Category Archives: Review

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, B+, Drama, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, supernatural, Thriller, Year

Review: Ouija: Origin of Evil

March 12, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Mike Flanagan
Principal Cast	Elizabeth Reaser as Alice Annalise Basso as Lina Lin Shaye as old Lina Lulu Wilson as Doris Henry Thomas as Father Tom
Release Date	2016
Language(s)	English
Running Time	99 minutes

I actually watched this movie before Ouija, the ill conceived first movie, in the hopes of better understanding incongruities that appear in the last 20 minutes. After having finished the first movie, all I can say is Mike Flanagan deserves a lot of credit for giving one of the most vapid and forgettable horror movies of recent years an emotionally resonant backstory that somehow makes the original movie a little bit better. It’s hard enough to make a good movie let alone one that elevates a poor one which makes this sequel-prequel all the more rare.

Unlike the first movie, the prequel sequel makes full use of its first scene. Alice, the matriarch of our main family, is in the middle of a seance with an elderly man and his daughter. As the ceremony continues, things become more fantastical and it feels like a supernatural presence is there. Every time the daughter expresses skepticism, the presence grows along with her father’s faith in the process. It’s a tense introduction that’s made all the better when you realize that Alice is running a con service. All the paranormal events are just the result of a tricked out room and the help of her two daughters. It’s effective because it baits us into expecting scares from the start, while establishing our main family’s background as well-meaning con-artists. In 10 minutes, Flanagan manages to give his characters more of a backstory than the entirety of what Ouija does to develop its main lead.

In fact, the story takes its time establishing character motivations, essential relationships, and sources of conflict to ensure that subsequent scares have significance. When things get first get harrowing close to the 40 minute mark, you’re already invested in the family and their tribulations. They may be running a con, but they don’t do it maliciously. They’re just struggling to get along, weighed down by tragedies from the past and the financial struggles that accompany them. After the supernatural events turn more sinister, you feel for the family and root for them, even as the twists and turns start to get more ridiculous by the end of the movie. Because Flanagan doesn’t rely on cheap jump scares , there’s always a palpable sense of tension looming in the air. There’s no cheap outlet for that anxiety to so when something terrifying does happen it hits with a real momentum.

Every single main performance is on point. Even exposition scenes feel less boring and artificial because of how serious and solemnly the information is delivered. When the nature of the main horror is revealed, it definitely feels nonsensical and less developed in comparison to the well-crafted family story at the heart of the movie, but I found myself caring in spite of all of that because of how much energy the actors take in conveying the situation. In particular, Lulu Wilson absolutely kills it as Doris. She starts off innocent, not even aware that her family’s main source of income is a scam. She genuinely thinks the spiritual services her mother offers and that her sister and her help with are real. However, after she becomes influenced by the dark presence in her house, she’s actually scary. I mean legitimately frightening. She has one monologue in the latter half of the movie that still hasn’t left my mind and chills me to my bones every-time I watch it.

Now in spite of my praises, I did think the movie suffered from serious story issues in the last chunk. Because it has to set up the first movie, it’s forced into story choices that undermine a lot of the overarching themes and the logic of the supernatural events occurring. While some of these decisions could have been done better (I personally think the underlying source of the haunting is hackneyed and disappointing), I don’t think they ruin the movie. If I had to describe the situation, it’s similar to Wonder Women in that its great first and second act are marred by a less than satisfying third act. It’s not that the movie is bad. It’s just disappointing because of where it could’ve gone. If anything, I wish that this was an independent movie that had nothing to do with Ouija so the third act could’ve developed in a natural way unencumbered by any storytelling restrictions.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Ouija: Origin of Evil is a surprisingly well thought out family drama turned supernatural horror that’s less about the ouija board than the title would let on. Though it’s hampered by having to set up it’s predecessor, Ouija, it somehow manages to still deliver some shocking and scary moments that’ll keep you invested in what’s to come.
Rating	8.6/10
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, 2014, F, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, supernatural, Thriller, Year

Review: Ouija

March 11, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Stiles White
Principal Cast	Olivia Cooke as Laine Afra Sophia Tully as young Laine Shelley Hennig as Debbie Claire Beale as young Debbie Ana Coto as Sarah Izzie Galanti as young Sarah
Release Date	2014
Language(s)	English
Running Time	89 minutes

