot. The Matheson subplot introduces some of most horrifying thinking and I genuinely wish the film had spent most of the time here. There are some creepy ideas that are kind of toyed around with but never expanded on. Honestly, I wish the movie was just more focused. Cut out the incessant exposition and over explaining and just let the character interactions and ideas out. The movie is at its best in precisely these moments.
Acting in the movie is fine- for the most part. It honestly feels like the actors did the best with the way the plot went about so I can’t fault any of them. In spite of sparse characterization, Lin Shaye stole the scenes she was in. I loved her in all the Insiduous movies and watching her play a different role highlights just how much of a range she has. She gives a lot in this performance and made everything involving her really fun. Cho and Gilpin add the only real emotional weight to the convoluted plot. They do a great job in making the unfolding horrors more tragic and less undeserved.
There’s nothing special in terms of camera vision, but that’s mainly because most scenes are just set-ups for obvious jump scares. It’s always characters walking, then finding something, then looking away ,cue realization of impending scare, look back, then scare . It’s okay the first time but it’s lackluster with how well the scares are executed in the other Grudge movies. The lack of creativity in set-ups wasn’t something I was expecting. Thankfully, the score is engaging. It kept me at least partially invested when it came on. Especially during the last two scenes- it makes them memorable.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
All in all – The Grudge (2020) isn’t awful – but it’s definitely a bag of missed opportunities. I appreciate the way it tried to add some new twists to the original Grudge but those attempts fall flat or aren’t pushed far enough – which is a shame because I really enjoyed some of them.If you liked Ju-On or The Grudge I think there’s something in here for you. Yes – it’s not amazing or groundbreaking, but it’s certainly not the worst horror movie I’ve seen. The theater I went to was mostly packed and was quite engaged for a lot of the moments I responded to, so I really think some of ya’ll might enjoy portions of this.
Rating
5.8/10
Grade
F
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
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 Christmasto 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.
A family is tied to a tree. A family is hung to death on a tree. The title card for Sinister scratches into the celluloid. The film’s opening sets the gritty tone with a home video from hell. A family hung by an unseen force on grainy footage that hearkens back to an older time. This sentimental past is brutalized by a senseless violence – a violence that the film “signs” off on.
A projector starts up and the guttural mechanical sounds of its inner workings cloud the soundscape. Super 8 footage emits from the unseen machine depicting a family, each member of which has their head covered by a bag, being hung on a tree. The gritty footage is augmented by the abrasive noises of the projector – the footage takes on a disturbing home-made quality. Every member of the domestic unit is executed when a tree branch is cut by an entity not shown on the screen. As the family’s feet stop moving, the title card crops up in the lower right corner of the frame, as if etched out against the grain of the celluloid.
The sheriff (Fred Thompson) accosts Elliot (Ethan Hawke). Tracy (Juliet Rylance) questions Elliot (Ethan Hawke) regarding the altercation. Elliot (Ethan Hawke) notices the tree from the opening short film. Ethan’s character is quickly revealed: he’s a writer with a penchant for pissing off the people in charge and he’s willing to do whatever he needs to do get to the heart of his stories, even if it means moving his family to a house where the previous occupants had been murdered.
Post title sequence, the viewer is introduced to the film’s protagonist, Ellison (Ethan Hawke), a writer moving to a new house in an effort to find materials to publish a new best-seller. However, his move is interrupted by a sheriff (Fred Thompson) who accosts him and gives the audience Ellison’s relevant backstory: the writer published a best-seller but struck out with his subsequent novels which not only painted law enforcement as incompetent but also incorrectly assessed the nature of situations being documented. It becomes clear that this current book is Ellison’s attempt at striking gold once more after a set of failures.
Before leaving, the sheriff mentions that Elliot’s pursuits will only bring up answers that no one wants to know and that his decision to move into the house he’s chosen is disrespectful in light of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance. Both warning and condemnation alike are ignored by Elliot who waives the sheriff off. This interaction is noted by Ellison’s wife, Tracy (Juliet Rylance), who asks her husband what the altercation was about. She hesitatingly questions if the house the family has moved into is next to a murder site again, implying that Elliot has made the family move to dangerous locations before. He assuages her concerns and confirms the house is not neighboring a murder location. But as he stares at the same broken tree from the snuff film from the opening, it becomes clear that he’s moved his family into an abyss where a family was hung. Far from keeping the family some proximity away from the terrors of his investigative work, he’s brought them right into the heart of darkness.
A scorpion rattles Elliot. Elliot (Ethan Hawke) , Tracy (Juliet Rylance) , and their children sit at the table surrounded by darkness. Elliot (Ethan Hawke) starts the Super-8 footage. A family sits in an idyllic picnic setting. Elliot (Ethan Hawke) is disturbed by the footage……as the family is hung on the tree. Ethan’s decision to put his family at the heart of darkness can be immediately felt in the brutally dark lighting. The moment he finds the tapes, dread sets in. The opening has primed us for homegrown horrors and the tape confirms as much, showcasing the transformation of an idyllic family image into a monstrous nightmare.
