The red title card. Text indicates this is a prequel to the first two franchise installments. The black screen becomes a bright white.The camera tilts down from the skies to Quinn (Stefanie Scott) standing on the street. The title sequence gets straight to the point, going from the title card to a street-view of our protagonist, Quinn, making her way to a house.
The title sequence starts in typical Insidious fashion: the credits are written with blue letters that dissipate in ethereal fashion before violent instrumentals punctuate the soundscape and the ominous red title card comes into frame. More blue text indicates that this third chapter in the franchise is a prequel to the first two movies. Then the text fades to a black screen which explodes in a burst of white light; the light becomes a skyline where birds fly around and the camera moves down to street-level. A young woman, Quinn Brenner (Stefanie Scott), walks down the street towards a house.
She knocks on the front door and an elderly woman, Elise (Lin Shaye) comes to answer. Quinn indicates she’s heard of Elise’s psychic powers and consultations and requests help with a supernatural affair. Elise responds in the negative and explains that her days of psychic entrepreneurship are over. Nonetheless, the sincerity of Quinn’s pleas moves Elise and she offers the would-be-customer a chance to come in and talk.
Quinn explains that she’s lost her mother some time ago and thinks that the latter is communicating with her. Since the occasion, she’s become insistent on reaching back out; it’s clear that her mom served a critical role in her life and confirmation of such contact would help Quinn find a firm footing in life. Elise gets swept up in the admission and begrudgingly offers to help Quinn try and contact Quinn’s deceased mother.
Elise (Lin Shaye) turns out the lights. The camera pushes in from behind Quinn (Stefanie Scott) as she turns around. A presence is felt even though its not seen. Elise (Lin Shaye) experiences pain and stops the séance. The séance goes wrong quickly. As the camera pushes in on Quinn, it becomes apparent an entity has responded to her and Elise’s calls. Its malevolent presence can be felt in the room behind Quinn, prompting Elise to stop the process immediately.
Elise turns out the light and begins delving into the realm beyond, but it becomes clear that something is going wrong. The camera pushes in from behind Quinn; something is coming. She turns and looks behind her and senses an unseen presence in the room. It’s clear that the wrong specter has heard the call. Elise’s face contorts in pain and she stops the séance, indicating that such occupational dangers are the reason she’s left the profession. The retired psychic turns to Quinn and warns the latter to stop reaching out for her mother because any message to one of the dead can be heard by all of them, and as the two just witnessed, some of the specters from beyond are more than willing to cause harm to those who call to them.
Alas, now that the other side has heard Quinn’s call and knows her of the depths of her longing, it’s not going to let her go so easily. Dark forces slowly infiltrate her life and begin to wreak havoc, leaving her bruised and damaged in her journey to find her mother. Unable to deal with the supernatural shenanigans, Sean (Dermot Mulroney), Quinn’s father, contacts Elise to help with the situation. The psychic is thus forced back into the fray and must confront her own inner demons as she seeks to stop the demonic forces that currently threaten Quinn’s life.
Unfortunately, for fans of the franchise, the film’s status as a prequel makes the journey to come predictable; the fate of pivotal characters is already known, so a sense of tension is missing. The script doesn’t account for this in any fashion, opting for inoffensive and tried story beats to generate a baseline level of interest in what’s to come. At one level, the story spends little time in building up Quinn or her family; the relationships between members of the Brenner family never get pushed or stressed in ways that would give the characters something for the viewer to latch onto.
Meanwhile, Elise, who serves as a secondary hero in the story, is given very little to do, which is a shame when Lin Shaye is one of the better actors here. The journey of a psychic so scared by the darkness of the astral world that she seals her own power is one that has so much ground to traverse, but instead of giving Elise room to grow and understand her role, the story prods her to her foregone conclusion with little demonstration of Elise’s decision-making process.
Consequently, the narrative, though coherent, offers very little space to latch on. It’s a vehicle for frightening set-pieces. But just like the story, these set-pieces are lacking a vitality or ingenuity that sets them apart from traditional haunted-house fare. A character will notice something is wrong. A presence will show up. The character will look around for them and then BOOM. A loud jolt along with a “creepy” image and the sequence is done. While both Insidious and Insidious: Chapter 2have “jump scares” in them, both films employ them in measured manners that lets them have an impact. They build up to their scares through a chaotic sound design which never gives the viewer a moment to rest or predict what’s going to come next. In contrast, Chapter 3 opts for the same audio design for each of its set-pieces which makes them feel more chore than scare.
The problem is frustrating because it’s clear that director Leigh Whannell is competent at the technical aspects of nailing suspenseful sequences. There are multiple moments where the tension builds naturally as entities enter the background quietly. There’s a time given to let a reaction build up. But instead of riding the momentum and delivering on the subtle and eerie nature of what’s going on, Whannell opts to go for bombastic and showy spectacles. This might be forgiven if, like Chapter 2, Chapter 3 utilized the metaphysical trappings of its universe to set-up visually distinctive spectacles, but it never manages to tap into the same visual possibilities. It’s telling when the first two entries bathe their supernatural sequences with hellish reds and astral blues and this entry only makes use of the color scheme at the start and end of its narrative. In fact, outside of some events in the third act, there’s very little here to distinguish the film as an entry in the franchise; it could have just been a supernatural story with no connection to what came before.
In this sense, Insidious: Chapter 3 is frustrating not because it’s particularly bad in any one way but because it never manages to embellish an identity for itself – a disappointment given the potential the mythos of the franchise offers. By opting for the safe and simple choice at most turns, the narrative never manages to endear itself to anyone looking for something deeper than just a simple and technically competent supernatural story.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
The third chapter in the Insidious franchise lacks the identity or charisma that made the previous entries, namely the first film, mainstays of the horror genre. The set-pieces and narrative never make use of the metaphysical possibilities inherent to the franchise, opting for conventional set-ups and trappings at every turn. While this may be entertaining for the viewer looking for a simple, conventional supernatural outing, those hoping for something unique and engaging should look elsewhere.