Unlike most people who had to suffer through Ouija’s theatrical run, I came into the movie after having seen the MUCH better sequel-prequel Oujia: Origin of Evil. I loved that movie up till the last 20ish minutes and couldn’t fathom how strange this section felt in comparison to the rest of the movie. I thought if I watched the original movie, it’d help make sense of where Flanagan’s sequel-prequel needed to go, given that his conclusion had to be able to lead into the beginning of this. After watching Oujia, all I can say is Mike Flanagan deserves serious recognition for even attempting at fleshing out a backstory for this horror aberration. Oujia is painfully slow, packed to the brim with cliches and cheap scares, and constantly undermines its own rules and setup culminating in one of the least satisfying horror blockbusters in recent years.

If you’ve read my reviews before, you know I love slow burn horror movies. However, that’s only if they’re done well. If a director is going to make me wait, there needs to be a huge spectacular visceral payoff or a poignant thematic resolution. Unfortunately, Ouija has neither and only ever manages to do the bare minimum to elicit scares. From the moment the movie started, I knew something was off. There’s a prologue/flashback of two young girls, Laine and Debbie, playing with a spirit board. After this the story goes to “present” day and the way the transition happens makes it obvious that Debbie is one of the girls from the flashback. There’s no tension or mystery about what the flashback meant which makes its presence just feel unnecessary. After meeting with Laine in, Debbie “kills” herself after being possessed. Laine, in her desperation to figure out what happened, tries to use a ouija board with a group of mutual friends to contact the deceased Debbie. Unfortunately, just like the first two scenes, what follows is a movie that feels empty and unexplained.

It always feels like there are weird exposition dumps instead of attempts at naturally developing the story. Information is always revealed at the most convenient times by characters the movie never wants to flesh out. For example, Laine’s grandmother appears early on to help Laine deal with her grief over Debbie’s death but randomly exhibits a profound knowledge of the occult in later scenes exactly when her granddaughter needs advice. I feel like these character traits could have been hinted at earlier and better integrated with the story, but instead of that, they’re haphazardly shoved in to keep the story going to the next telegraphed scare. At some point I felt like I was just watching generic scares from a grab-bag of supernatural horror scenes, tacked together with a contrived and emotionally vacuous plot. There’s never a reason to care about any of the characters. The inciting incident for the movie is never explained in a way that makes you care. Scares have no overarching purpose tying them together and don’t accomplish anything thematically. The worst part is they rarely made me feel anything, let alone fearful of some supernatural entity. The movie sets up that the spirit can only act in certain ways to create a sense of tension, but actively breaks those rules at every moment so there’s never a reason to think the supernatural presence is threatening.

The only redeeming part of this movie is Lin Shaye’s performance. I won’t spoil what her role is because it’s relevant to latter portions of the story, but the moment I saw her, both in my initial watch and re-watch, I felt like I cared about what was happening. She doesn’t get a lot of on-screen time, but she absolutely gives the movie a much needed pulse when she does show up. With her performance in this and The Grudge, I’m convinced you can chuck her in any horror movie and have at least some good moments. Unfortunately, everyone else in the movie came off anywhere from outright unbelievable to kind-of passable. There are definitely some “emotional” moments that feel like first takes that were just given the thumbs up with no attempts at revision.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Ouija is as boring as it is contrived. The story is slow,boring, and never manages to deliver effective surprises because it undermines it supernatural set-up at every point. Outside of a great performance from Lin Shaye, there’s nothing here, even for ardent lovers of the supernatural genre.
Rating	3.2/10
Grade	F

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, Drama, Grade, Horror, psychological, Review, review-movie, Thriller, Year

Review: The Lodge

March 5, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Veronika Franz Severin Fiala
Principal Cast	Riley Keough as Grace Jaeden Martell as Aidan Lia McHugh as Mia Richard Armitage as Richard
Release Date	2019
Language(s)	English
Running Time	108 minutes

The moment I saw the trailer for this movie and realized that Franz and Fiala were attached to the project , I waited with baited breath till the movie came to my area (which thankfully it did). Though it doesn’t reach the same heights as the duo’s debut feature, Goodnight Mommy, it’s still a standout in a sea of boring and uninspired horrors. The Lodge may fumble with the logic of some its grander narrative decisions, but it more than makes up for that with the dark,twisted offerings it has in store.

