Tag Archives: thriller

Review: Uncut Gems

Director(s)Josh Safdie, Benny Safdie
Principal CastAdam Sandler as Howard Ratner
Lakeith Stanfield as Demany
Julia Fox as Julia
Kevin Garnett as Kevin Garnett
Idina Menzel as Dinah
Eric Bogosian as Arno
Keith Williams Richards as Phil
Release Date2019
Language(s)English
Running Time135 minutes

Well the hype is real. I feel like my life has changed. Adam Sandler is actually a phenomenal actor. I feel like everything I’ve seen from him up till now has been a prank . Still in awe. Also the Safdie brothers are geniuses and I need to watch everything they’ve done. If you can’t guess by now, Uncut Gems, is one of the best movies of 2019 and this past decade and had me completely floored by the end of the 135 minute run-time.

This movie is an assault on the senses and I mean that in the most literal way. The way it’s directed from the camera movement to sound design is meant to induce a state of panic and anxiety. If you suffer from those issues already, the film may be too much and I genuinely think you should go see it with someone even if you don’t suffer from them. Now that the warning is out of the way- holy wow. I thought I was losing it during the film because of the way sound would keep cutting in. There is auditory clutter that makes it feel like you can’t hear yourself think. It keeps you on edge and tense – you have to focus to get at bits and I felt like the movie was sweeping me along. There’s always something going happening on the screen so it feels like your senses are constantly befuddled. I thought it was perfect – I haven’t been this purely immersed in a film in a genuinely long time. I could feel my heart pumping out of my chest by the time I started getting out of my seat.

All of this synergizes perfectly with the plot which follows Howard , a jeweler who has a “bit” of a debt issue and a huge gambling problem. There’s a constant sense of tension as Howard traverses from one deal to another, desperate to keep the antagonistic forces coming for him at bay. There’s also a lot of comedy – from the dysfunction of different schemes playing out differently than imagined or just Sandler exuding persona. It’s a perfect complement to the tension at play. Speaking of tension – a lot of it revolves around the NBA. If you like basketball (or are just a huge Kevin Garnett fan) this movie has a lot of fun moments for you. I remember feeling excitement about games that happened years ago but almost like I was reliving them viscerally because of how the sport is talked about and utilized. On top of all of this, there’s ripe family drama and watching the dysfunction play out is more than entertaining. Watching all these intersecting threads come together is a delight and makes the story feel like a train-wreck waiting to happen.

A story is only as good as its characters and this film has them in spades. Sandler’s performance as Howard is mesmerizing. I was rooting for him the whole film, but the character is scum-bag with a heart of gold(?). However, Sandler adds a depth of nuance to that that makes him far more complex and grounded. He goes from caring father, to inconsiderate lover, to gambling addict. Each transformation feels in place and all of them come together to make one of the most interesting protagonists of 2019. This movie would not work without Sandler – if Howard was unlikable or unbelievable the tension wouldn’t be as profound because there wouldn’t be real stakes.

Thankfully, Sandler is accompanied by a slew of actors (some of whom are acting for the first time) who let him really shine and show off the range of his emotions. If someone told me that Kevin Garnett could act as well as he could play basketball before now I wouldn’t believe it. Now all I want is more movies with him. He’s cool and aloof at one point and fanatical the next – watching him tango with Sandler is immensely satisfying. Julia Fox’s performance injects some much needed levity to the movie – she never takes away from the tension – she just helps accentuate it with proper changes in demeanor. Finally, Keith Williams Richards is absolutely terrifying as Phil. The fact that this is his first movie ever is shocking – he absolutely sold the underlying crime portion of the story and amplified the tension every time he was on the screen. I want to mention everyone but that would be way too many people – literally even minor characters get more characterization in this movie than some primary characters in other movies.

This film is one of the best depictions I’ve ever seen of gambling and addiction. When the thrill is high and the game is at play, we feel like Howard- ecstatic. When he wins, I win – or that’s how I felt as I saw his schemes playing out. However, it works the same way with losses. Whenever something went wrong or could go wrong, I felt tense. Twitchy. Anxious. Since the movie aims to put the audience into the same mood as Howard, every twist or reveal feels that much more serious. It also becomes comprehend how someone could become completely lost in game. This is why the movie worked for me – I feel like I got Howard and wanted him to succeed in spite of himself and the situation he was in and I absolutely should not have felt that way- which is kind of great in a perverse kind of way.

REPORT CARD

TLDRAn absolute attack on all fronts – this character study of a gambler addicted to big gains is a roller coaster that never stops to let you catch your breath. Sandler is a tour de force and the Safdie brothers know how to keep the audience engaged from start to finish. Don’t watch if you’re looking to calm down.
Rating10/10
GradeA+


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

Review: Black Christmas (2019)

Director(s)Sophia Takal
Principal CastImogen Poots as Riley
Aleyse Shannon as Kris
Lily Donoghue as Marty
Cary Elwes as Professor Gelson
Release Date2019
Language(s)English
Running Time 92 minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REPORT CARD

TLDRBlack Christmas is bag of missed opportunities that ends up a lot more disappointing than expected. You’d think the story of a victim-turned-survivor fighting for her life against a deranged killer would take more advantage of the #metoo movement, but instead it botches any attempts at depth for contrived story moments. There are some nuanced moments that show promise but they’re never developed in meaningful ways. Is it the worst movie ever? No. Does it deserve the hate it gets? No. Is it a movie that undermines itself and pale in comparison to its predecessors? Yes. Save yourself the time and just watch the original.
Rating3.6/10
GradeF

Film Review: Sinister – 2012

Director(s)Scott Derrickson
Principal CastEthan Hawke as Ellison
Juliet Rylance as Tracy
James Ransone as Deputy So & So
Release Date2012
Language(s)English
Running Time109 minutes
Report Card Click to go Review TLDR/Summary

A projector starts up and the guttural mechanical sounds of its inner workings cloud the soundscape. Super 8 footage emits from the unseen machine depicting a family, each member of which has their head covered by a bag, being hung on a tree. The gritty footage is augmented by the abrasive noises of the projector – the footage takes on a disturbing home-made quality. Every member of the domestic unit is executed when a tree branch is cut by an entity not shown on the screen. As the family’s feet stop moving, the title card crops up in the lower right corner of the frame, as if etched out against the grain of the celluloid.

