Matilda Lutz as Jen Kevin Janssens as Richard Vincent Colombe as Stan Guillaume Bouchède as Dimitri
Release Date
2017
Language(s)
English, French
Running Time
108 minutes
I’m not the biggest fan of rape and revenge stories because I think most of them rely too much on the shock and exploitative nature of the rape and violence as opposed to the revenge by the survivor. As a result the exploitative nature of the movies tends to crowd out any big thematic takeaways about (feminine) agency and the way dominant powers can be usurped. Thankfully, as the title would suggest, Revenge is a story that focuses more on the survivor’s story than her abusers’ actions. Don’t get me wrong. The movie definitely doesn’t hold back punches when it comes to demonstrating the brutality our lead goes through. It’s just that it manages to do it in a way that focuses more on the horror of the power dynamic than just shocking imagery.
The story follows Jen and Richard, a couple on a romantic getaway that’s quickly interrupted when the latter’s two friends, Stan and Dimitri, show up at the house they’re staying in. As soon as they show up the mood in the house changes. There’s a palpable tension that keeps building, just waiting to explode and explode it does. Jen is violated, brutalized, and left for dead. Thankfully, the violence and brutality of the actions is demonstrated not by some grotesque demonstration of the act proper. Instead, it is the actions/reactions of the 3 men towards the “situation” that demonstrate just how depraved their behavior is. Though they’re similar in terms of their general orientation towards the situation (and women), Fargeat made sure to carve out unique identities for each of the scumbags. I was surprised at how well each member of the trio stood out. It’s easy to bog down the antagonists in these types of movies and make them all just a vacuous evil with varying shades, but Revenge teases out the nuances in their perception of women and violence demonstrating that toxic masculinity can come in different shapes and sizes, each perpetuating a misogynistic culture in their own ways.
Likewise, Jen is far more than the eye candy she’s made out to be in the earlier portions of the movie. When she’s first introduced she comes off as a pretty socialite who’s trying to enjoy her getaway despite the presence of her lovers new friends. She dances and parades with a full confidence and swagger. The camera lingers on her body in a provocative voyeuristic fashion, demonstrating what her male audience is paying attention to. After her traumatic encounter she draws upon a well of genius, tenacity, and rage to find a way to survive. Clad in the same previously sexualized garb, cut up and damaged, and covered with blood she goes out to execute her plan of action. Her transformation feels surreal with her subsequent revenge feeling more like a fantastical imagining of how it should go down rather than how it would in another movie. Some people might see it as unrealistic, but the movie fully embraces the dream like and seemingly magical logic of Jen’s journey so it never feels like a real issue. It helps that antagonists are all characters you actively want to see suffer, so there’s a great sense of catharsis in watching Jen proceed down her bloody path. Lutz’s performance is what keeps all these elements tightly knit and effective. Despite having only a few lines in the movie, everything from the way she holds her body to the way her face reflects her mood and outlook reinforces exactly what she’s thinking and what she’s planning on doing. There’s no need for words. What she wants is clear and her previous calls for help fell on deaf ears so the time for words are over.
The way the scenery and sound design reflect the changes in Jen and her subsequent journey are what push the movie over the edge. The color scheme of the vacation house she starts off at along with her wardrobe is fun, exciting, and bright with pretty pinks and nice yellows.As she goes along her journey her outfit becomes matted in blood, becoming dark and gritty matching the hellish desert landscape. While she might’ve been the prey back in the house, out in the wild she’s the huntress. Early on there’s a beautiful closeup shot of her blood pouring out in big drops, hitting the ground (and one particularly unlucky ant) like a series of explosions. Each drop is punctuated with the sound of a gun shot. It’s a highly effective scene that marks the beginning of her transformation and indicates to the audience that the power dynamic has started to shift. Moments like these are scattered through the movie through cuts to obviously symbolic imagery, vague fantasy sequences, and poetic flourishes that feel too good to be true.