Rating
6.9/10
Grade
C+
Go to Page 2for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Text card explaining the genealogy of the word ‘sicario’ The modern day usage of ‘Sicario’ means hitman. Establishing shot of a neighborhood in Arizona.Soldiers invade the domestic space. Kate (Emily Blunt) gets ready for the operation. A tank breaks in through the wall. and dust blows everywhere Kate (Emily Blunt) avoids getting shot and kills her assailant. Kate (Emily Blunt) is assisted by Reggie (Daniel Kaluuya) after her encounter. Reggie finds two bodies behind the wall. The film starts with the genealogy of the term “sicario”, a word that initially referred to zealots who killed for their values that now means assassin in Mexico. In other words, the word has transformed from a protector fighting for something to nothing more than a killer. Where does on term end and the other begin? How do they reconcile? These are the questions at the heart of Sicario.
An establishing shot reveals soldiers infiltrating a domestic neighborhood – the homeland has been infiltrated by an enemy hiding in plain sight and the protectors are on their way. Kate, the head of the operation, has her tank bulldoze through the house and then bests an assailant in a gun-fight leading to the individual’s death. However, his bullet ricochet reveals the house in question is nothing more than a mausoleum, filled to the brim with bodies. In other words, the domestic foundation has become the birthplace of the macabre.
The film starts by defining the term ‘sicario’: it was initially used to refer to zealots defending their homeland but means ‘hitman’ in the status quo. Though both interpretations of the word signify a killer, one is oriented around protecting ideals while the other seems to confirm a nihilistic kill-or-be-killed world where no values could persist. This dichotomy between the two meanings of the word represents the battleground Sicario takes place on as it explores what the transition between the terms signifies about the world in a paradigmatic sense.
The establishing shot starts from the vantage point of the idealistic interpretation of the word: a domestic view of a neighborhood in Arizona is interrupted as a group of soldiers, defenders of the homeland, creep into frame while the late Jóhann Jóhannsson’s palpable score reverberates like a droning heartbeat in the background, adding to the feeling of tension. The leader of the group, Kate (Emily Blunt), sits in a tank ready for breach before the vehicle breaks into a house, scattering dust all over the area. She gets down to investigate the residence with her squad but is suddenly caught off guard by a armed resident in the house. She evades his bullet and manages to kill him. The sound calms down. It seems like the dust has settled.
However, his bullet, despite missing her, opens another wound that proves to be even more devastating . The wall, broken in by the impact of the shot, reveals a series of bagged up corpses hiding within – a simple hostage retrieval becomes a mortifying entry into the macabre.
Kate (Emily Blunt) goes outside to vomit. Reggie (Daniel Kaluuya) goes outside to vomit. Officers find a padded cell. A close-up of one of the hidden corpses. The hut blows up. Kate (Emily Blunt) is caught in the debris. A severed arm appears. Kate (Emily Blunt) tries to wash the blood of the day off of her. Kate (Emily Blunt) looks into her clouded image, unable to fully see herself. Just when Kate thinks the situation has settled, an explosion is triggered and the dust which had finally settled is thrown up in bloody aplomb. Kate walks through the hellscape and sees a severed hand for her troubles. At home, she desperately tries to wash the filth of the obscene events out of her body and mind, but as she stares into her self image, it’s clear that her image of the world has already started to change.
Kate immediately goes outside to vomit. Being a soldier doesn’t entail being unaffected by such senseless violence, and the brutality of the situation shakes Kate and her crew. She’s asked by personnel on how to document the situation given its severity. Kate insists that the records reveal everything; transparency is more necessary than ever.
While she tries to get an accurate count on the number of bodies in the house, a group of officers outside find a padlocked door in a shed and try and open it. The cuts and expectations established previously lead the viewer to think it’s more bodies hidden away, but the intense heartbeat track comes back signaling shifting times. Suddenly, the shed explodes.
Debris and dust scatter everywhere, obfuscating the frame, and Kate is once again lost in the fog of the situation, unable to see anything besides the carnage. The domestic area turned mausoleum has now become the site of an explosion – suburbia rendered into a site of gratuitous violence. In her efforts to preserve the rule of law, Kate finds herself soaked with so much blood that she can’t seem to scrub it all off in the shower. As she looks into a clouded reflection of herself in her bathroom mirror, it’s clear her more idealistic worldview has been delivered a tremendous blow.
Kate’s superiors speak to Matt (Josh Brolin) about her qualifications. Kate (Emily Blunt) addresses Matt (Josh Brolin) and her superiors. Kate notices that Matt is wearing flip-flops.Kate is offered an opportunity to deal with the people “really responsible” for the violence she saw by an man, initially framed as imposing and mysterious, named Matt. After questioning Kate and informing of her of his mission, she volunteers for his task force and leaves the area, emboldened to achieve her mission. However, as she leaves she notices Matt’s attire is completely distinct from everyone else. He’s in shorts and flip-flops as opposed to a suit and boots. The disjunct between personality, mission, and appearance all serve to highlight the way image is modulated and not defined. The question becomes why Matt is presenting himself in this way and the answer has to do with the themes the film tries to develop.
The next day comes. Kate and her partner on the force, Reggie (Daniel Kaluuya), wait outside of a glass-paned room as their superiors discuss the previous day’s mission. A man speaks to the group with the camera positioned to his back. His framing suggests importance and a sense of mystery. He asks about Kate and Reggie’s respective backgrounds, approving of Kate’s but rejecting Reggie upon hearing about his legal education. The group calls Kate in and introduces her to the man of the hour, Matt (Josh Brolin).
First, he asks her about her relationship and child status. He’s abrupt and straight to the point. She responds she’s both divorced and childless. He tells her he’s hunting the cartels behind the bodies and bombings. She expresses interest. Her superior, Forsing (Jeffrey Donovan) tells her that joining such a task-force requires volunteering for the position. She asks Matt if they’ll be able to hold the people who committed the acts responsible. He guarantees that they’ll be able to deal with the masterminds behind the operation itself.
She agrees with no hesitation and her journey begins. However, as she leaves the room, she notices that the charming, yet serious Matt, shrouded in mystery, is wearing flip-flops in sharp contrast to everyone else in the room wearing business professional clothing – another indication that appearances are not to be trusted. Images are always imbued with an purpose and can’t be taken at face value.
Establishing shot of Nogales, Mexico. Silvio (Maximiliano Hernández) is woken by his son. Silvio (Maximiliano Hernández) puts on his police uniform and walks his son to the soccer field. The film cuts to Mexico and establishes another domestic hub; this time the subjects are Silvio, a cop, and his wife and son. Though seemingly a respite, the turn to a house in the wake of the destruction of another house along with the invocation of Mexico and cartel violence is anxiety inducing because it serves as the nexus point of multiple points of concern. It may be peaceful for now, but the story has confirmed that this will be a site of turmoil later. The family’s journey here is a counterpoint to Kate’s own journey.