Post title sequence, the viewer is introduced to the film’s protagonist, Ellison (Ethan Hawke), a writer moving to a new house in an effort to find materials to publish a new best-seller. However, his move is interrupted by a sheriff (Fred Thompson) who accosts him and gives the audience Ellison’s relevant backstory: the writer published a best-seller but struck out with his subsequent novels which not only painted law enforcement as incompetent but also incorrectly assessed the nature of situations being documented. It becomes clear that this current book is Ellison’s attempt at striking gold once more after a set of failures.

Before leaving, the sheriff mentions that Elliot’s pursuits will only bring up answers that no one wants to know and that his decision to move into the house he’s chosen is disrespectful in light of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance. Both warning and condemnation alike are ignored by Elliot who waives the sheriff off. This interaction is noted by Ellison’s wife, Tracy (Juliet Rylance), who asks her husband what the altercation was about. She hesitatingly questions if the house the family has moved into is next to a murder site again, implying that Elliot has made the family move to dangerous locations before. He assuages her concerns and confirms the house is not neighboring a murder location. But as he stares at the same broken tree from the snuff film from the opening, it becomes clear that he’s moved his family into an abyss where a family was hung. Far from keeping the family some proximity away from the terrors of his investigative work, he’s brought them right into the heart of darkness.

The all-encompassing evil surrounding his family makes its appearance felt as the four-person unit eats dinner in complete black. They don’t know what Elliot has dragged them into and act in total bliss, unaware of the abyss slowly encroaching from all around. Unfortunately, this façade is one doomed to collapse as Elliot discovers when he goes upstairs to do some unpacking. He notices a black scorpion near a box filled with super 8 film reels. Suddenly, the title sequence rears its ugly head again – the scorpion becomes an emissary of terrible things to come.

Alas, Elliot is unaware of these connections and takes the box of “home videos” downstairs after trying to dispatch the scorpion. He goes into his private study, far from the eyes of his family, and starts to play the tapes. At first, the super 8 footage depicts a peaceful domestic image; a family plays around while having a joyous looking picnic. However, this idyllic image is shattered as the jittery footage cuts to the title sequence’s footage – it becomes clear that this cheerful family is the same one the viewer saw being hung. Now, Elliot has seen the same. Now, the tree in his backyard seems all the more ominous. Now, evil has made its presence brazenly known.

Perturbed by the experience, Elliot goes outside to check on the tree and is confronted by its looming presence. It’s as if the spirits of the family still linger from where they were executed, warning Elliot of what’s to come. Nevertheless, he persists and goes back to his study to continue investigating the demented home films.

But the footage proves to be too much. Each film he watches follows the same pattern – a peaceful vision of a family which is followed by their gruesome execution. Finally, the violence erupts and totally breaks Elliot down. Shocked and disgusted, he takes out phone and dials the police, ready to get legal enforcement in on an issue which seems to be more heinous than he previously imagined.

And then he stops. He looks up and sees a stack of his bestseller, Kentucky Blood, sitting perched on a shelf under a bright light, a limelight from a past age. The decadent red color of the books entrance Elliot; within them, he sees this case as a chance at being great all over again. The allure of greatness takes precedence over all else, and he turns the phone off. A decision made that cannot be undone.

This is the heart of Sinister and where the film excels: the story of a writer pursuing the restoration of his status at all else, making a Faustian deal with to get back in the limelight. The film spends the entirety of its run-time with Elliot as he attempts to discover the root of the mystery, the reason behind the murders, and the connective tissue behind the tapes. The more he watches the found-footage films, the more he gets invested. Because we’re forced to watch with him, the same sense of morbid curiosity infects us. Even though the conclusion of each tape is foregone, there’s a horrific spell cast that makes it impossible to avert the eyes from the screen. It’s in these moments, watching a man watch horror films, that Sinister manages to unnerve the most. The true crime feeling gives the supernatural events captured on the home videos gone wrong a palpable malevolence – they’re meanspirited and get under the skin because of how vicious and unforgiving they are.

These moments gain their power not from gore but from their propensity at triggering the viewer’s imagination. At a fundamental level, there’s something creepy about super 8 film stock because of the way the texture of it obfuscates and “dirties” the image. There’s an uncomfortable grittiness that’s always present. Normal images are distorted enough to feel unnerving, but the hellish and inexplainable nature of what’s depicted only amplify the feeling. Sinister takes this unease and transforms it into palpable dread with its sound design. Along with the sounds of the projector, the film utilizes distortions, scratches, incomplete jumbles, demonic choral riffs, and other sonic oddities to create states of paranoia. Something is always buzzing or disconcerting enough to create worry. Because of this, the viewer is forced to think about where the noise is coming from and what it has to do with the image. There’s a fundamental disconnect between what’s going on and that sense of mystery is what generates unease and causes one’s thoughts to run wild. Like Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, Sinister evokes the feeling that one has seen gore of the most depraved kind even when no gore has been shown purely by stimulating unconscious fears regarding the situation.

It’s precisely when the film tries to explain the nature of its supernatural set-up and remove the level of mystery that it suffers; the unconscious fears that had previously been building up fizzle out as the direct explanation of the spectral undermines the unease by which it operates. The film goes for these more overt gestures in order to engage in predictable, expendable jump-scare sequences that pad the story until it ends. In fact, once the last home movie is played, there’s a significant drop in narrative momentum, as the film becomes lost on how to effectively move the characters to the next story beat.

This should not have been the case; the terrors should have been built around and upon Elliot’s compromised relationship with his family and his obsessive pursuit of a glorious time at the cost of everything else. It is precisely in the destruction of the idyllic family life that Sinister disturbs deepest, so the larger story should have been focused more on the disintegration of the family unit in relation Elliot’s decision; however, the film only ever shows his arguments with Tracy and even those play second-fiddle to the film’s investigation into the actual nature of the supernatural mystery, which as previously mentioned, undermines what makes the film effective. Consequently, the tension that the first half excels in is lost for much of the latter portion of the film as both character and narrative momentum is squandered on cheap thrills that pale in comparison to the frights from before.