The movie follows a family on retreat to a winter cabin. When work events come up, the father, Richard, is forced to leave his children alone with his new girlfriend, Grace. There’s an immediate tension between the two parties as Grace tries to be amicable with her partner’s children who seem to want nothing to do with her. After a blizzard strands the party in the cabin, things start going bump in the night and Grace is forced to deal with the unpredictable and tumultuous state of affairs. Based on the first 10 minutes of the movie, which are absolutely shocking, I knew I was in for a brutal experience.

Unlike their first movie, this one revels in teasing the audience with what’s really going on. There’s deception and layers to deception that’ll have you constantly questioning what’s happening. I came in with some initial ideas and then was hit with switch-ups that I genuinely did not see coming. It culminates in some of the most twisted stuff I’ve seen on the big screen in a long time. This is not the movie you want to see if you’re trying to have a good time or forget about the worries of your day. The story is dark and explores the deepest, most intimate parts of the human condition. It focuses on grief, depression, and heaping doses of internalized resentment and how those elements disrupt and warp our ability to properly evaluate the proper course of action. That being said, the way certain twists are executed border on neigh unbelievable given the information the audience is presented. In their attempt to create twists that are impossible to predict, Franz and Fiala are forced to really stretch logic in ways that’ll have sticklers for rules in movies feeling frustrated. This is a story driven movie with interesting characters that’s more focused on getting to the shocking thematic and viscerally unpleasant scenes than developing the underlying logic as to why those things are happening in the first place.

While the characters aren’t as developed as I would have liked, the performances of the actors playing them are refined and accentuate the tension and uncomfortable nature of the situation. Both Martell and McHugh manage to show their disdain for their dad’s new lover in their own unique and petty ways, from the silent treatment to the mean side-eye. Their obvious care and affection for one another leaps off the screen and it’s completely believable that they’re siblings struggling to find their footing in the world. Likewise, Keough manages to portray the range of emotions any desperate person would do trying to impress their partner’s kids going from enthusiastic to laid back to assertive. At the same time, she shows the cracks in her psyche as the blizzard and her isolation continue. Given the nature of the twists ,the twists within twists, and so on, it’s even more impressive just how well everyone managed to keep the nature of the mystery under wraps until just the right moment.

Unfortunately, despite being stylish and packed with scenes I won’t be able to get out of my head for the foreseeable future, one of the movie’s bigger reveals feels like it comes out of left field. I don’t want to spoil anything because the movie should be seen with absolutely no knowledge of any of the mystery, but I think the way everything pans out feels undeserved at some level. If the movie spent another 10-15 minutes developing character backgrounds, tightening up the references to Christianity, and making better use of a dollhouse set that’s used to transition between scenes it would’ve been up there with some of very best. The elements are all there. It’s just that they’re not meshing all the way through.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	The Lodge is as dark as it is twisted in its depiction of how grief and hatred warp our perception of the world. The story of a new girlfriend trying to get her partner’s kids to open up to her goes places you won’t be able to un-see and will manage to chill you even if the setup feels over-the-top at times.
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

2015, A+, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, Thriller, Year

Review: Goodnight Mommy

March 4, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Veronika Franz Severin Fiala
Principal Cast	Elias Shcwarz as Elias Lukas Schwarz as Lukas Susanne Wuest as the Mother
Release Date	2014
Language(s)	German
Running Time	100 minutes

After I saw the trailer for this movie back in 2015, I knew I had to watch it. The trailer by itself has everything you’d want in a movie: evocative and eerie imagery, unnerving music, and a general sense of dread. When I first watched the movie I was super into it but felt like it showed its hand a bit too early. However, on subsequent watches I think the decision made make the entire piece unified in what it’s trying to convey, even if it takes out some of the ambiguity I’d have wanted.