The film cuts to a neighborhood in Nogales, Mexico. A young boy wakes up his father, Silvio(Maximiliano Hernández), to ask him to play soccer. Silvio gets up, eats breakfast while getting a nice helping of side-eye from his wife, puts on his police uniform, and then proceeds to take his son out on a walk. This adjunct narrative is a sense of normalcy that gives the viewer a reprieve from the violence; however, its presence immediately generates a sense of unease. The opening’s mention of Mexico in relation to sicario qua assassin, the eruption of violence in the American residence, the focus on cartel violence, and Silvio’s status as police officer transform a seemingly benign scene and moment into one that threatens to become catastrophic.
Reggie is sent home while Kate (Emily Blunt) is allowed to proceed. Kate (Emily Blunt) sees an unknown man(Benicio del Toro) near the plane along with Matt(Josh Brolin).The plane flies over a mountain whose size engulfs it. The route to Kate’s first mission sets up the twists and turns to come. Despite being legally permitted, Reggie, the lawyer, is turned away at the gates. When Kate gets to the airplane, she meets another mysterious figure who she was unaware of. Then when she’s on the plane, this figure, Alejandro, reveals that the location of the mission is not in the United States but is in Mexico instead. As the plane makes it’s way to its destination, its shadow is swallowed by the wild canvas of the mountains – a premonition of things to come and a confirmation that Kate is going to be engulfed by the task at hand.
Back in the United Sates, Reggie drives Kate to her first day on Matt’s team. She’s told she’s going to El Paso with them on some preliminary task-work. However, upon getting to the gate, Reggie is denied access and the uncertainty about the situation increases. The emissary of the law is not allowed to pry his eyes upon this supposedly legal execution of justice. He’s forced to leave as Kate continues forward.
As she gets closer to the plane, another man, with his head turned around as to disguise his visage, appears at the plane’s tail. Matt comes out to greet Kate letting her know that the wayward man is Alejandro (Benicio del Toro) – another unexpected surprise. The trio get on the plane and Alejandro asks Kate if she’s ever been to Juárez; the shoe fully drops and the pretenses dissipate as Kate realizes that the mission she’s signed up for is far more expansive than she could have imagined.
While the nature of where Sicario mysteries lead is fairly by the books, the way its cinematically rendered gives it a poignancy that elevates the film into something special. Screenwriter Taylor Sheridan’s script is propulsive and juggles multiple storylines, giving director Denis Villenevue the ability to flex his muscles and leave his mark of the genre. Instead of focusing on the mystery, Villenevue repeatedly turns the viewer’s attention to the dichotomy introduced at the film’s start by utilizing parallels in characters and groups to demonstrate the way the terms and the manner by which they’re used to categorize can rapidly shift .
There’s an implied distinction between between killing while oriented towards an ideal that stands for something greater than oneself and killing for the sake of something material, like wealth. The former position is one that’s idealistic and moves towards a vision of a “just” world. The latter is one that’s nihilistic and treats the world of winner-take-all. Or is that really the case? Are the two ideas separate or do they bleed into one another? Could one assassinate as an ideal or choose to assassinate in order to move towards an ideal? Villeneuve allows these questions to fester by taking the parallel’s Sheridan’s script sets up between the cartel and the US government, the Mexican police force and the American police force, and so on, and forces the viewer to play a horrifying game of compare and contrast.
One act of violence by one side is met by a seemingly equal atrocious act on the other. A “good” character postures and makes a comment on a “bad” character but then takes action that seems just as egregious. Villeneuve chooses to showcase the “immoral” bouts of violence in more explicit detail and withhold the brutality within the “ethical” instances of violence. He gives just enough information for the viewer to imagine how a scene would progress given both the context clues and the explicit parallels, forcing the audience to come to their own conclusions regarding the mechanics and ethics underpinning certain bouts of brutality. The subjective process of imagining the violence generates an uncomfortable proximity to the situation and forces us to deal with the contradictions in values.
This move also generates an empathetic connection with Kate who is thrust into the same world of twists, turns, and moments of depravity and forced to find stable footing in spite of it all. The first act sets up Kate as resourceful, honest, and passionate. She dodges a bullet, kills an assailant, takes control of her group, and wants to achieve justice – an ideal protagonist to root for. However, the moment she volunteers to achieve her ethical vision, she’s forced into a world where friend and foe mean very little, and the boundaries between what the “good” and “evil” are doing is suspect. Thus, an action of violence which may be immediately justified as necessary can be questioned because the viewer experiences it with Kate; she’s a moral barometer that lets us traverse the hazy backdrop the film plays against.
Sicario’s genre peers would usually feature a character like Alejandro or Matt as the lead – a burly man of mystery ready to whatever it takes to get the job done. However, the choice to have the lead be a highly capable woman with her morals intact in a sea of men and violence provides a vantage point that gives the otherwise gratuitous moments of sheer visceral terror a counterpoint that has heft. She’s not a damsel in distress, and she’s not some battle-hardened veteran looking for a fight; she’s just a competent soldier looking to do the right thing in circumstances that go against everything she’s been taught to accept. Blunt exemplifies this by constantly modulating between a soldier capable of holding her own and someone way out of their depth being racked by panic. She’s the perfect vehicle for both her character and the moral fiber of the film. By building up her competency and then slowly revealing its limits within a brutal, new environment, the film is able to push forward new ground on a story and make what would otherwise be cliché’s into uncomfortable moments to unpackage.
In fact, it’s because Kate is presented as competent in the context of what she’s signed up to do that otherwise passive scenes on her part are absolutely dread inducing. For example, as opposed to a conventional car chase scene with professionals chasing after one another, a traffic jam scene where assailants can be in any car and the protagonist is a fish out of water is much more dreadful. Because Kate is established as capable, the film is able to emphasize just how unforgiving the reality of the cartel violence and dealing with them can be; the rules of war don’t do anything in guerilla situations. Thus, her position gives impetus not only to the primary questions of the film but allow the visceral moments to have genuine stakes associated with them.
Put together with the parallel storylines and the near-perfect pacing of the narrative, Sicario certainly merits a comparison to the Coen brothers’ masterpiece, No Country For Old Men, a neo-Western following multiple characters who hunt and are being hunted by one another. Like No Country, Sicario presents a dark vision of an age without values, where the values of older days have seemingly faded away to the gusts of apathy and violence. While Sicario may not be as ambitious in terms of its narrative construction and direction, it certainly evokes a similar feeling of wandering through a foreign land where sense and reason have vacated the premises.