This pivot in focus is a shame because it squanders Ethan Hawke’s grounded and terrified character work which otherwise laid out a perfect foundation on which to build the film. His emphatic reactions to the home movies is part of the reason they come off as so disturbing. There’s a visceral pain he imparts upon seeing the families meet their end. But then this pain is juxtaposed against the ambition in his eyes that props up every time he’s reminded of his past. Both heaven and hell are present in his gaze and lets the viewer at least understand his character’s actions even the consequences seem disastrous.

Thankfully, the final few minutes of the film bring the narrative back to the threads that made it compelling to begin with, both subverting the the haunted house story and resolving Elliot’s arc in satisfying fashion. It’s a far cry from the potential hinted at in the opening act, but Sinister‘s craft, mood, and performance carry its uneven narrative to terrifying heights.

REPORT CARD

TLDRSinister starts strong as a true-crime styles supernatural thriller that follows an author going in over his head to get a story, but falters towards the end as it settles for cheap and conventional horror tactics. When the film is at it’s best, it’s truly terrifying and promises to unsettle even the most veteran of horror aficionados, but at it’s worst, the film does little more than undermine the basis of what makes it so effective. Thankfully, with an near impeccable first act, a thoroughly engaging performance by Ethan Hawke, and a perfectly poetic ending, there’s much to recommend for viewers looking for a spooky time.
Rating8.5/10
GradeB+

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

Review: Midsommar

Director(s)Ari Aster
Principal CastFlorench Pugh as Dani Ardor
Jack Reynor as Christian
Vilhelm Blomgren as Pelle
William Jackson Harper as Josh
Will Poulter as Mark
Release Date2019
Language(s)English
Running Time148 minutes
171 minutes (Director’s Cut)

When I saw Hereditary in late 2018, I was left absolutely floored. I couldn’t believe a movie could hit me in so many different ways. The majority of the scares came from the tense and emotional family drama. Grief. Responding to tragedy. Trying to move on. Ari Aster had made a horror movie that found the horror in the most real and genuine moments that a lot of families have gone through (some more than others). When I saw that A24 was releasing another movie by him the next year, I knew I would be buying my tickets in advance. I’m more than happy to report that Aster did not disappoint. Midsommar is a hell of a ride. I should know – I’ve seen the movie five times. This review will deal primarily with the normal theatrical cut, but I will have a rating for both cuts of the film.

The movie follows a group of friends on their journey to Sweden for a festival that only happens once every 90 years. The moment the movie started I was gripped. The opening scene is intense. When I say intense, I mean wow. Genuinely gets me every time and this is before the “title” card even comes up. We get beautiful shots of nature, closeups of the tragedy to come, ominous foreshadowing, great initial character work, and an incredibly relatable introduction into the core thread of the movie- a crumbling relationship. Somehow, Aster manages to fit in a little bit of everything in a short time while giving a great road map to the tale that awaited.

Every single member of the main craw acted phenomenally. The chemistry (or lack thereof) between them makes every single element feel human and personable.Florence Pugh is downright AMAZING. The stress, the worry, the constant doubt, the codependency , the weariness – every element she gives in the first 10 minutes had me invested in how her character would progress. I cared about Dani. Watching her react and emote to the struggles she goes through is satisfying and makes a lot of the emotional moments in the movie stick in my head. Likewise Jack manages to do a great job of making the audience really hate him as Dani’s asshole aficionado boyfriend. It takes a lot to make me dislike a character that much, but I absolutely hated Christian. He’s grimy in a way that’s pretty normal which is what gives the movie such a sinister feeling. It makes you cheer against someone who really isn’t so different from ourselves. William Jackson Harper is great as Josh and feels like the first person who could be typecast as “nerdy philosophical guy who digs himself into serious problems”. I’m only half kidding, but his portrayal of a geeky super serious nerd is touching and alarming. Will Poulter is comedic gold as Mark and had me laughing literally every time he came on the screen. He helped keep the movie from ever feeling like “too much”. Rounding off the cast, Vilhelm Blomgren is great as Pelle. He’s calm and comforting which helps make the story feel that much more rounded in theme. The characters all play off each other well and watching the interactions bloom between them keeps every moment relevant. I always cared about what was going to happen to them.

This film has been described by Aster as “more of a fairy tale than a horror film,” and I couldn’t have said it better myself. This isn’t a horror movie in the traditional sense. It has gruesome elements. There are certainly moments that are unnerving and unsettling. However, the main crux of the movie deals with toxicity in relationships- romantic and platonic. Friendships are revealed for what they really are- there’s gas lighting, projection, passive aggressive behavior , and insensitivity. The fact that it all feels so real is what makes it so terrifying. There’s something recognizable in each of these moments which forces you to think about yourself in uncomfortable ways. The juxtaposition of feeling redeemed but simultaneously condemned as different relationships were revealed is something I haven’t really experienced in a movie before. But that’s the thing about people right? We’re toxic at times but also go through other toxic stuff and this movie gets that and dives right into exploring the ways we hurt ourselves and others. The first time I saw the movie , I left the theater and just started crying. It was a lot to kind of process and deal with. In my second viewing, I felt joy. A sense of elation. By the end of the movie I was laughing almost gleefully. You can always find a new way to relate or enjoy something about the film if you let yourself fall under its spell.

On top of this, the movie is downright hilarious. Like I said above, Poulter is great and has a ton of great one liners. But the fun doesn’t stop with him. The sometimes absurd reaction of certain characters to different phenomena and the way they react to certain scenarios always creates an incredibly perverse humor. There’s one scene in the third act, that had the entire audience laughing every time I saw it – but the scene itself is horrifying in terms of implication. When you realize what you’re laughing at there’s almost a sick realization of depravity. Like you’ve done something wrong, but right. That’s a special kind of humor and it never feels out of place with the other jokes.

Finally, the movie is a visual masterpiece. The movie features the use of hallucinogens. When the characters trip, the visuals match. They don’t look unrealistic or absurd like how movies want to think trips are- instead, they’re incredibly realistic. It’s honestly mesmerizing and is the best depiction I’ve seen of what the influence of those materials looks like in media. There are tons of little visual clues in a lot of scenes that will have you asking about what’s really going on. It’s a great directing technique that keeps the audience in the same frame of mind as the characters. I could feel their panic and sense of unease. Furthermore, there are so many gorgeous shots in this movie that I could easily screenshot and print out in a frame. Gorgeous wide shots of nature and the pagan festivities really sells the eerie folk feeling. The movie also takes place entirely in “the morning” which makes it even better , because the feeling of something being wrong is amplified. Aster uses mirrors and reflective surfaces to great effect, especially in dialogue scenes which creates beautiful depictions of character relations while augmenting the already astounding aesthetic.