The story starts off with an interesting enough premise; a pair of twin brothers, Elias and Lukas, grow suspicious of their mother’s identity after she exhibits eccentric behavior post facial reconstruction surgery. The way the mystery builds up is interesting in how it’s predicated on what’s not being shown on screen more so than hints and cues from what is being shown. This is a story that seems like it’s obvious, but upon closer inspection the obvious clues are left to invite more thought about background affairs. It gives the original mystery at the heart of the movie a kick that’ll have you coming back to watch over and over again. The first time I saw the movie, I was surprised at how much my allegiances to each character shifted and changed. This is in spite of “figuring out” what the movie was about.

Everything only works because of how well the family dynamic is set up and acted by the principal cast. Wuest exudes ambiguity and enables the first level of mystery- whether or not she really is the pair’s mother- to operate seamlessly. I have my own interpretation, but the way that she responds to certain sequences is commendable. One of the more apparent twists in the movie wouldn’t work without her ability to effortlessly sell her character’s perspective. Likewise, both Elias and Lukas bring life to the twins they play and the suspicions the duo have. You can feel the love the two have for each other. They practically feel like one unit, connected at the hip. Their response to the increasingly uncertain circumstance is not only justified, but done in a way that makes you forget you’re watching child actors as opposed to children going through a terrifying,mysterious situation. The dynamic between the whole unit feels authentic and dripping with tension and ambiguity which makes the hellscape the movie turns into that much more impactful.

At the heart of the mystery is a tale about trauma, it’s role in shaping our identity, and the way those fractures affect our ability to gauge and interact with the world. We spend time with both sets of characters, the mother and the boys, in isolation dealing with their own agendas and issues. Their interactions together compliment what we know and paints a whole picture of both sets. Each twist in the story adds a layer to that discussion and it culminates in an jarring but resonant way. The movie does a great job visualizing these ideas in the scares. From the abstract nightmare sequences to the very real visceral moments of violence, the movie never lets up with ramping up the terror. There’s more than one moment that had me watching everything from behind the slits between my fingers.

While I love the way the movie approaches most of its elements, I think its use of ambiguity is uneven. There are certain character decisions that I think are great and manage to work at every level of the story, but then other decisions only manage to fulfill one level while missing the mark elsewhere. For example, there are moments that had me going “No way. X should’ve done Y at an earlier point.” Yes, technically X being done at a certain moment is fine and works at a thematic level, but it hurts the movie from a realism level. Thankfully the theme and story work so well that I could forget some of the incongruities and “what about” moments, but hardcore sticklers for movie logic might not be as forgiving.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	There’s more than meets the eye in this story of two boys trying to figure out if their mother is really who she says she is. Goodnight Mommy‘s balances visceral scares with a deep dive on the way trauma affects our identity and relationship with others. If you’ve seen it and thought it showed its hand too early, watch it again and focus on what’s not being said. You may find something more to appreciate in this thought provoking gem.
Rating	9.5/10
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, 2015, A, Drama, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, Thriller, Year

Review: The Invitation

March 3, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Karyn Kusama
Principal Cast	Logan Marshall-Green as Will Tammy Blanchard as Eden Michiel Huisman as David Emayatzy Corinealdi as Kira
Release Date	2015
Language(s)	English
Running Time	100 minutes

As someone who enjoyed Jennifer’s Body quite a lot on release, I was excited when I saw that the director, Karyn Kusama, was making another horror movie, The Invitation, and eagerly waited for it to get a wider release. I thought the movie was interesting the first time, but felt slightly let down by the time the mystery at the heart of the story was fully revealed. However, on subsequent watches I’ve come to appreciate just how meticulous the twists and turns of the story are hidden and revealed and genuinely love the way the whole thing plays out.

The story follows Will and Kira, a couple on their way to visit Will’s ex-wife, Eden, at the former couple’s old house. Immediately, the story feels off. The idea of an ex inviting their former lover and respective partner just feels strange and the story makes that feeling pronounced before we even get to the house. When Will and Kira arrive, the former is greeted by a host of familiar faces and it’s clear that there’s a lot of shared history between the people present. As initial conversations play out, it’s made apparent that the group split apart due to some traumatic event and the night is a kind of reconciliation of sorts. Except something is wrong. Or maybe nothing is wrong.