However, Sicario does match No Country when it comes to its visuals. Serving as director of photography on both films, Roger Deakins gives Villeneuve’s vision the room it needs to breath and fully take hold. Dust in the air, shadowy environments, and ever-present sources of reflection reveal the complexity inherent in seemingly straight-forward situations by introducing a visual opacity which accentuates the themes. Nothing is what it seems and it’s within the shadows cast by projections that the “truth” can be ascertained; there’s a space between words and the paradigms they operate within.
Consequently, this makes Sicario a must-see experience for any fan of cinema ranging from the casual fan looking for an exciting time to the cinephile looking for something heftier to sink their teeth into. While veterans of cartel thrillers might be less surprised by plot twists, the sheer culmination of skill including, but not limited to, Deakins camera work, the late Jóhann Jóhannsson’s adrenaline-pumping propulsive score, Blunt’s humanistic yet confident performance, and of course, Villeneuve’s brilliant ability to put all these elements together makes this an experience no one should miss. If nothing else, the final few moments of the film exemplify how dedication to craft can elevate even a small movement into a grand gesture.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Sicario is the rare movie that offers a totally engrossing time from start to finish across different types of moviegoers. With its propulsive narrative, fantastic acting, bloody and well-executed set-pieces, and its dark and foreboding score, the experience stays entertaining the whole time. However, it’s use of Emily Blunt in the role of the main character gives the movie a humanity and a vantage point that transforms it into a meditation on violence and the reality of the rule of law. It’s heady without being alienating and even more engaging as a result.
Rating
10/10
Grade
S
Go to Page 2for the for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis. Go to Page 3to view this review’s progress report .
Taissa Farmiga as Max Malin Åkerman as Nancy / Amanda Alia Shawkat as Gertie Alexander Ludwig as Chris Nina Dobrev as Vicki Thomas Middleditch as Duncan Adam DeVine as Kurt Angela Trimbur as Tina Daniel Norris as Billy Murphy
Release Date
2015
Language(s)
English
Running Time
91 minutes
After losing her mother, Amanda, in a tragic accident, Max and a group of her friends go to a fan screening of the popular Camp Bloodbath, a Friday the 13th ripoff Amanda starred in decades before. However, during the screening things go awry and Max and her friends find themselves trapped in the world of the slasher movie with no explanation as to how they got there or how to get out. Faced with no other option, the group is forced to play along with the narrative to find a way back to the real world.
Now if the synopsis didn’t make it clear enough, this is a movie that’s a love letter to 80’s slasher movies, especially those from the Friday the 13thfranchise. From Camp Bloodbath’s “KiKiKi MaMaMa”- based parody theme to the increasingly caricatured acting from the fictional movie’s cast, every trope you know and love is here and is ready to be celebrated. However, what sets the movie apart from other slasher comedies is the emotional center that serves as the movies main through line. The story opens on Max and Amanda and demonstrates just how much the mother-daughter duo depends on one another. The latter, having been typecast as sexy bimbo who gets killed due to her involvement with the slasher cult hit, is desperate to find a role that will let her be a real star, while the latter fawns over her mom while dealing with tasks like managing the bills. Watching Amanda dies it’s clear that Max’s world is shattered and Farmiga conveys her characters grief by going from bubbly and filled with life to desolate and lethargic. That’s why her journey into a movie where her mom was a star hits so hard – it’s her chance to reunite and deal with the trauma in a moving, albeit unconventional way.
On the right, Max (Taissa Farmiga) bonds with her mom, Amanda (Malin Åkerman), before the latter’s untimely death. Once she gets trapped in the world of Camp Bloodbath, she gets to bond with her mom’s breakout character, Nancy, who gives her a spiritual chance at bonding with her mom one more time. The relationship between these 2(3?) is the heart of the movie and gives it an unexpected emotional weight.
It’s this emotional center that elevates the usual slasher formula into something that gets you to cheer for the characters success because even the stock caricatures get an extra level of depth due to their humanizing connection to the actual actors. Max relating to her Amanda’s character Nancy reminds us that there’s an actor hiding behind every character that seeps and pervades through the representations we see on screen. This makes the clash between the “real” life characters – Max, Gertie, Chris, Vicky, and Duncan- and the movie’s characters – Nancy, Tina, Amanda, and co. – enthralling because they twist the perceptions we have of stock characters and gives them a chance to show us something more. It also injects the movie with a healthy dose of existential humor as the Bloodbath characters are forced to reckon with their fictional makeup in contrast to something more “real”, begging the question of what reality even is.
It’s this playing with reality that gives the movie its unique comedic angle, setting it apart from the sea of slasher comedies that have come to inundate the market post Scream. Duncan, the Camp Bloodbath super fan, acts like the Randy of the movie and explains the worlds tropes and plot mechanisms – there’s a final girl who happens to be a virgin, people die when they have sex, and so on – while giving the audience the perfect nerd to cheer alongside. He helps the group determine the rules of the movie-turned-reality so that they can break and manipulate them to figure out a way to get out. Max and co. realize near the start of the movie that they can’t leave the story without playing along in a comedic scene that shows the Camp Bloodbath staff driving by the characters every 92 minutes (the run-time of the in-universe movie). Waiting just introduces another playthrough, so they’re forced to take action.
The group is stuck in a loop where the movie plays back-to-back on loop, until they decide to make themselves part of the in-universe movie’s story.
As they become more familiar with the way slasher conventions work, they engage in some pretty ingenious mechanisms to bypass typical scenes to increase their chances of survival. On the flipside, some of their experiments don’t work out as well which introduce some bleak, yet hilarious moments that keep the audience constantly guessing as to what the next step is going to be. The result is a movie that plays along with our expectations while subverting them at every turn. The more you know about slashers, the more fun you end up having because the game becomes guessing how the trope will be subverted instead of witnessing the trope happening.
In an attempt to highlight this constantly changing perspective, the movie makes wonderful use of a constantly moving camera. There are quite a few arc shots (where the camera moves steadily in a circle) that highlight the absurdist nature of the movie’s narrative, reinforce the idea of the characters being stuck in loops of sorts, and constantly highlighting the juxtaposition of the story of Camp Bloodbath against the injunction of real life characters. One of my favorite moments in the movie involves a characters getting brutally killed after thinking they’re safe as the camera starts turning in a circle and zooming in highlighting just how wrong they actually were. The movement keeps us as disoriented as the characters and adds another layer of empathy as we realize that neither us or Max and co. know exactly what’s going on.