Sound is done well and I actually noticed how well mixing was done. Sounds dim in and out based on character feeling and the intensity of the drug induced trip they’re in which only increases engagement with them. The score is also iconic and I’ve listened to it on Spotify countless times. When the music starts playing, everything starts feeling more spiritual and evocative. It’s hard to describe but it’s almost ethereal in how it amplifies the movie. It’s also used to give otherwise horrifying scenes an almost positive and spiritual vibe. Watching moments in the third act with the sound off gives the movie a brand new sinister vibe which just seems to prove to me how masterful every element adds to one another.

DIRECTOR’S CUT

If you like this movie the first time (especially if you’ve seen only the theatrical cut), I’d highly recommend watching the Director’s cut for a second watch through because of how much it reinforces and expands on what you already know from the last movie.

The Director’s cut is really good at building up character moments. Christian is more of an ass and his relationship with both Josh and Dani are fleshed out even more. It makes the payoff in the third act more satisfying and also explains some character issues I thought were slightly “too much” more understandable.

Furthermore, the cult’s activities are expanded in ways that both give events in the third act more relevance but help flesh out the group more. They feel more sinister while at the same time giving off a larger aura of spirituality. Smaller details are given far more weight which makes the whole experience feel more justified and set-up.

REPORT CARD

TLDRMidsommar is a beautiful look into the way we treat each other and the consequences of abandoning responsibility. Depending on your point of view it can be a horror or a cathartic fairy tail which gives it a lot of replay value. I thought the movie was near flawless when I first saw it, and only loved it that much more upon watching the Director’s cut. I’ve loved and raved about the movie above, but I’d only recommend watching it if you like those artsy weird horror films – The Witch, It Follows,etc. I recognize the movies aren’t for everyone and I’d hate if you had a bad time.
Rating10/10
10/10 (Director’s Cut)
GradeA+

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

 

Review: The Curse of La Llorona

Director(s)Michael Chaves
Principal CastLinda Cardellini as Anna Tate-Garcia
Raymond Cruz as Rafael Olvera
Patricia Velásquez as Patricia Alvarez
Marisol Ramirez as La Llorona
Release Date2019
Language(s)English
Running Time93 minutes

Boring. Uninspired. Dull. These are the first words that come to my head when I think of The Curse of La Llorona. Despite having seen the movie only a few days ago, I can barely remember large portions of it because of how uninspired and hollow the characters and their story are. It’s a shame, because as a huge fan of the Conjuring franchise, I wanted to have a fun time with Michael Chaves debut in the same.

The movie follows Anna, an recently widowed social services worker who’s life is subsequently haunted by the titular weeping women, La Llorona. Even though the plot unfolds exactly like how you think it would, the performances are never awful. Caddellini does what she can as a worried mother fighting for the sake of her family but the plot never lets her flesh herself out more in an interesting way. The child actors also do their job. There was almost a moment where I felt myself caring for their struggle. Unfortunately, the film never builds on that feeling and by the time the terrifying events start ensuing I had to struggle to find a reason to watch.

The real issue is how underdeveloped the plot feels. There are some initial stakes and interesting situations set up- but then instead of letting those threads play out naturally everything just gets pushed to the periphery in favor of a generic series of jump scares. This movie has all the tell tale signs of a generic supernatural horror story- random noises, the camera suddenly “revealing” the threat, characters doing incredibly out of place things despite knowing the danger of everything, and magical solutions working or not working depending on what the plot necessitated. As such, nothing ever feels scary. Every scare is telegraphed from miles away.

Add on to this the feeling of coincidence- nothing ever feels like an authentic character decision and everything feels out of place. There’s this whole subplot with child abuse and misdirection but instead of doing something interesting with that and doing a nuanced commentary on how certain bodies are demarcated and judged without getting a fair shot to present their stories- everything is glossed over for a new scare. It makes every moment feel hollow and empty.

I would have been more okay with this if the scares were at least interesting or terrifying , but the special effects and actual scare reveals lack any meaningful buildup and failed to ever elicit any kind of real response from me. The only thing that separates this movie from the random horror movie you’d stumble on in the middle of the night on a streaming service is the higher production values. It helps the movie at least feel more refined, but its just like putting lipstick on a pig.

REPORT CARD

TLDRThe Curse of La Llorona is a disappointing story that squanders a lot of the potential of its source material. You should think of the film as a vehicle for cheap jump scares- elements like characters or the score almost feel like afterthoughts to the scare set-ups.As someone who even had fun with The Nun, the fact that I couldn’t find anything to latch on in this movie says a lot. Watch it if you feel a special connection to the myth and are okay with watching a bland enactment of the horror from the same.
Rating3.8/10
GradeF

Film Review: Lights Out – 2016

Director(s)David F. Sandberg
Principal CastTeresa Palmer as Rebecca
Gabriel Bateman as Martin
Alexander DiPersia as Bret
Maria Bello as Sophie
Alicia Vela-Bailey as Diana
Release Date2016
Language(s)English
Running Time81 minutes
Report CardClick to go Review TLDR/Summary

The film opens on a burst of white light. As the camera pulls back, the source of this light, a post outside a textile building, is revealed.

A worker in the building, Esther (Lotta Losten), goes to finish off the last of her duties and notices a woman’s silhouette standing in the doorway. She turns on the light to get a better look and the figure disappears. Esther tests the phenomenon by flicking the lights on and off, but immediately stops and runs off when the silhouette moves closer to her during an intermission between the light switches.

She promptly goes to warn her boss, Paul (Billy Burke), who pays little heed to her warning as his focus is preoccupied on a conversation with his step-son, Martin (Gabriel Bateman); Paul tries to assuage Martin’s concerns about some personal affairs and then gets ready to leave the office.