The all-encompassing evil surrounding his family makes its appearance felt as the four-person unit eats dinner in complete black. They don’t know what Elliot has dragged them into and act in total bliss, unaware of the abyss slowly encroaching from all around. Unfortunately, this façade is one doomed to collapse as Elliot discovers when he goes upstairs to do some unpacking. He notices a black scorpion near a box filled with super 8 film reels. Suddenly, the title sequence rears its ugly head again – the scorpion becomes an emissary of terrible things to come.
Alas, Elliot is unaware of these connections and takes the box of “home videos” downstairs after trying to dispatch the scorpion. He goes into his private study, far from the eyes of his family, and starts to play the tapes. At first, the super 8 footage depicts a peaceful domestic image; a family plays around while having a joyous looking picnic. However, this idyllic image is shattered as the jittery footage cuts to the title sequence’s footage – it becomes clear that this cheerful family is the same one the viewer saw being hung. Now, Elliot has seen the same. Now, the tree in his backyard seems all the more ominous. Now, evil has made its presence brazenly known.
The tree covers the moon. Elliot (Ethan Hawke) looks at the tree. The tree looks down upon Elliot (Ethan Hawke). Upon watching the video, Elliot is drawn to the tree and it seems to communicate to him, warning him about the impending danger.
Perturbed by the experience, Elliot goes outside to check on the tree and is confronted by its looming presence. It’s as if the spirits of the family still linger from where they were executed, warning Elliot of what’s to come. Nevertheless, he persists and goes back to his study to continue investigating the demented home films.
The carnage is displayed on Elliot’s (Ethan Hawke) glasses. Elliot (Ethan Hawke) calls the police. Elliot (Ethan Hawke) looks at copies of Kentucky blood. The bloodshed of the tapes proves too much for Elliot and he goes to call the police and bring in official help, but then the red from the tapes becomes replaced with the red of his best-selling book and his convictions shift again; fame is worth more than anything and to jeopardize that for the public good is foolhardy. This is Elliot’s Faustian deal.
But the footage proves to be too much. Each film he watches follows the same pattern – a peaceful vision of a family which is followed by their gruesome execution. Finally, the violence erupts and totally breaks Elliot down. Shocked and disgusted, he takes out phone and dials the police, ready to get legal enforcement in on an issue which seems to be more heinous than he previously imagined.
And then he stops. He looks up and sees a stack of his bestseller, Kentucky Blood, sitting perched on a shelf under a bright light, a limelight from a past age. The decadent red color of the books entrance Elliot; within them, he sees this case as a chance at being great all over again. The allure of greatness takes precedence over all else, and he turns the phone off. A decision made that cannot be undone.
This is the heart of Sinister and where the film excels: the story of a writer pursuing the restoration of his status at all else, making a Faustian deal with to get back in the limelight. The film spends the entirety of its run-time with Elliot as he attempts to discover the root of the mystery, the reason behind the murders, and the connective tissue behind the tapes. The more he watches the found-footage films, the more he gets invested. Because we’re forced to watch with him, the same sense of morbid curiosity infects us. Even though the conclusion of each tape is foregone, there’s a horrific spell cast that makes it impossible to avert the eyes from the screen. It’s in these moments, watching a man watch horror films, that Sinister manages to unnerve the most. The true crime feeling gives the supernatural events captured on the home videos gone wrong a palpable malevolence – they’re meanspirited and get under the skin because of how vicious and unforgiving they are.
These moments gain their power not from gore but from their propensity at triggering the viewer’s imagination. At a fundamental level, there’s something creepy about super 8 film stock because of the way the texture of it obfuscates and “dirties” the image. There’s an uncomfortable grittiness that’s always present. Normal images are distorted enough to feel unnerving, but the hellish and inexplainable nature of what’s depicted only amplify the feeling. Sinister takes this unease and transforms it into palpable dread with its sound design. Along with the sounds of the projector, the film utilizes distortions, scratches, incomplete jumbles, demonic choral riffs, and other sonic oddities to create states of paranoia. Something is always buzzing or disconcerting enough to create worry. Because of this, the viewer is forced to think about where the noise is coming from and what it has to do with the image. There’s a fundamental disconnect between what’s going on and that sense of mystery is what generates unease and causes one’s thoughts to run wild. Like Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chain SawMassacre, Sinister evokes the feeling that one has seen gore of the most depraved kind even when no gore has been shown purely by stimulating unconscious fears regarding the situation.