Complimenting this visual vertigo is the narrative whiplash that occurs as modern “real” people interact with outdated 80’s slasher stereotypes and dive beneath their personas. Homophobia and sexual objectification meet their modern match which allows the movie to lampshade its baser fun with bits of commentary. In one scene, Kurt, the prototypical jock/sex fiend, makes some bigoted jokes to Chris which are quickly shot down by the latter’s more open worldview, but the presence of a challenge to the retort forces Kurt to delve deeper (not that much) into what he actually thinks. Moments like these between the different intersections of characters allows the movie to relish in its homage while making comments on the side without ever coming off as too obnoxious or on the nose.
It helps that every single member of the star studded cast nails their performances, with special kudos given to the Camp Bloodbath members who are forced to play both a caricature and a deconstruction of those same stereotypes as they figure out their true metaphysical makeup. DeVine nails the contemptible player persona from the laid back and confident posturing to the arrogant smirk he keeps on his face. Meanwhile, Trimbur makes the slutty, sexy girl who typically dies first far more energetic and expressive than she has any right to be by injecting a manic ton of energy into contorting her body and facial muscles. Being the emotional center of the movie, both Farmiga and Ackerman bring a surprising amount of tenderness to the story, displaying a real sense of vulnerability with one another. There are moments in the third act that tug at the heartstrings because of how believable their real and fictional bond is built up and played out. In particular, Ackerman nails the fictional character realizing that they’re both real and not real with some expressions that exude fear and love simultaneously.
The only things holding the movie back are some less than stellar CGI elements along with some story moves that feel like they should’ve paid off in bigger and grander ways. The movie plays so well with sub-genre conventions that the presence of such overt and modern digital effects feels completely out of place.
One of the bad CGI renderings that threatens to distract the audience from the beauty of the movie. This scene of a car crash feels like a cut-scene from a PS2 game and feels out of place compared to the realism of what came before.
If these were a one-off occurrence it’d be fine, but these issues crop up enough during the run-time to feel like an issue. Given how clever the movie is with playing with sub-genre conventions, I was surprised that these moments weren’t rendered with cheesy and over-the-top practical effects to keep with the 80’s slasher energy. Adding to this is the soft rules approach the movie utilizes to keep the pace going. As I mentioned earlier, the tropes that are recognized are subverted in ways that aren’t expected which keeps an underlying sense of mystery and tension at bay, but because there are no clear and fast rules there are definitely some moments that just come off as odd. The movie can just explain them away as anomalies like everything else, but that comes off feeling lazy with how intricate other scenarios play out. If these moments were capitalized on and explained in the context of the story or breaking certain tropes, the movie would’ve felt more cohesive and tightly knit.
That being said, what we get is a heartfelt, clever, and truly funny movie that any slasher fan should give a watch. Every character feels distinct and interesting, despite the fact that some of them are walking caricatures, and watching their inevitable clashes among one another is constantly entertaining. Even though it’s comedic, the movie wants to be more than just funny and constantly combines its humor with epic visual compositions and narrative shifts that demonstrate just how much love went into the worldbuilding. The riffing and appreciation of sub-genre tropes plays well with the way they’re subverted and gives the movie a constant energy that should keep you invested from start to finish.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
The Final Girls shows that horror comedy very much has more room to explore in its ingenious design. The story of characters getting trapped in a slasher movie explores and relishes in genre conventions, while at the same time upending them to great effect. The effect is a dark absurdist comedy with an emotionally resonant center that keeps the otherwise fantastical elements feeling grounded, yet entertaining. Horror fans – slasher fans especially – should check this love letter to the sub-genre if they haven’t already. It’s sure to entertain and leave you wanting more.
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 .
François Simard Anouk Whissell Yoann-Karl Whissell
Principal Cast
Munro Chambers as The Kid Laurence Leboeuf as Apple Aaron Jeffrey as Frederic Michael Ironside as Zeus Edwin Wright as Skeletron
Release Date
2015
Language(s)
English
Running Time
95 minutes
Turbo Kid is possibly one of the most endearing movies I’ve seen in the past decade and is a movie I genuinely think will be a cult classic in a few years. I have no idea why this genre-defying one-of-a-kind love letter to the 80’s and early 90’s that manages to package a heartwarming message with an off -the-walls chaotic story in a way that makes sense has managed to be so overlooked and underrated. If you thought that sentence was a run-on, you’re not even ready for the roller-coaster of frenetic energy that is this absolute shot of adrenaline to the heart. If you’ve been looking for a movie to just find that spark or feel some genuine joy , in these times especially, and the trailer seems like it’s up your alley, do yourself a favor and watch this ASAP. As of 3/27/20 it’s available on Amazon Video and is free for Prime Members.
The movie follows the Kid, a teenager scavenging a post-apocalyptic 1997 wasteland for artifacts to trade in for food, water, and most importantly , comic books featuring the hero (and the Kid’s role model) Turbo Rider. When our fairly reticent protagonist runs into the bubbly,high-energy, pink-haired delight that is Apple he gets unnerved by her overt kindness and tries to escape to his underground lair. Thankfully, his attempts to get away are thwarted as Apple manages to find him. Once he realizes he’s stuck with her, the two strike up a friendship that is threatened by Zeus, the man who claims dominion over the wastelands. Forced into action, both the Kid and Apple have to find a way to survive against all odds.
I won’t spoil the journey, but the way the movie jumps from bit to bit is genius and reflects an adept understanding and appreciation of 80’s and 90’s culture. It’s not so pronounced as to distract from the overall story or the themes, but it will definitely elicit a chuckle from fans of the time period. For example, Frederic, a cowboy who feels like a Clint Eastwood character from a Western, is tough as nails and is best known for being a champion arm-wrestler. You read that right. Forget gun-slinging. Turbo Kid‘s post-apocalyptic universe uses arm-wrestling with high stakes as the principle mode of competition. I couldn’t stop laughing when I saw the first match go down as though it was a serious shoot out. Turbo Rider’s blaster looks exactly like Mega-Man‘s arm cannon which is a great reference. It’s made comical because despite such technology existing, Apple and the Kid have to traverse the environment on bicycles. The juxtaposition of the futuristic and the retro creates this cool feeling of being somewhere different but familiar.