But the silhouetted figure makes her appearance once again and stops him. Suddenly, he finds himself being chased through the warehouse; the creature manages to injure him when in shadow but can’t seem to touch him while he’s under a light source. Unfortunately, the shadow demon seems capable of turning out the lights and manages to kill him under the guise of the dark. She throws his corpse and the scene fades to black – a counterpoint to the intense light that opened the scene. This is a clash between light and dark with deadly stakes. The title card flickers onto the screen, breaking through the darkness and the battle continues.

The camera pulls out from a poster of a vampiric entity, a domesticated rendition of the shadow entity from before. It moves from the poster to a young couple, Rebecca (Teresa Palmer) and Bret (Alexander DiPersia), getting up from bed. Bret attempts to establish a more explicit relationship with Rebecca but she rejects his attempts. She’s dealing with her own set of issues and as she gazes into the mirror, it’s clear she’s trying to affirm herself. She reassures Bret of her feelings but explains she can’t be as forthright as he is.

As he leaves for the night, the camera pans to Rebecca’s shelving unit and pushes into a photograph of Rebecca and Martin, the boy from opening talking to Paul; the two of them are siblings. The camera pulls back from the photograph, pulling us to a new room – Martin’s. From the photograph of the siblings, we track from additional photographs of Martin with Paul and his mother, Sophie (Maria Bello) to an obituary photo of Paul to Martin sitting on his bed with an expression of fear: a trail of familial darkness coalescing in one scared boy.

He gets up out of his bed to check on his mom and notices her talking to a “Diana” (Alicia Vela-Bailey) hidden in the shadows. He tries to get a better look at her but experiences terror as he feels something inhuman gazing back at him. He hides in his bed, utterly petrified of the situation and unable to close his eyes.

The next day, Martin, suffering from sleep deprivation, is brought to the nurse and calls Rebecca to come pick him up. From there, she learns that Martin has been sleeping in school for days on end, seemingly unable to get any rest at home. Rebecca, with Bret in tow as chauffeur, drives to Sophie’s house to get a handle on the situation. On the way, Martin mentions to Rebecca that Sophie has been speaking to someone named Diana, and a chilling realization sweeps through Rebecca’s eyes. She tells Martin that “Diana” came to their mother a lot during Rebecca’s youth as well – a harbinger of the debilitating depressive phases Sophie commonly went through and is currently going through.

With the context of Diana, Rebecca goes in to confront Sophie and comes to the realization that her mother has fallen into a depraved state, neglecting therapy and medication in favor of communing with Diana in a perpetually dark house with the lights out. The loss of Paul has sent Sophie reeling into an abyss that threatens to take her family along with it. Thus, Rebecca and company are tasked with figuring out a way of to deal with the darkness and the despair that comes along with it.

From this angle, Lights Out is an allegory about depression much in the vein of Jennifer Kent’s The Babadook, utilizing the trappings of a supernatural horror to explore the way dark thoughts lay roost and come to consume not only oneself but ones entire family as well. As Sophie suffers the people closer to her – Rebecca, Martin, Paul – are forced to deal with and suffer the consequences of depression imagined as supernatural infiltration. By mapping depression to darkness and healing to light, director David F. Sandberg sets the film up for frantic battles where characters have to desperately scramble to find the light in the darkest of situations to keep themselves afloat, nailing the metaphor on its head.

Yet, this reading of the film is rendered formally suspect by the opening sequence at the textile factory. Having Esther deal with Diana makes the latter less a representation of familial grief and more a general demonic entity, and the film leans into this idea repeatedly, having Diana engage in creepy maneuverings typical of something more akin to The Conjuring films. Instead of being tied to Sophie’s thoughts and inner circles, Diana is allowed to be a loose cannon only tangentially tied to depression and is able do whatever the plot needs her to do. This conflict in identity contributes to a disconnect in the narrative and its emotional arcs as the story refuses to commit to either being an horror motivated by intimate family drama or horror motivated by the machinations of an evil creature.

Instead of this combined approach, the story should have committed to one haunted vision over another: either go for a more traditional supernatural demon story with an explicit threat or go for an allegory about grief. As is, the narrative feels like it wants to be the latter story but is forced to deal with intrusions from the former story.

Consequently, even though many of the more shocking sequences are technically competent and incorporate creative uses of lighting to keep the tension palpable, they are transformed from being evocative representations of the characters’ inner turmoil to run-of-the-mill jump-scare sequences. There’s still fun to be had, but it’s a far cry from what the ideas and sense of sequence design should have allowed for.

REPORT CARD

TLDRLights Out is a technically proficient horror that knows how to set up a scary sequence but its story is torn between wanting to be a character-driven supernatural allegory and a ghost story about a spectral menace. This lack of direction pervades the narrative and makes it the well-executed scare sequences nothing more than temporary frights with no staying power after watching.
Rating7.7/10
GradeB

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

Review: Knives Out

Director(s)Rian Johnson
Principal CastAna de Armas as Marta
Daniel Craig as Benoit Blanc
Christopher Plummer as Harlan
Chris Evans as Ransome
Jamie Lee Curtis as Linda
Michael Shannon as Walt
Don Johnson as Richard
Toni Collette as Joni
Lakeith Stanfield as Detective Elliot
Katherine Langford as Meg
Jaeden Martell as Jacob
Riki Lindhome as Donna
K Callan as Great Nana
Release Date2019
Language(s)English
Running Time130 minutes

I’ll be honest – I love a good mystery. As a kid I loved watching Scooby-Doo and trying to figure out what was going on. Some of my favorite book series were The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew. I loved BBC’s Sherlock (at least the first two seasons). When I first saw the trailer for the movie and saw the cast list, I knew I had to see it to satiate the mystery fan inside of me. I’m more than happy to report back that Rian Johnson’s star-studded mystery, Knives Out, is charming and filled with great twists and turns.

The film follows Detective Blanc as he helps the local police determine if the death of popular mystery writer, Harlan Thrombey , was a suicide or something more nefarious.Honestly, what surprised me the most about the movie was how well it balanced humor, mystery, drama, and tension. No element ever feels like it feels out of place. Combined with the beautiful shot composition, the aesthetic and makeup of Thrombey’s house, and a riveting score and you have a formula for success. I laughed out loud more than once with the audience and also had my share of white knuckle moments.