The movie takes its sweet time getting to the answers and prefers to steep in mystery and misdirection. There are multiple scenes where instinctively it feels like something is horribly off. You can feel the horror set-up, but the movie never gives you the satisfaction of letting you know if the set up was obvious on purpose to misdirect or if it’s the cliche proper. The ambiguity never lets up. This mystery is made more immersive because Will, our protagonist and main point of contact, shares the exact same concerns. It’s almost like he’s watched horror movies and gets antsy in the situations we’re nervous in. We don’t need to scream at the characters, when a character in the movie is willing to do it for us. Except it’s made apparent early on that Will may not be as reliable as we’d hope. The use of dream sequences, cuts from the past to reality, and the constant juxtaposition of Will’s uneasiness with the rest of the group’s general lax and nonchalant attitude to the situations presented had me questioning if I was the crazy one for relating to him.

This is a movie about survival in more ways than one. Given the circumstances leading to the fated gathering, it’s not hard to imagine that certain parties would be nervous about attending, especially Will. As certain moments unfold, that suspicion gets stronger. However, just like most of us are taught in real life, the characters politely disregard stranger moments in favor of maintaining social unity. If nothing’s too off, then it’s okay to acquiesce to some oddities to keep the peace. The question is just how odd to let things get before acting. Has society made us so fearful that we take even innocent actions as suspicious enough to pull the trigger on or are we so polite that we’d let people get away with blatantly problematic behavior without ever butting in? Both sides are real and something a lot of us have had to deal with. The movie toes the line between the concepts in a way that’s somehow tense in the moment but poetic to think about.

Despite being a movie mainly about a series of conversations, the movie never feels boring or uninteresting. The off-putting characters are strange enough to make you look twice but never do anything to verify suspicions. The more relatable characters constantly ease and mellow out suspicions, even if their outlook on events feels a bit absurd at times. It adds up to a slow, atmospheric mystery that builds to a sudden reveal at which point the movie goes at a breakneck pace to a stunning, well-earned conclusion.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	The Invitation is a mystery that doesn’t stop surprising till its very end. You know the story of a man and his girlfriend being invited to his ex-wife’s (and his former) house for a shindig after a traumatic event left the couple and their friends devastated is going to deliver something different, but the movie excels in making you ask what that is. The movie’s discussion of survival in relation to trauma and suspicion is interesting and has only become more relevant in our increasingly diverse society. If you can handle a long build-up and enjoy atmospheric horrors, this is for you.
Rating	9.3/10
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

2000s, 2009, A, Black-Comedy, Comedy, Grade, Review, review-movie, supernatural, Year

Review: Jennifer’s Body

March 3, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Karyn Kusama
Principal Cast	Megan Fox as Jennifer Amanda Seyfried as Needy Johny Simmons as Chip
Release Date	2009
Language(s)	English
Running Time	102 minutes

When this movie first came out over a decade ago, I thought it was going to be some schlocky exploitative film based on the advertising. Watching the movie proved to be a completely different experience and I remember feeling pretty satisfied with what I saw. As you can imagine I was shocked when I saw the low Rotten Tomatoes score. Thankfully, after a recent re-watch, I’m proud to say my love for the movie has only appreciated over the years and I’m confident that if it came out today, it’d probably end up doing great. At least I hope it would. If anything this is more proof that the Tomato Meter only matters if you let it matter.

Needy, a reticent nerd, realizes that her super popular BFF, Jennifer, has transformed into a man-eating succubus, and desperately tries to stop her carnivorous ways. The movie picks up on Needy in a mental institution, explaining the events of Jennifer’s possession and her subsequent rampage. This framing mechanism gives the story a sense of mystery and allows for some fun “breaking the 4th wall” moments. Needy is so bad ass and resolute in this “current” timeline and so reserved and shy in the story she narrates. You want to why and she tells you in an incredibly entertaining way. The way the framing mechanism bookends certain moments makes it clear the story is focused on Needy’s journey, not her destination. Once the movie “ends” you appreciate the way the whole story was structured a lot more.