The story works and is allowed to get away with these absurdities because the core relationship between the Kid and Apple is heartwarming and filled with a real spirit. It’s the glue that holds every other element of the story together. It starts with just how much life both our lead actors bring to their roles. Chambers is great at portraying that awkward shy loner type that the Kid starts off as. He feels like he lacks a genuine of knowledge at how to deal with a social butterfly like Apple is both endearing and comedic in it’s own right. You can tell from his facial expressions and awkward physical posturing he’s not used to social situations at all , let alone with gregarious pink haired girls. He’s stuck, alone, in the wasteland and can’t help but running from the first sign of amicability. It’s what makes his subsequent relationship with Apple so meaningful. It’s not that she’s his sole reason for doing anything. It’s more so that she sparks in him a desire to change by demonstrating a genuine appreciation of life and its simplicity (a slight crush doesn’t hurt). Likewise, Leboeuf absolutely knocks it out of the park as Apple. Her genuine love and excitement for each and every little thing is infectious and completely feels genuine. I was shocked at how much I believed her eccentricities instead of laughing at them. She somehow manages to convey it all through her gaze, which she holds for these precise periods of time that somehow convey her enthusiasm and energy authentically. It sounds weird to describe it, but if you watch the movie you’l get what I’m saying. Both of them play off each other so well and you can genuinely feel the friendship budding and blooming between them. It’s natural and actually goes through some serious issues in a way that’s lighthearted and authentic.
A common criticism I’ve seen (and felt after I watched the trailer) is that Apple’s your typical Manic Pixie Dream Girl who exists for the sole sake of motivating the Kid to go on and embrace life for what it is. I’m happy to report that the movie never falls into the same trappings. The storytelling and setting make it apparent that the Kid hasn’t had a friend in forever , so Apple serves as a much-needed social companion for a fairly alienated fellow. Furthermore, Apple has her own desires, chief of which is being the Kid’s friend. While there are hints of romance between the two (which feel cute and natural as opposed to forced) , the focus is on their friendship and what that means to each of them in an increasingly desolate world. The reason I cheered for them to overcome all the odds wasn’t so they could end up being a couple or having some final kiss. It’s because it’s clear they have so much fun just exploring the world and interacting with each other that I can’t help but get invested. It’s an infectious joy and their friendship feels emotionally poignant and grounded despite the nature of the story.
Now all of this story and character work would’ve been great on it’s own, but it’s elevated to the next level because of the sheer aesthetic that is Turbo Kid. From the beautiful and vibrant costumes that help the characters stand out from the background to the amazing props that feel like items taken straight out of video-games the movie feels like a fever dream come true. As a huge horror fan, the slapstick gore is what served as the cherry on the top. There are huge bursts of blood and body mutilation during key action scenes but they come off as morbidly comedy. These moments don’t happen every-time violence goes down and only happens when it serves as a comedic punchline to a moment. The synth score absolutely delivers on all fronts and is actually MEMORABLE in a sea of 80’s synth score homages. I could actually feel the spectrum of emotions as different pieces came on, each one only playing when absolutely necessary, coming into the background like the theme song would in a video-games. When everything starts lining up, you can tell that this movie is genuine through and through and has a cohesive and resonant message at the heart of it.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Turbo Kid is a love letter to 80’s and 90’s movies that takes inspiration from a hodgepodge of sources and manages to incorporate all of them in a cohesive, thematically tight, and genuinely touching story. The core friendship between the main characters is one of the most touching I’ve seen in a long time and gives the movie a touching spirit that’s rare. If you need a cheer me up and can let go of your cynicism for a while, I think you’ll find a lot to love in this deft genre-blending gem of a movie
Rating
9.7/10
Grade
A+
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
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 .
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 Bodyquite 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 .
Krisha Fairchild as Krisha Robyn Fairchild as Robyn Bill Wise as Doyle Trey Edward Shults as Trey
Release Date
2015
Language(s)
English
Running Time
81 minutes
Having already seen It Comes at Night, I expected Shults’s directorial debut, Krisha, to be ambiguous and unsettling. Though the story managed to get under my skin to an even greater degree than his sophomore feature, it’s much more straight-forward and clear. This is the story of Krisha, a women who returns to the family she abandoned in an attempt to patch things up during Thanksgiving. It doesn’t follow your typical story structure. There’s not one or two dramatic encounters into levity into redemption. This story is real, painful, and manages to explore the damage troubled family members can have on the whole unit in a truly visceral way that isn’t afraid to hold anything back.
The story starts off as Krisha parks her car and attempts to locate her estranged family’s household. We’re immediately given a view into her state of mind and it sets the tone for the disorienting events to come. She talks to herself, talks to inanimate objects, get irritated at inconveniences, and demonstrates a familiar but distant intimacy with her estranged family who all greet her with varied degrees of enthusiasm. From the loving embrace of her sister Robyn to the strange aloofness one of the youngsters, Trey, the movie makes it obvious that there’s a lot of history between Krisha and her kin and that she’s been gone for a long time. You know there’s something wrong there.
I love the way the movie is cut, scored, and presented. It’s a visually unique experience that makes the “estranged family member returns story” far more interesting. Events are inter cut and presented to keep a constant sense of action and uneasiness at play. Every time you feel safer in one scenario, the tension in another inter cut scene starts to ratchet up. There are lots of tracking shots and arc shots that are used to prolong this sense of uneasiness and create disorientation. In particular, one kitchen scene involving an arc shot got me feeling panicked and frantic as it constantly accelerated in speed. The music compliments what’s happening on the screen by accentuating the progression of Krisha’s journey. Early on we’re bombarded by discordant noises that make it impossible to focus yourself. It’s almost like Krisha can’t handle the intensity of coming back to her family and we’re right there with her. Later on music plays, the lyrics serving as a poetic backdrop to Krisha’s journey and transformation up till that point. Sound always has a purpose. All together the audio-visual elements breathe new life into the genre by taking commonplace Thanksgiving activities and functions far more tense than they need to be . It’s an an assault on the senses that never gives you a moment to settle in.