What makes the film more interesting than the traditional mystery plot is the information revealed to the audience. I didn’t expect to get the gleams of info I got, and I was amused with the way the plot’s focus and scope changed. It made the movie more interesting and the way the movie plays with mystery tropes is a delight. There was more than one moment I didn’t see coming and watching all the pieces come together by the end of the movie was great. There are quite a few elements that are set up through the movie and I was thoroughly satisfied with how they were explored by the end of the movie. Pay attention – I promise the payoff is more than worth it.

The acting in this movie is great and there are a few stand-out performances that were really fun to watch. Besides his accent ( which I think is deliberately over-the-top to drive in the point), I loved how much Craig owned the screen. He’s confident, witty, and feels charismatic in an endearing way. His ability to go from hard ass to comedic observer helps keep the tone of the movie consistent. Ana de Armas’s performance as Marta is also phenomenal. She plays off Craig well and does great in her own light. Watching her innocent character try and navigate the contours of the Thrombey family was a delight and made me want to cheer her on. Speaking of the Thrombeys, every member of the family feels distinct and the members that get more fleshed out are quite interesting. As someone who loved Toni Collette in Hereditary and The Sixth Sense getting to see her as a liberal lifestyle guru was a treat. The issue with so many characters however, is that a few of them become one note characters that are associated with nothing more than a gag. It’s a shame because there are hints of moments that could be developed with them, but they’re never explored to their full extent.

Although the movie is a fun adventure, it feels lacking thematically. There’s a surface level discussion of politics- immigration in particular- and besides some cyclical gags in relation to it and some minor drama it’s never handled in a way that makes it more meaningful. It’s obvious that the film is a criticism of opulence, but so many of the other elements of the movie are so intelligently written, so the lack of depth feels like a huge missed opportunity. Likewise, there’s this underlying discussion of family and obligation that’s mentioned a lot in the movie, but is really mishandled. In particular, certain character reactions betray where the movie could have gone with this meaning in favor of being more generic. There’s also one glaring character decision that doesn’t make sense in the 3rd act of the movie which is kind of a big deal in how the plot unravels. I might just be nitpicking here but it felt out of place with how well thought out everything else in the plot was.

REPORT CARD

TLDRKnives Out is fun take on the whodunit genre that changes the focus from how the murder happened to why the murder happened while retaining all the charm and wit associated with a traditional murder mystery. Though not every member of the ensemble cast gets time to develop or feel wholly relevant, it’s fun enough watching all of them interact because it’s clear they’re having so much fun with it. If you’re looking for a gorgeous looking mystery, look no further.
Rating9.2/10
GradeA

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

Review: Doctor Sleep

Director(s)Mike Flanagan
Principal CastEwan McGregor as Danny Torrance
Roger Dale Floyd as young Danny
Rebecca Ferguson as Rose the Hat
Kyleigh Curran as Abra
Carl Lumbly as Dick Hallorann
Cliff Curtis as Billy
Alex Essoe as Wendy Torrance
Release Date2019
Language(s)English
Running Time152 minutes

To be honest, I wasn’t looking forward to this movie. I’ve never been someone who read any of Stephen King’s books growing up, so my only experience towards The Shining has been through Stanley Kubrick’s iconic movie. The way the movie ended was satisfying and emotionally resounding. As such, the idea of any sequel felt iffy, even if based on a book by the original author. On top of that, the initial trailers made me feel like the movie was just going to be a series of Shining references without real substance. Thankfully, Mike Flanagan’s adaptation of Doctor Sleep manages to stand on its own two feet and genuinely surprised me in its depth and presentation.

The story follows Dan Torrance as he attempts to get over his horrifying experience at the Overlook hotel. He’s a rugged adult now and the film takes time at the beginning to really flesh out what we know about him and his motivations. If you’ve been reading my reviews for a while now, you know that I’m okay with the dreaded “slow burn” movie. However others may find this first hour slow and uneventful. There’s no real inciting incident or immediate answers to the events that we witness. Instead, we’re forced to take time getting to know the primary cast and their motivations. This makes the more serious and tense moments in the second and third act that much more exciting. I felt scared because I cared about the characters and knew what they were thinking and going through. Character decisions do get more “interesting” in the third act, but they never brought me out of the moment during the watch so I didn’t think too much about them. Even now they don’t seem like major issues and don’t detract from the more important moments, but it may annoy some viewers.

Acting is great all around. Ewan McGregor really sells the trauma that motivates and influences Dan’s actions. He’s asked to be a man at wit’s end in one moment and then a confident leader in another. Likewise, Kyliegh Curan’s performance as Abra stone manages to cover a wide range of emotions. She’s confident and bad ass when she needs to be, but when she’s scared it’s understandable. As a child actor, I’m even more impressed and appreciated how well Curan and McGregor played off each other. Their relationship is really cute and helps give the story a lot of it’s emotional weight. However, any review of Doctor Sleep that didn’t mention Rebecca Ferguson’s performance as as the main antagonist, Rose the Hat, would be horribly remiss. She absolutely captures the camera whenever she shows up. She oozes charisma, intelligence, malice, but also a deep emotional attachment to her “family.” It makes her a nuanced villain. Yes, she’s evil – but she’s so fun and suave with it that you can’t help but appreciate the lengths of what she’s willing to do.

I appreciated Flanagan’s recast of the Shining characters. I watched the movie with a friend, who thought that the dis similarities between the new actors/actresses versus the original actors/actresses was distracting. I can understand why and this may be something that puts viewers off. However, I do think each of the recasts captures the “spirit” of the original character. I could believe each of the actors/actresses as their characters , even if they weren’t great at cloning their original actor/actress as that character. There is one scene in the third act where I thought the differences were a bit too strong, but it didn’t distract me too much. Honestly, considering the alternative – a ton of CGI – I’m glad the more practical option was used. If IT 2’s de-aging showed me anything, it’s that technology still has limits.

The movie is crisply shot like all of Flanagan’s previous works. Nothing really surprised me in terms of composition or sound. However, that is not to say that scenes do not look cool. The movie has a lot of action moments that absolutely looked stunning and felt like they were ripped out of an manga or comic book. If you’ve seen Naruto and ever wanted to see real genjutsu fights, this movie has them and they are gorgeous.