Of course none of these elements would work if not for the tightly knit, well-paced story, that knows exactly when to push on the gas pedals and when to slow down. Blood and gore are used effectively. There’s a lot of it by the end, but it feels well earned as opposed to over the top. There’s never a boring moment in the movie and once the third act gets underway the movie becomes a non-stop, white-knuckled, cat and mouse chase that has to be seen to be believed. The way the camera moves with the characters as they frantically chase after one another adds a healthy dose of tension and disorientation which keeps you wholly engaged.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Revenge is an action packed story that subverts and plays with genre tropes and expectations to wild success. While it might feel too fantastical for those looking for an incredibly realistic revenge story, it absolutely delivers for those willing to give themselves over to the surreal way events unfold. This is a rape and revenge story that manages to keep the focus on the survivor and her journey to overcome and survive. It’s enthralling, well paced, and is packed withsymbols and images that’ll have you thinking long after the run time.
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 .
Jaime Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode Donald Pleasence as Dr.Sam Loomis Dick Warlock as Michael Myers
Release Date
1981
Language(s)
English
Running Time
92 minutes
Halloween II picks up immediately after the end of Halloween with Laurie being transferred to a hospital following her near fatal encounter with Michael. Unfortunately for her he’s not only alive but he’s also looking to finish what he started by taking her out of the picture. What follows is a Halloween skinned Friday the 13th style slasher that’s packed to the brim with spectacular kills and a score that’s as iconic as the originals.
I’ll be honest. I think that Halloween II introduces a plot point/reveal that the mainline Halloween franchise has never been able to satisfyingly deal with. It’s the core behind Michael’s motivation and deflates a lot of the ambiguity that makes him so frightening in the first movie. As a result everything from the first movie feels off. Myers goes from “the Shape” to a person with human desires. The issue is the movie then tries to reconcile that with his general supernatural and distant characterization and it comes off as confusing. Furthermore, the way the reveal happens is so cheap and tacked on that the entire movie feels like it could have happened without this scene’s inclusion. It feels lazy and out of place, which is made all the worse because it is literally the driving force behind the story.
Now that I’ve gotten that out of my system, I can absolutely say this movie is entertaining if you can look past this plot point. The kills are creative and the set-ups are well worth watching. There’s one scene in particular where a nurse thinks Michael is her lover, whom she doesn’t realize has already been killed off. Watching the scene play out demonstrates the fundamental identity issue with the movie. The scene is terrifying because you know what’s going to happen and the nurse’s manner of death is particularly dreadful to imagine. However, the drawn out almost comical nature of it feels counter to how decisive and no-nonsense he feels in the first part. It’s not like all the kill scenes are like this. In fact, Rosenthal has more than his fair share of voyeuristic camera kills like Carpenter had made all the more interesting by the long white hallways of the hospital. It’s just that when a kill happens that doesn’t fit in the with that general current you can feel how out of place it is. If you’re just looking for a slasher with innovative and entertaining kills, this movie has them in spades and I can see why so many fans of the franchise have a fondness for this movie.
The score is also noteworthy for being nearly as entertaining as the original’s, which I think is one of the most immersive scores in horror cinema. Carpenter’s new rendition of the iconic theme is similar enough to evoke the feelings of nostalgia but feels new and energetic. Granted, I love synth music but I also think the score perfectly captures what the movie wanted to do in hearkening back to the original while being it’s own thing. I love how the usually sweet and soothing “Mr. Sandman”by The Chordettes is utilized in the movie. It comes off as sinister and unnerving in context which I think is testament to how well Rosenthal nails atmosphere. The first time I heard it play while watching I thought it was coming from somewhere else because of how odd its selection felt in such a movie. However, if you ask me now, I can’t imagine the movie without the song.