What sells the movie is just how real it all feels. Every performance is on point, but Krisha absolutely steals the show. From the way she looks to the way she carries herself, you can tell that she’s gone through a lot. Her panic translates in her frantic movements and uneasy quiet. The family interactions accurately convey the damage abusive family relationships can have. Members are constantly shown apart from Krisha, having moved forward in spite of her absence. Family interactions with Krisha are varied. Some are kind and open like Robyn, while others are more suspicious like Doyle, Krisha’s brother-in-law. It all comes together to paint a picture of the places families are willing to go to help those who fall of the beaten path. Simultaneously it doesn’t try and sugarcoat the trauma that comes from the abuse at play. The nuance hit me in how familiar it reminded me of my own experiences.
I only wish the movie was a bit longer, because I was interested in some of the hinted family drama that never gets revealed. I thought fleshing out certain character relations a bit more would make later conversations more relevant, but I never felt like I had a lack of information, so this might be more of a nitpick.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Krisha follows its titular namesake as she tries to re-integrate with her estranged family during Thanksgiving. However Shults has no intention of making this your typical rehabilitation story filled with positivity and Hallmark cliches. From the shot composition to the score, the movie injects every scene with palpable tension as we watch with baited breath, hoping Krisha can right the ship. This is a nerve-wracking and emotionally painful trip, but is definitely one worth taking.
Rating
9.7/10
Grade
A+
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Ethan Embry as Jesse Hellman Kiara Glasco as Zooey Hellman Pruitt Taylor Vince as Ray Smilie Shiri Appleby as Astrid Hellman
Release Date
2015
Language(s)
English
Running Time
79 minutes
Despite being only 79 minutes, Sean Byrne’s sophomore featurefeels more cohesive and put together than most horror releases out there. The story follows the Hellman family who move at the behest of their patriarch, Jesse, a struggling painter trying to help his family’s financial situation. However, their new house is filled with a few surprises of its own and Jesse finds himself possessed by his work once the movie is done. His paintings go from cute butterflies to horrific hellscapes and he becomes completely lost in his art, unable to process how long he’s been at the canvas. As he struggles to balance his work with his family he finds out that there’s also a potential killer on the loose and is forced to navigate increasingly more worrisome situations.
I love the family dynamic between the Hellman’s. It comes off as authentic and textured and you can tell exactly how each member operates in relation to the others. Both Jesse and his daughter, Zooey are charmed metal-heads while his wife (and primary source of family finances), Astrid, prefers more calming music. Watching Jesse and Zooey interact with other is heartwarming. It helps that Glasco and Embry play so well off each other. The latter comes off as a doting father, trying to find balance between his work life, duties to the family, and sense of artistic integrity. The former comes off as a playful kid, innocent to the harsh realities of the world but not stupid. When things start going wrong, the family dynamic is tested in ways that are both viscerally satisfying and thematically resonant. No dispute ever feels forced for the sake of generating conflict. It helps keep the movie feeling like a tight-knit package.
At the heart of the movie is a discussion of art, its inspirations, and the maddening way it can consume us if we let it. I love how it’s juxtaposed to highlight its destructive capacity- both in how certain forms of art can be destructive, but also in that the pursuit of artistic excellence can leave one unable to fulfill their other duties, thereby destroying a subjects state of balance. Art can be conscious, but at some level flows from a libidinal well that subsumes every other aspect of action. If we’re not careful, we can lose ourselves in it.
The camera always has a purpose and I was surprised at how effectively Byrne uses it to convey different themes. For example, there’s a move in montage scene early on where each member of the family is moving boxes around. There are no “cuts” and the camera stays stationary as people fade in and out. However, when the sequence is done, a character moves towards the “camera’s” position, and it’s actually a photo of the family. It’s a neat moment that shows the family is an series of interconnected entities that makes up one whole.
Edits and inter-cuts between related scenes are used to create these awesome visual connections between different elements that give moments much darker undertones. It helps that the movie utilizes tons of beautiful symmetric shots with saturated colors that just pop out of the screen, almost screaming at you to pay attention. The darker more disturbing images are hard to get out of your head and I have to praise the art direction for being so macabre and ghoulish. It’s unnerving and gives the movie a unique flair.
My only big problem with the movie is the very end, which feels simultaneously tacked on but poetically beautiful in a way. It kind of comes out of nowhere, but I enjoyed it in how it ties certain thematic threads up. I do think if the movie had spent maybe 10 more minutes just building up the elements to the final sequence it would have been amazing, but the way it’s done right now feels like an incomplete thought tacked to an otherwise finely-tuned movie.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
The Devil’s Candy manages to blend family drama with intriguing scares and a narrative that’ll have you questioning what’s going on. Though the third act fumbles in some places, there’s more than enough visual flair and subtext to make up for it.
Rating
9.2/10
Grade
A
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Gustavo Sanchez Parra as Ulises Cassandra Ciangherotti as Irene Humberto Busto as Alvaro Carmen Beato as Gertrudis Santiago Torres as Ignacio Fernando Becerril as Martin Catalina Salas as Rosa
Release Date
2015
Language(s)
Spanish
Running Time
90 minutes
When 7 people find themselves trapped in at a bus station during a hurricane, tensions run high as eerie disturbances racket up. As the characters get more desperate to leave the situation, they realize that an “illness” is slowly spreading, threatening to infect every member of the group. What follows is a series of harrowing encounters and communicative breakdowns as the group tries to figure out the best way to weather the storm- physical and supernatural.
I’ve seen a lot of reviews compare this to The Twilight Zone, and while I can certainly see the references (hell Ezban talks about how the show influenced him), the movie has its own distinct voice and flair. The first half of the movie is tinged with a sense of mystery as the different members of the group slowly make their way into the situation and introduce themselves. As things go wrong, it’s hard to determine exactly what’s happening and why what is happening is happening the way that it is. When answers are revealed, the movie takes on a more direct horror like feeling with some genuinely chilling scenes of violence. By the time the movie ends, the realization of what happened truly hits, and the piece shines as something unique.
The movie has a lot to do with difference and the way we categorize people based on our perspectives of the world and the levers of power we have access to. Character groupings/alliances constantly change as each member learns more about others or gains a tactical advantage that lets them dictate the group’s pace. It’s an interesting exploration of human social interaction and the horror comes from determining at exactly what point the parameters for those interactions break. Are people a reflection of our perception along with some identifiable “objective” knowledge or is everything really just a matter of perspective and power? It’s an interesting topic and the movie broaches it from a terrifying vantage point.