It’s precisely when the film tries to explain the nature of its supernatural set-up and remove the level of mystery that it suffers; the unconscious fears that had previously been building up fizzle out as the direct explanation of the spectral undermines the unease by which it operates. The film goes for these more overt gestures in order to engage in predictable, expendable jump-scare sequences that pad the story until it ends. In fact, once the last home movie is played, there’s a significant drop in narrative momentum, as the film becomes lost on how to effectively move the characters to the next story beat.
This should not have been the case; the terrors should have been built around and upon Elliot’s compromised relationship with his family and his obsessive pursuit of a glorious time at the cost of everything else. It is precisely in the destruction of the idyllic family life that Sinister disturbs deepest, so the larger story should have been focused more on the disintegration of the family unit in relation Elliot’s decision; however, the film only ever shows his arguments with Tracy and even those play second-fiddle to the film’s investigation into the actual nature of the supernatural mystery, which as previously mentioned, undermines what makes the film effective. Consequently, the tension that the first half excels in is lost for much of the latter portion of the film as both character and narrative momentum is squandered on cheap thrills that pale in comparison to the frights from before.
This pivot in focus is a shame because it squanders Ethan Hawke’s grounded and terrified character work which otherwise laid out a perfect foundation on which to build the film. His emphatic reactions to the home movies is part of the reason they come off as so disturbing. There’s a visceral pain he imparts upon seeing the families meet their end. But then this pain is juxtaposed against the ambition in his eyes that props up every time he’s reminded of his past. Both heaven and hell are present in his gaze and lets the viewer at least understand his character’s actions even the consequences seem disastrous.
Thankfully, the final few minutes of the film bring the narrative back to the threads that made it compelling to begin with, both subverting the the haunted house story and resolving Elliot’s arc in satisfying fashion. It’s a far cry from the potential hinted at in the opening act, but Sinister‘s craft, mood, and performance carry its uneven narrative to terrifying heights.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Sinister starts strong as a true-crime styles supernatural thriller that follows an author going in over his head to get a story, but falters towards the end as it settles for cheap and conventional horror tactics. When the film is at it’s best, it’s truly terrifying and promises to unsettle even the most veteran of horror aficionados, but at it’s worst, the film does little more than undermine the basis of what makes it so effective. Thankfully, with an near impeccable first act, a thoroughly engaging performance by Ethan Hawke, and a perfectly poetic ending, there’s much to recommend for viewers looking for a spooky time.
Rating
8.5/10
Grade
B+
Go to Page 2for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Florench Pugh as Dani Ardor Jack Reynor as Christian Vilhelm Blomgren as Pelle William Jackson Harper as Josh Will Poulter as Mark
Release Date
2019
Language(s)
English
Running Time
148 minutes 171 minutes (Director’s Cut)
When I saw Hereditary in late 2018, I was left absolutely floored. I couldn’t believe a movie could hit me in so many different ways. The majority of the scares came from the tense and emotional family drama. Grief. Responding to tragedy. Trying to move on. Ari Aster had made a horror movie that found the horror in the most real and genuine moments that a lot of families have gone through (some more than others). When I saw that A24 was releasing another movie by him the next year, I knew I would be buying my tickets in advance. I’m more than happy to report that Aster did not disappoint. Midsommar is a hell of a ride. I should know – I’ve seen the movie five times. This review will deal primarily with the normal theatrical cut, but I will have a rating for both cuts of the film.
The movie follows a group of friends on their journey to Sweden for a festival that only happens once every 90 years. The moment the movie started I was gripped. The opening scene is intense. When I say intense, I mean wow. Genuinely gets me every time and this is before the “title” card even comes up. We get beautiful shots of nature, closeups of the tragedy to come, ominous foreshadowing, great initial character work, and an incredibly relatable introduction into the core thread of the movie- a crumbling relationship. Somehow, Aster manages to fit in a little bit of everything in a short time while giving a great road map to the tale that awaited.
Every single member of the main craw acted phenomenally. The chemistry (or lack thereof) between them makes every single element feel human and personable.Florence Pugh is downright AMAZING. The stress, the worry, the constant doubt, the codependency , the weariness – every element she gives in the first 10 minutes had me invested in how her character would progress. I cared about Dani. Watching her react and emote to the struggles she goes through is satisfying and makes a lot of the emotional moments in the movie stick in my head. Likewise Jack manages to do a great job of making the audience really hate him as Dani’s asshole aficionado boyfriend. It takes a lot to make me dislike a character that much, but I absolutely hated Christian. He’s grimy in a way that’s pretty normal which is what gives the movie such a sinister feeling. It makes you cheer against someone who really isn’t so different from ourselves. William Jackson Harper is great as Josh and feels like the first person who could be typecast as “nerdy philosophical guy who digs himself into serious problems”. I’m only half kidding, but his portrayal of a geeky super serious nerd is touching and alarming. Will Poulter is comedic gold as Mark and had me laughing literally every time he came on the screen. He helped keep the movie from ever feeling like “too much”. Rounding off the cast, Vilhelm Blomgren is great as Pelle. He’s calm and comforting which helps make the story feel that much more rounded in theme. The characters all play off each other well and watching the interactions bloom between them keeps every moment relevant. I always cared about what was going to happen to them.