I did appreciate all the homages to the original film in both the shot composition and track design. The third act honestly felt like a huge gush of fan-service, which I personally enjoyed. It felt like a nod at fans of the original and I liked it for what it was. It didn’t feel like it took anything away from the plot of the movie at hand. I do think some of the references could’ve been taken away because the movie felt like it could have been a tad bit shorter, but I didn’t mind it.

Thematically the movie focuses on responsibility and the extent of what our obligations are to others. The question is made more interesting by the philosophical questions raised by the scope and use of the “shining” power. I was surprised by how much the movie was making me think about how I would react in similar situations. Although , I think that some of the threads are answered haphazardly, the way the movie ended had me smiling. Based on the discussions I’ve been having, I definitely want to read the source material for both films and go through the experience again. This adaptation deserves that.

REPORT CARD

TLDRDoctor Sleep is a beautiful movie that manages to balance both horror and action. It features one of the best villains of 2019 and is a fun ride the moment psychic shenanigans start happening.This is the best King adaptation of 2019 and there have been a lot. If you ever wondered what happened to Doc after the events of The Shining, you owe it to yourself to watch this movie.
Rating9.4/10
GradeA

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

Review: Parasite

Director(s)Bong Joon-ho
Principal CastSong Kang-ho as Kim Ki-taek
Choi Woo-shik as Kim Ki-Woo/Kevin
Park So-dam as Kim Ki-Jung/Jessica

Jang Hye-jin as Park Chung-sook
Lee Sun-kyun as Park Dong-ik/Nathan
Cho Yeo-jeong as Choi Yeon-gyo
Lee Jung-eun as Gook Moon-gwang
Release Date2019
Language(s)Korean
Running Time132 minutes

I’ve never seen a movie by Bong Joon-ho before I saw Parasite, and if any of them are even remotely close to the cinematic masterpiece that I witnessed, I’m definitely going to have to check them out. If you can’t guess already, I absolutely adored every second of this movie and couldn’t keep my eyes off the screen. This is probably the best class consciousness movie I’ve ever seen and I’m already ready to watch it all over again.

The movie follows the Kim family – a group of incredibly skilled and intelligent scam artists. Because the family is poor and lives in an incredibly impoverished location, they each have to make full use of their wits in order to cling to their lives. The movie really gets started once the son, Ki Woo (Choi Woo-shik) infiltrates a rich family and slowly helps his own family infiltrate and take from his rich clientele. However, unlike the traditional rich evil character type we’re used to, the main “antagonists” of the film seem fairly normal and even nice at times. There are moments, especially closer to the third act where you can get why the main characters don’t like them as much, but they’re never overbearing. The best part? The characters don’t know their counterparts are actually nuanced and distinct from the archetypes they have formed in their head. As a result, interactions between the groups are comedic and thought provoking. The juxtaposition of the smart and poor with the rich, non-malicious, but ignorant creates this wonderful interplay of previously unseen class interactions. There are a lot of moments that forced me to recognize certain moments in my own life and unpack the assumptions and biases I had. Expectations are subverted , but it never feels like it’s done for no reason. It all calculated, but comes off as natural.

As a result, the movie can be funny when it wants and serious when it needs to be. Jokes hit well because of the way expectations are set up. There are always good punch lines but what elevates them to the next level is their thematic significance. After finishing the movie, I knew I had to watch the movie again to see how the earlier jokes figured into the way things unraveled.

The movie also shines on a technical level. Camera work is off the charts. There are gorgeous shots of the characters traversing treks of the city. These moments help to drive home the social positions of different character groups. The impoverished are geographically positioned lower compared to the rich who are placed higher. Pan and tilt shots are expertly used to amplify this feeling. The score naturally flows and accompanies the different sections In particular, the more epic musical tracks helped sell the tension in a lot of the latter parts of the film. The architecture of the house the majority of the action takes place in is also beautiful. The layout of it helped reinforce themes while providing eye candy. It’s relation to the sun and other sources of light was also something I wasn’t expecting but thoroughly enjoyed. All these elements always help reinforce one another making the whole experience feel more textured.

This is a film I think almost any one can relate to because it is fundamentally a story of a family’s struggle to survive under capitalism. Though the first part of the movie is more lighthearted, the movie never takes the characters predicaments lightly. Any possible mistake can risk upending everything. That’s the real beauty of the movie. We actually end up cheering for a group of con-artists swindling a naive wealthy family. Whenever something felt like it was going to fall apart, I felt genuinely scared, because I cared for and wanted everything to go well for the Kims. I could see large swaths of my life in theirs, and I think a lot of people will feel the same way. That’s why the tale never feels long or unbelievable. Take away the names and location and suddenly you have the tale of billions of people around the planet. That’s powerful.

REPORT CARD

TLDRParasite is a masterclass film. Every element from the story to set design helps sell a thought-provoking and bold story about class consciousness and the human condition.If you’ve ever felt like the world has had it out for you then you owe it to yourself to watch this cinematic masterpiece. It might be one of the most relatable and human pieces of art I’ve had the pleasure of experiencing.
Rating10/10
GradeA+

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

Film Review: Friday the 13th – 1980

Director(s)Sean S. Cunningham
Principal CastAdrienne King as Alice
Peter Brouwer as Steve
Laurie Bartram as Brenda
Kevin Bacon as Jack
Mark Nelson as Ned
Jeannine Taylor as Marcie

Robbi Morgan as Annie
Release Date1980
Language(s)English
Running Time 95 minutes
Report Card Click to go Review TLDR/Summary

Clouds go over the full moon as the camera tracks down from the celestial object to a campground, Camp Crystal Lake. The year is 1958. People inside one of the cabins sing a cheery camp song. The film cuts away to an POV shot. It’s subject wades through the campground and looks at the children. Meanwhile, the cheery diegetic track gives way to a more foreboding non-diegetic set of orchestral noises accompanying a whisper-like chant: “ki-ki-ki-ma-ma ma”. The film cuts back to the cabin where the cheery song is being sang and the ominous track dissipates for a moment.