This is the first movie I’ve seen with such a desaturated color palette. I was sure it was black-and-white to begin with, but after a few scenes realized that there were tiny splotches of color everywhere. It gives the already dreary movie an even bleaker feeling. The movie is left feeling gray with slight signs of life, and that aesthetic perfectly compliments the subject matter. The practical effects/makeup department also deserves kudos for nailing the aesthetic of the horrifying transformation the characters are trying to avoid. It feels distinct and real enough to get under the skin, without being so over the top so as to distract from the situation.
Given that the story is set during the Mexican student protests of 1968, before the Tlatelolco massacre, I expected politics to be more of a major feature of the movie. It’s not that it’s not utilized. Story beats line up with the beats of the protests and the parallels between the situations are definitely there. Character’s make mention of the turmoil and it’s even featured on the radio. However, it’s kind of cast aside to the background of the story, as another general way we otherize/categorize people. Its utilization feels more generic which is a shame, because the tidbits of intersection we get between horror and politics is interesting to mull over. I only wish the movie took the next step.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
The Similiars feels like an episode of The Twilight Zone with a distinct Mexican flair and sense of intrigue. The story of individuals trapped in a bus station, unable to leave and desperate to avert a mystery illness should keep fans of the genre intrigued from start to finish. Though I wish the movie went farther in incorporating its distinct political setting into the story, its exploration of the human element and what makes relationships tick is more than interesting to mull about by itself.
Rating
8.9/10
Grade
B+
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Anya Taylor-Joy as Thomasin Ralph Ineson as William Kate Dickie as Katherine Harvey Scrhimshaw as Caleb Ellie Grainger as Mercy Lucas Dawson as Jonas
Release Date
2015
Language(s)
English
Running Time
93 minutes
After I had first seen The Witch, I was convinced the movie I saw and the general audience saw were completely different, because there’s absolutely no way someone could see this masterpiece and walk away thinking it’s only at 58% (as per Rotten Tomatoes audience score). Eggers’s period piece set in Puritanical times is a well-crafted, deeply layered story, that examines the deterioration of an incredibly religious family that finds themselves dealing with crises of faith and the very real threat of witches in the forest around them.
There’s no time wasted establishing the stakes and rules of the world the lead family finds themselves in. After William, the patriarch, refuses to bend to his community’s religious views, decrying them as sacrilege, his family finds themselves exiled, forced to find a new home in the wilderness. Soon after disaster strikes, the family finds themselves assaulted by the presence of supernatural happenings, a sense of constant disarray, maddening paranoia, and severe blows to their faith in the Almighty.
Eggers really nails the look and feel of the New England world we find ourselves within. The costumes all feel and look accurate and the subsequent way they get dirtied or marred with impure elements makes the movie feel gritty and rugged. Dialogue is on point and you can tell that there was a lot of effort put into keeping things honest and precise. I have found the experience to be better after watching the movie with subtitles, just so I could see all the dialogue, but after reading it I can confirm it really is as good as I thought it was. All this attention to detail ensures that are no distracting anachronisms that would otherwise distract us from the drama at play. I found myself completely immersed in the world around our lead family and as a result was completely engrossed in every little moment and action. I never felt the effects of the slower pacing, because I was lost in the experience of watching the family struggle against their obstacles.
Every character is fleshed out and feels like an integral part of the world. Anya Taylor-Joy absolutely kills it as Thomasin and sells the conflict integral to her character’s core. There are tons of close-up shots of her face, each demonstrating her reaction to the events around her. She manages to balance teen angst with religious turmoil culminating in a well-developed spiritual and emotional journey. The exploration of her characters growth as a guilty “sinner” combined with the period’s treatment of women lends itself to an interesting feminist journey that offers some nuanced thoughts about community, agency, and the relationship between women and children. Ineson’s portrayal of a religious man, too fueled by his ego to compromise on what counts as scripture, but so genuinely caring for his family that he sheds tears for their sake, strikes a strange blow at expectations. You’d think someone so hotheaded that they’d let their family get kicked out of a community would be prone to bursts of rage and insolence, but William comes off as a man just trying to do what he personally thinks is best for the family, even if he’s incapable of slowing down long enough to figure out what that is. Dicke is great as the mother, Katherine, and emotes her weariness and fatigue to great effect. Her latter interactions with Joy and Ineson are some of the most dramatic moments in the movie and add to the discourse on the place of women. Scrhimshaw is great as Caleb, the middle child of the family, and absolutely steals the show in latter portions of the movie, channeling some transcendental acting in a scene you won’t soon forget. Grainger and Dawson have fairly convincing child performances and kept their own in the serious setting.
Speaking of setting , did I mention that the movie looks and sounds amazing? Mark Korven’s score is absolutely ethereal and makes moments pop when it comes into play. It never tries to take a scene over. It only exists to accompany the eerie feeling and tense atmosphere. You really notice it because the movie is silent for the most part, choosing to focus on long shots that drive home the emotions underlying the scene. The movie employs a series of closeup shots, which give you great mental pictures of what’s running through the characters’ heads. You can gaze into their eyes, notice the way their face darts and moves, and see what’s happening underneath.
Finally, the movie is rich with themes but works as a surface-level story as well. The narrative is tight and filled with believable characterization. The presence of the supernatural is confirmed early on, because the focus of the horror is the unwinding family dynamic. Each character’s relation to their faith is altered/exacerbated because of the family’s expulsion from the colony, so the whole unit experiences a discordant crisis of faith. The events in the story would be horrifying if you were a devout Christian living back in those times and living through them would be a real hell. That gives the movie a layer of historical nuance that grounds its fears into the world the characters live in. The reason I can still remember the shocking moments from The Witch is because they happen sparingly, are never done for pure shock value,and add to the theme or previous character threads. There’s a purpose to each scare which gives the movie tons of re-watch value. It’s a movie you can watch to watch, or watch to analyze, and if you’re someone who enjoys slower paced movies, there’s a lot to get out of this.
Report Card
TLDR
The Witch is a masterful period horror that examines the disintegration of an exiled Puritan family forced to find a new life for themselves in the abandoned woods. Historically accurate dialogue, immaculate costume design, an ethereal and well-placed score, and gorgeous symmetrical close ups await those of you who can deal with a slower movie that relies on atmosphere instead of jump scares. The movies treatment of religion, ideology, and feminist thought are interesting and anyone interesting in watching those ideas intersect need to give this a try.
Rating
10/10
Grade
A+
Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report .