Despite being a horror movie and containing some genuinely chilling moments to experience and think about, the movie stands in out in just how funny it is. Yes, there’s a few moments where the humor and horror clash, but I think for the most part the two elements accentuate one another. The movie has a good blend of parodies of cliched young adult humor and some genuinely dark humor with a distinct feminist blend. I found myself laughing at the more obvious jokes while appreciating the more subtle-not-so-subtle social commentary.

The idea of stopping a succubus isn’t new, but the movie mainly utilizes its supernatural aspect to navigate a litany of (especially at the time of the movie’s release) unexplored ideas as opposed to just playing it cool as a creature feature. Somehow the story explores toxicity in relationships, the way women are stripped of agency and forced to play disparate social roles, and the way tragedy is exploited. The small town setting is taken full advantage of to make these ideas even more pronounced.

Fox kills it as the lead. She feels like a caricature of what people actually thought/think about her and nails the air-headed, egotistical, narcissistic pretty girl archetype. After her transformation into bloodthirsty succubus, she manages to ramp her annoying qualities up a notch which lends to some genuinely funny moments. Seyfried is great as the nerdy shy friend who’s slowly forced into becoming more proactive as things get more and more out of control. The energy they give off is infectious and jumps off the screen.

At a surface level, the two have almost nothing in common with the former acting in service of the latter since their childhood. It’s a relatable relationship dynamic that I haven’t seen explored a lot, let alone in such depth and nuance. They may be “BFFs”, but as the film progresses the parameters of what that relationship really means and entails become clear, faults and all. The romantic tension between them is also teased and stretched in ways that not only feels well justified thematically but feels natural and for the most part non-exploitative. Their respective interactions juxtaposed with the almost nonchalant indifference Jennifer treats her victims with gives you a lot to think about and does a good job humanizing our monster in disguise. Yes, there’s a few sexually charged scenes, but the movie’s focus is on the relationship underneath the physical exchange, not the exchange itself.

While I love how Needy and Jennifer’s relationship is explored, certain supernatural elements of it feel unjustified/contrived. These moments feel like they exist just to create certain confrontations to push the story forward as opposed to naturally occurring plot events. Additionally, some side characters feel a bit too comical and one-note, so they stand out in contrast to the more well realized main characters. These problems never de

REPORT CARD

TLDR	Jennifer’s Body tells the story of a girl desperate to stop her former best friend turned succubus from terrorizing the men of their small town. Somehow this highly slept on blend of horror, comedy, and dark humor manages to be even more socially relevant today than back in 2009 when it was released. Don’t let the trailers fool you. There’s more than meets the eye in this unapologetically fun movie.
Rating	9.1/10
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

2019, A+, Drama, Grade, Review, review-movie, romance, Year

Review: Portrait of a Lady on Fire

March 2, 2020 The Critic Leave a comment

Director(s)	Céline Sciamma
Principal Cast	Noémie Merlant as Marianne Adèle Haenel as Heloise Luàna Bajrami as Sophie
Release Date	2019
Language(s)	French
Running Time	120 minutes

Marianne, a young painter, is hired to paint the portrait of Heloise, a member of the French aristocracy for the latter’s future husband to be. The catch? She has to do it in secret without Heloise finding out because the not-so-blushing bride to be has no desire to get married. As a result she’s hired on as a companion and is forced to steal glances at her subject and commit them to memory in an effort to paint them later. What follows is a forbidden romance as the our two leading ladies guide us through a discussion of art, the relationship of the painter vs the subject, love, desire, and the functions of our gaze. It’s one of the most touching love stories I’ve had the pleasure of watching and I haven’t been able to stop thinking about it since I saw it last night.

The movie is slow and deliberately paced to give every moment importance. Dialogue is slow and deliberate. Often times our leading ladies talks slowly and meticulously, accentuating the importance of the few lines of spoken dialogue that happen throughout the film. Most times conversation takes place through the series of gazes. Early on Marianne has to take note of Heloise’s features without coming off as too obvious. Meanwhile, the Heloise steals glances of the the painter-in-disguise when she’s looking away. As the relationship progresses so does the nature of the gaze. It’s genuinely amazing just how much of the story can be felt and told in this way. Both Merlant and Haenel knock it out of the park in how well they manage to convey their thoughts and emotions in their eyes. You can tell exactly what wavelength they’re on emotionally, independently, and as a couple growing more deeply in love. The desire inherent in what they’re looking at tells the real story of what’s happening between the two. Their chemistry radiates off the screen and the build-up to more crucial moments is well worth the long wait time.