The one aspect of the movie that I genuinely enjoyed and think was pulled off well throughout the movie is the fear of the holiday of Halloween. The idea that it’s a holiday filled with fear and repression is exemplified through multiple different actions that are only tangentially related. Near the beginning of the movie a child is in the Emergency Room and we get a glimpse of his bloodied mouth. It hearkens back to rumors of razors in candy-bars and the fear that our own neighbors could harm our children. Moments like these add a much needed texture to the movie that place the central conflict within the schema of traditional Halloween scares and fears. It doesn’t elevate the movie up to where Halloween is, but it certainly gives the movie a more distinctive identity than just die fodder die.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
I have a love hate relationship with this movie. On the one hand I love that it feels and plays like a continuation of Halloween . You could literally play this as soon as the first movie ended and it would feel like one fully encompassing piece. The similarity is so uncanny that fan-cuts mixing the two movies feel seamless without close inspection. Unfortunately, this latter half of the two-parter undoes a lot of what made the original so frightening and interesting, settling instead for a Friday the 13th style slaughter fest with a hackneyed plot that serve as the story’s main driver. It’s an entertaining gore-fest but feels less elevated in its themes and atmosphere.
Rating
8.0/10
Grade
B
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Iván Massagué as Goreng Zorion Eguileor as Trimagasi Antonia San Juan as Imoguiri Emilio Buale Coka as Baharat Alexandra Masangkay as Miharu
Release Date
2019
Language(s)
Spanish
Running Time
94 minutes
My usual experience with horror titles on Netflix has always been the following:
If I scroll and find the movie myself the movie is anywhere from decent to excellent (ex: Gerald’s Game).
If I hear about the movie through the grapevine and check it out it’s usually a huge disappointment (ex: Bird Box,)
Given that, I was fairly certain that The Platform would be another over-hyped but underwhelming addition to the online horror streaming collection. You can only imagine my surprise then when I immediately wanted and proceeded to replay the movie after it had ended. Gaztelu-Urrutia’s science fiction thriller is one of the most layered, intimate, and entertaining depictions of the dark underbelly of capitalism I’ve had the pleasure of seeing. It’s a movie that not only deserves the praise it’s getting but honestly feels like it’s getting undersold.
The story takes place in a large tower comprised of multiple vertically stacked floors, each floor housing two residents. Each floor is identical in makeup and has a rectangular shaped hole in the center of it. A platform stacked with food starts at the top floor of the tower and travels through the holes all the way down. People are free to eat how much ever and whatever they want from the platform during the time it lingers on their floor but have no food for the rest of the day once it goes to the next floor. Every month people are reassigned to new rooms with no guarantees of where they’ll end up.
The environment serves as the perfect playground to explore class conflict. People on the upper floors have no personal incentive to partition food for those below outside of potential empathy if they had experienced hunger on a lower floor during a previous cycle. The question the movie wants to answer is whether or not it’s possible to create an escape out of such a system or find a way to survive in it. Can individual action galvanize change in a system where there’s no guarantee of the security of one’s future? That’s a pertinent question that policymakers are struggling to answer right now during the Corona epidemic as some people hoard supplies for themselves while others donate to the less fortunate. The separation between floors helps elucidate the dissonance people experience as a result of possessing relatively more power than their peers. People hate those above for disrespecting them and in the case of the movie not giving them food, but they simultaneously choose not to extend the concern they wish they received to those below. It’d be funny if it didn’t ring so true with reality.
Obviously such discussions require nuance and ambiguity. That’s where this movie shines. The majority of the narrative is dialogue between Goreng, a man who voluntarily entered the tower, and the various peoples he meets on different levels. Every participant he runs into is a stand-in for a different sect of society and their relation to resource distribution. It can feel a bit too on the nose with characters insulting others with jeers like “communist” or racial slurs. However, most of these details are meant to distract both Goreng and us, the audience, from the structural information asymmetry at play. With no resources or methods to vet others information, every interaction becomes suspect. Is what’s being said true or is it only being said to curry favor? Maybe the correspondent thinks what they’re saying is true when it’s not because they heard it from somewhere else. The movie constantly reveals pertinent information only to contradict it a few scenes later. It forces you to ask who’s really doing what and for why. You really appreciate how layered the (mis)direction and (mis)information go because they reveal the way knowledge is conditioned by power and used to reinforce different schemas of social control, both good and bad. It’s all about ideology.