This film has been described by Aster as “more of a fairy tale than a horror film,” and I couldn’t have said it better myself. This isn’t a horror movie in the traditional sense. It has gruesome elements. There are certainly moments that are unnerving and unsettling. However, the main crux of the movie deals with toxicity in relationships- romantic and platonic. Friendships are revealed for what they really are- there’s gas lighting, projection, passive aggressive behavior , and insensitivity. The fact that it all feels so real is what makes it so terrifying. There’s something recognizable in each of these moments which forces you to think about yourself in uncomfortable ways. The juxtaposition of feeling redeemed but simultaneously condemned as different relationships were revealed is something I haven’t really experienced in a movie before. But that’s the thing about people right? We’re toxic at times but also go through other toxic stuff and this movie gets that and dives right into exploring the ways we hurt ourselves and others. The first time I saw the movie , I left the theater and just started crying. It was a lot to kind of process and deal with. In my second viewing, I felt joy. A sense of elation. By the end of the movie I was laughing almost gleefully. You can always find a new way to relate or enjoy something about the film if you let yourself fall under its spell.
On top of this, the movie is downright hilarious. Like I said above, Poulter is great and has a ton of great one liners. But the fun doesn’t stop with him. The sometimes absurd reaction of certain characters to different phenomena and the way they react to certain scenarios always creates an incredibly perverse humor. There’s one scene in the third act, that had the entire audience laughing every time I saw it – but the scene itself is horrifying in terms of implication. When you realize what you’re laughing at there’s almost a sick realization of depravity. Like you’ve done something wrong, but right. That’s a special kind of humor and it never feels out of place with the other jokes.
Finally, the movie is a visual masterpiece. The movie features the use of hallucinogens. When the characters trip, the visuals match. They don’t look unrealistic or absurd like how movies want to think trips are- instead, they’re incredibly realistic. It’s honestly mesmerizing and is the best depiction I’ve seen of what the influence of those materials looks like in media. There are tons of little visual clues in a lot of scenes that will have you asking about what’s really going on. It’s a great directing technique that keeps the audience in the same frame of mind as the characters. I could feel their panic and sense of unease. Furthermore, there are so many gorgeous shots in this movie that I could easily screenshot and print out in a frame. Gorgeous wide shots of nature and the pagan festivities really sells the eerie folk feeling. The movie also takes place entirely in “the morning” which makes it even better , because the feeling of something being wrong is amplified. Aster uses mirrors and reflective surfaces to great effect, especially in dialogue scenes which creates beautiful depictions of character relations while augmenting the already astounding aesthetic.
Sound is done well and I actually noticed how well mixing was done. Sounds dim in and out based on character feeling and the intensity of the drug induced trip they’re in which only increases engagement with them. The score is also iconic and I’ve listened to it on Spotify countless times. When the music starts playing, everything starts feeling more spiritual and evocative. It’s hard to describe but it’s almost ethereal in how it amplifies the movie. It’s also used to give otherwise horrifying scenes an almost positive and spiritual vibe. Watching moments in the third act with the sound off gives the movie a brand new sinister vibe which just seems to prove to me how masterful every element adds to one another.
DIRECTOR’S CUT
If you like this movie the first time (especially if you’ve seen only the theatrical cut), I’d highly recommend watching the Director’s cut for a second watch through because of how much it reinforces and expands on what you already know from the last movie.
The Director’s cut is really good at building up character moments. Christian is more of an ass and his relationship with both Josh and Dani are fleshed out even more. It makes the payoff in the third act more satisfying and also explains some character issues I thought were slightly “too much” more understandable.
Furthermore, the cult’s activities are expanded in ways that both give events in the third act more relevance but help flesh out the group more. They feel more sinister while at the same time giving off a larger aura of spirituality. Smaller details are given far more weight which makes the whole experience feel more justified and set-up.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Midsommar is a beautiful look into the way we treat each other and the consequences of abandoning responsibility. Depending on your point of view it can be a horror or a cathartic fairy tail which gives it a lot of replay value. I thought the movie was near flawless when I first saw it, and only loved it that much more upon watching the Director’s cut. I’ve loved and raved about the movie above, but I’d only recommend watching it if you like those artsy weird horror films – The Witch, It Follows,etc. I recognize the movies aren’t for everyone and I’d hate if you had a bad time.
Rating
10/10 10/10(Director’s Cut)
Grade
A+
Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report .