On top of being rich from a narrative standpoint, the movie is packed to the brim with interesting themes. At one level the movie is about the relationship between the painter and their subject. Usually when we think of art, we think of the artist rendering the subject into a piece of art. The subject is stripped of agency and becomes an object to be transformed. However, as the painter glances at the subject, the subject glances back at the painter and a similar kind of understanding is created. At another level the movie is a profound critique of the way women are forced into social positions where their desire is redirected against their will and offers methods of overcoming those situations in realistic ways. The way that these ideas mix together in relation to each other and to the nature of a forbidden romance is touching and has given more than enough to think about. The brilliance of the movie is how each of these moments is seamlessly layered into the larger tapestry of the movie in a way that flows with the story.

Finally, as if you needed another reason, this is one of the prettiest movies I’ve ever seen. Every shot is bursting with color and the color palette on display is vibrant and highly distinct. The movie’s never boring to look at and as the island the characters are on is traversed more, the changes in scenery keep every moment feeling fresh. Every single detail is visible up to the strands of saliva that remain post kiss. If that isn’t high fidelity I don’t know what is. The way that certain shots are blocked and positioned are both visceral and thematic. My jaw dropped more than one time at the sheer artistry of certain frames. Music is used sparsely so you’re completely immersed into the scene and what the character’s are doing. When it does come into play, and believe me it does, it only exists as a kind of bow on top of a perfect present. It somehow seals the whole movie together into a pristine package.

REPORT CARD

TLDR	A Portrait of a Lady on Fire’s ingenious premise of a painter forced to paint a subject without letting them know is explored to its fullest in this queer, French, period piece that’s packed to the brim with some of 2019’s best cinematography. The way the movie tackles desire, the gaze, love, women’s social positions, art, and the relation of painters and their subjects somehow gives each topic justice while melding them together into a one of a kind experience that you shouldn’t miss. Please do yourself the service of watching this.
Rating	10/10
Grade	A+

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

Pages: 1 2

2020, 2020s, A+, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, Science Fiction, science fiction horror, Thriller, Year

Review: The Invisible Man (2020)

February 29, 2020 The Critic 2 Comments

Director(s)	Leigh Whannell
Principal Cast	Elisabeth Moss as Cecilia Oliver Jackson-Cohen as Adrian Aldis Hodge as Detective James Harriet Dyer as Emily Storm Reid as Sydney
Release Date	2020
Language(s)	English
Running Time	124 minutes

Leigh Whannell has never made a movie I haven’t enjoyed either as a screenwriter or director. The Insidious series is one of my favorite horror franchises and wouldn’t have been possible without him. 2018’s Upgrade made me appreciate how well he could move behind the camera and I was hyped up to see what he was going to do next. Then I saw the trailers for his latest feature, a remake of the iconic The Invisible Man. I’ll be honest when I say that I didn’t have faith the movie would be good. I thought the trailer spoiled too much and I thought the movie would be schlocky or boring as a result. If it wasn’t for my love of Whannell’s past works I would’ve given this a sit-out till reviews came out, like I did for Fantasy Island . Thankfully, I ended up seeing this opening night and left the theater blown away. Whanell has taken the core components of H.G Well’s beloved story and fitted them into a #MeToo movie that’s topical and nuanced without being patronizing.

The story follows Cecilia, an abused women who decides enough is enough and attempts to escape from her controlling and manipulative husband. Despite knowing that she’d escape based off the trailers , I still felt my knuckles clench during the opening sequence. It is pin drop silent as Emily Moss tip toes around the mansion that serves as her castle. You can feel her tension in every action, in every moment, in every hurried look around her settings to make sure that her husband isn’t near. Thankfully for the audience, it’s only an appetizer for what’s to come. After she manages to get out of the situation, she receives the news that her husband has apparently died from suicide and has left her a huge sum in his will. Soon after this, she settles into an apparently peaceful life, that is, until she realizes that her husband may not be dead and instead might be stalking her as an invisible man.