Thankfully, in spite of being dialogue heavy and primarily taking place in one setting, the movie never feels boring. This is due in part to some great editing choices and performances. Whenever a moment feels like it’s just about to get too long the movie cuts to a nightmare sequence, psychological hallucinations, or an outside perspective of the events leading to Goreng’s experiences in the tower. Each cut feels like it comes at the right time and always adds to the subtext in a way that doesn’t outwardly reveal as much as the dialogue heavy scenes. It’s markedly subtle. Lighting and color are also used to great effect both as plot devices and as a mood amplifiers. The palette is usually a gray-blue but gets enveloped in a red lighting, similar to what you’d see in a dark room, during more important moments. It’s a visual jolt that lets you know something’s going to go down. Furthermore, the movie is just as violent as it is cerebral and horror fans looking for some gory visceral scares will definitely have a good time with some of the more brutal moments. As you would imagine people on the brink of starvation are more than willing to do what they need to ensure they have something to eat and the movie plays with that tension to create some genuinely stressful white-knuckle situations.
Now as much as I love this movie for what it does, I think it does feel a bit too convenient at times. There are some characters that feel tailor fit for the situation as opposed to feeling like real people who just happened to have the skills to solve the situation at hand. I didn’t think it was a huge issue, but it does make some sequences feel more allegorical than grounded. The movie also revels in mystery and shows a lot of interesting scenes and moments that have to do with but are not within the tower but never expands on them enough. It’s not that the inclusions are ineffective. It’s more like they’re missed opportunities that could have made the movies themes pop out more. Finally, the ending is polarizing. It’s intentionally ambiguous and is open to interpretation. I personally love it and think it’s the only way the movie could have ended. However I also know people who thought the ending was a let-down that didn’t make use of all the momentum leading up to it.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
The Platform is like if Cube got a modern face-lift and dealt directly with the horrors of neoliberal capitalism. The story is nuanced, brutal, and more pertinent now than ever. If you’re looking for clear answers you might find yourself frustrated. This is a cerebral horror that delivers on its themes and its scares in equal part.
Rating
9.2/10
Grade
A
Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report .
François Simard Anouk Whissell Yoann-Karl Whissell
Principal Cast
Graham Verchere as Davey Judah Lewis as Eats Caleb Emery as Woody Cory Gruter-Andrew as Farraday Tiera Skovbye as Nikki Rich Sommer as Officer Mackey
Release Date
2018
Language(s)
English
Running Time
106 minutes
After the absolute blast that was 2015’s Turbo Kid, I was more than excited when I saw the writer-director trio behind it had made this 80’s inspired horror mystery about a group of high schoolers trying to track down a local serial killer. Though it didn’t quite reach the peaks of the trio’s first movie, Summer of 84 has more than enough heart , spirit, and tension to entertain genre fans or people looking for a well-executed murder mystery story.
The story follows Davey, a 15 year old paperboy neck deep in conspiracy theories, who starts to suspect his friendly neighborhood cop, Officer Mackey, might actually be the dreaded serial killer terrorizing his small suburban neighborhood. Hungry to get to the bottom of the case, he enlists the help of his friends: Eats,Woody, and Farrady. What stands out the most about the group of four is how well defined they are as individuals and in relation to one another. Their conversations feel like they have a genuine history and weight behind them even if at times its just a series of quips back and forth. Davey, on top of being the conspiracy theorist of the group , is also the one most invested in the excitement the morbid situation presents him and his otherwise sheltered suburban life.Eats is the typical abrasive loud-mouth of the group. Woody is nervous, loyal, and defensive about his Mom. Farrady is know-it-all of the group. These characteristics might be interesting in end of themselves, but their origins reveal a lot more. Angst doesn’t just come from somewhere; there’s always circumstance that informs it. Discovering what that background is is what the movie is all about.