After the singing is done, two of the camp counselors sneak off to enjoy the indiscretions of youth. A close-up of the foreboding moon comes up for a brief moment before the film cuts back to the couple as they vacate to a empty cabin and go upstairs to enjoy more sensual pleasures. However, just as they start getting intimate, the film cuts back to the POV shot and its subject. The non-diegetic chant comes back in and continues to increase in intensity. Suddenly, the subject is face to face with the couple who realizes they’re being watched. The two of them get up and make some excuses to the figure – clearly someone they both know. However, the subject slashes and kills both of them. The camera pushes in on the final victim’s face, cementing the expression of fear before the screen dissolves into an intense flash of white light; the title card shoots forward and breaks the glass screen.

Now, the year is 1980 and the story picks up on a group of camp counselors who have been hired by the owner of the Camp Crystal Lake campground, Steve (Peter Brouwer) to help him with his attempt at re-opening the location. As each of the youthful characters makes their way towards the camp, they run into locals who inform them of site and its terrifying reputation. The townspeople try and warn the new counselors of previous incidents at the camp like a drowning in 1957 and the murders of 1958 to get the youthful bunch to quit, but the youngsters refuse and set-up shop at camp with Steve, getting the campsite ready for a grand re-opening. Unfortunately for them, the movie’s opening moments has informed the viewer of the threat of murderer, so the seeds for the carnage are now allowed to bloom.

If the structure of the opening feels familiar, it’s because the movie intentionally emulates the footsteps of John Carpenter’s seminal classic, Halloween. There’s a scene of conjugal innocence interrupted by a killer whose point-of-view becomes the camera’s view. There’s an iconic theme and music profile associated with the terror; composer Harry Manfredini’s “ki-ki-ki-ma-ma-ma” whisper replaces John Carpenter’s terrorizing synths. This is all intentional; director Sean Cunningham and screen-writer Victor Miller wrote the film explicitly to ride on Halloween’s success and capitalize on what they thought were its strong points for as cheap as possible. [1]Kennedy, M. (2019, December 7). How Halloween directly inspired Friday the 13th. ScreenRant. Retrieved October 2, 2021, from https://screenrant.com/halloween-movie-inspired-friday-the-13th-franchise/.

However, it’s precisely where the movie openings diverge from one another where the issues effecting Friday the 13th can be made clear. Halloween ends its opening sequence by revealing that its killer is a young boy, Michael, shocking the audience and setting it’s story’s dark tone. The film’s use of the P.O.V shot disguises the identity of the killer but reveals their modus operandi and points of focus. However, once the initial act of murder is done, the P.O.V shot is flipped to a traditional view of the subject and the viewer is aghast and made aware that the killer is not normal and is out of synch with the “morally righteous” world. Because the killer is treated as a heinous monster the film is able to focus less on developing their character; through just their screen presence, the killings are made terrifying enough and the tension stems from following the victims that have to deal with the killer who is beyond any reason or comprehension. This creates multiple points of interest and tension.

But Friday the 13th treats the identity of its killer as the driving force of the narrative, generating tension from the possibility of the killer being any of the characters. Yet, because the story gives no clues about the nature of the identity of the killer till late into the third act when the reveal is all but inevitable and also doesn’t make any of the victims interesting in their own right outside of being possible red herrings, there’s absolutely no narrative momentum. Given the movie’s release context and the nature of its killer, it makes sense that Miller wanted to ensure there was no chance the killer’s identity would be revealed. However, because the focus is so stringent on maintaining “perfect” mystery until the moment of the reveal, there’s no reason to care about the movie, sans bits of gory fun, until that moment happens. Naturally, this puts the brunt of the thematic and emotional weight of the narrative on the killer’s reveal and reasoning for acting as they did, but Friday the 13th’s set-up is convoluted to say the least and does not spend nearly enough time laying the seeds for these revelations to feel earned.

Even within the context of the violence, there’s no effort made at establishing any kind of clues regarding the killer’s psychological profile. While Halloween spends little time characterizing its killer, it does relish in showing off its killers macabre decisions to give the viewer room to think about the nature of the killer’s thoughts; there’s an unease generated by trying to and and eventually making sense of the grim choices being made. Friday the 13th doesn’t even try to show personality behind the butchering; while the nature of the kills sequences are all creative by the standards of the time, there’s no connective tissue between them that would lead even a diligent viewer to gleam any meaningful information about the killer’s identity or reasoning for acting in the way they do.

This means the movie, up till the killers reveal, is functionally irrelevant character interaction and nicely put together gore sequences. No character, sans the killer, has a motivation that the viewer can latch onto as a reason to root for anyone through their trials and tribulations. While the group of “protagonists”, though calling them that feels like a stretch in itself, is generally likable, nothing inventive or fruitful ever happens because of or between the characters to distinguish them in meaningful fashion. Unfortunately, this makes the murderous moments ones with low stakes and subsequently renders the characters’ deaths as nothing more than beautiful bits of carnage candy.

But even without stakes, delightful gore with no narrative fat is certainly appealing, depending on the viewer, in its own right and that’s what Friday the 13th excels at delivering. The characters become blood-soaked paintbrushes in makeup designerTom Savini’s hands, conjuring up visions of the macabre and grotesque. Cunningham relishes in the sensuality of the violence and setting up the bodies in cruel and tragic fashion. This effect is accentuated because the movie only shows a few of the murders; selective moments of mutilation engender a matrix of fear which makes the reveal of other bodies all the worse. Because the moments of brutality are incorporated selectively, they actually manage to be shocking. This is why in spite of being light on plot, the film still manages to unnerve. While the characters may not be all that relatable, the way their bodies are violated certainly makes one a bit squeamish concerning their own flesh. It’s no wonder then that in spite of its own inception as a Halloween clone, Friday the 13th has managed to leave its own indelible mark on the slasher genre, demonstrating that good enough gore can make up for a lot.

REPORT CARD

TLDRFriday the 13th functions more as a vehicle for slaughter than a deeper foray into the human condition, providing the audience little more than momentarily evocative carnage candy until the explosive reveal of the killer’s true identity and motivations. Though there’s little subtext and the mystery driving the heart of the story is unfairly withheld from the audience until its reveal, the ride the movie takes viewers is fun even decades after its initial release in theatres. For those fans looking for quick, brisk, and to the point slasher-fare, Friday the 13th more than holds up.
Rating7.4/10
GradeC+

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