Whannell gets what makes invisibility scary and manages to push the concept in new, bold ways. There are moments where the camera pans from a character to a supposedly empty area. It lingers there almost hinting that the invisible assailant is in the same space. It’s almost like Whannell is taunting you to pick out where the man is. Sometimes there’s a discernible sign something is there. Other times there’s nothing. I felt myself becoming more paranoid and off kilter as I desperately tried to find him in the frame. It’s brilliant move that places you in Cecilia’s frame of mind. Once she realizes she’s being stalked, no space is a safe space. Any space could house “him” in it and she constantly has to be on high alert at all times. The ingenuity of panning to different kids of empty settings is we’re never made aware if the titular antagonist is actually there. We, the audience and Cecilia, might just be staring at nothing, scaring ourselves at the idea of what’s there. It creates an immersive atmosphere that should pull anyone in , regardless of gender or sex.

What gives the movie it’s unique subtext is also one of the main differences between it and the 1933 original- the focus on the perspective of the victim and not the assailant. We follow Cecilia the whole movie, so the fear of being pursued by an invisible assailant feels more personal as opposed to detached. There’s a stronger sense of culpability which makes us even more sympathetic of the main character’s plight. That’s why it feels so frustrating to see her rebuffed at every opportunity. Of course it would sound crazy to talk about how you’re being stalked by your invisible dead husband. Even when the malevolent entity is literally in the room invading her space and psyche, no one believes her. It’s a poignant #MeToo call , as Cecilia desperately tries to get anyone to believe her abuse and help her. The fear of losing ones mind from constant gaslighting compliments and accentuates the fear of invisibility. It gives the movie layers of textured horror.

At the heart of all of this is Elisabeth Moss’s performance as Cecilia. Holy shit. Moss is asked to do so much this movie and delivers on all fronts. Early on when she’s just escaping, she nails the dread and anxiety of leaving her abuser. The uncertainty of her precautions working shows in her face and her constant glances. When she thinks her husband is dead you can see her body language change. Her face brightens and you can feel the hope set in, which is why when she realizes that he may not be as dead as everyone says, it hurts. You can see the confidence tear as it’s replaced by anxiety and paranoia again. The fatigue, the weariness, the feeling of being absolutely done; it’s all there. There are huge scenes where she’s literally talking to nothing visible in the room, but you feel like someone else is there, because maybe there is. When she starts to fight back, you can feel the fight or flight in her desperation and/or her tenacity. She’s the emotional core of the movie and without such an amazing performance, the story would fail to be as effective of compelling.

There are a few story issues that threaten the underlying logic of the movie, but I didn’t notice them in the moment. Some of them feel like more serious realism issues . Others are more nitpicky. However, none of them detracted from my enjoyment or from the story in a meaningful way. If you’re someone who can’t turn the “but how could they even” part of your brain off, you might get frustrated with some of thriller sequences in the second act. Thankfully, I was able to ignore that inner voice and just let myself be transported into Whannell’s world.

Report Card

TLDR	The Invisible Man knocks it out of the park. It captures the essential ideas of the original movie, but manages to make them more topical for our day and age. The story of an abused wife being stalked by her supposedly dead, abusive husband manages to surprise more than the trailers would let on. Whannell manages to deliver some well earned scares alongside an incredibly relevant message in the #MeToo era.
Rating	9.5/10
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

The Critic's Sanctum

Category Archives: Review

Film Review: Halloween – 1978

REPORT CARD

Review: Black Christmas

REPORT CARD

Review: Ouija: Origin of Evil

REPORT CARD

Review: Ouija

REPORT CARD

Review: The Lodge

REPORT CARD

Review: Goodnight Mommy

REPORT CARD

Review: The Invitation

REPORT CARD

Review: Jennifer’s Body

REPORT CARD

Review: Portrait of a Lady on Fire

REPORT CARD

Review: The Invisible Man (2020)

Report Card

A place for fun and rumination