Davey tells the audience as much in a voice-over near the beginning of the story where he warns that anything that could be happening behind anyone’s closed doors and you’d never know. The normal and routine could just be a smokescreen or deflection to cover up something more sinister. Or it could just be that- normal and routine. The story explores this idea not only through the mystery and investigation at the heart of the narrative but also in the way background details regarding different characters get revealed. For example, Davey learns that his former babysitter’s parents are getting divorced when his dad casually lets it slip that he heard something. It’s telling in how quickly they all accept the news almost like we hear what we want to hear. In a world where we quickly accept or deny information based on how well it coheres with other facts we process, how easy is it for an action to be construed as being intended in one way verse another? Watching the characters wrangle with that question is what keeps the movie entertaining. Even as someone who thought the ending felt predictable, I didn’t feel upset because I think the movie is deft in how it applies this sense of misdirection up until the big reveal.
Speaking of misdirection, Rich Sommer deserves a serious round of applause for playing the main suspect, Officer Mackey, with just the right amount of ambiguity. Every action he takes feels like it could either be malicious or it could just coincide with regular behavior. The way he emotes simultaneously feels genuine and for a specific purpose and trying to figure out whether or not he’s really the killer places you directly in the protagonist’s corner only to take you out of it again. If he wasn’t capable of switching from charming to menacing at the flip of the hat the mystery at the heart of the movie would never work.
If you’re a fan of 80’s inspired music and references, this movie has them in spades. The sound is synthy and hypnotic like you’d expect and I snapped along to the music more than once. The terror and danger of the situation the boys get themselves into during their mystery is conveyed almost perfectly through the tenser tracks that had my heart pumping in anticipation. Don’t worry if you’re annoyed of the 80’s aesthetic ; it’s never forced down the audience’s throat. Yes the characters talk about Episode VI and Gremlins but it only happens once.
My biggest issue with the movie is the ending. It felt predictable and even thought it was executed to a T, I expected more. The issue is at a certain point it becomes obvious that the story is kind of locked into certain paths which makes guesswork easier.There’s one scene that’s left in the second act that almost feels like the directors intentionally letting the audience know who to suspect. That being said watching it all come together in the third act is immensely satisfying because it plays on the depths of what you’ve learned up till that point as opposed to pulling any new twists or turns. It’s subversion done well and to an an effective degree. I just wish the lead up to it involved more red herrings and the story went off into zanier directions to force the characters and the audience to confront their biases in a more rushed and frantic way.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Summer of 84 is an 80’s fueled murder mystery that prioritizes mood and atmosphere over visceral scares in its exploration of the way we mediate our public image and likewise attempt to understand what others “really” mean by their public images . From the dynamic synthy-techno score to the fleshed out and realistic characters, it’s clear that a lot of love and care went into making the movie feel aesthetically on point without sacrificing nuance or personal identity. Thought it doesn’t tick of all my boxes , the movie’s fun ,energy, and willingness to experiment more than justifies a watch.
Rating
9.4/10
Grade
A
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Jaime Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode James Jude Courtney as Michael Myers/The Shape Judy Greer as Karen Andi Matichak as Allyson Nelson Haluk Bilginer as Dr. Sartain
Release Date
2018
Language(s)
English
Running Time
106 minutes
Michael (James Jude Courtney) stands chained up. Michael (James Jude Courtney) stays with his back turned to Aaron(Jefferson Hall), Dana (Rhian Rees), Dr. Sartain (Haluk Bilginer) Aaron (Jefferson Hall) tries to elicit a response from Michael with the latter’s iconic mask. Michael (James Jude Courtney) is “woken” by the mask but exhibits no overt changes in behavior. The film starts on a provocation. Journalists want to investigate Michael and see what makes him tick, but he refuses to give them even an inch.
The film opens in a psychiatric hospital. A psychiatrist working at the institution, Dr. Sartain (Haluk Bilginer) escorts two true crime reporters, Aaron (Jefferson Hall) and Dana (Rhian Rees), for an interview with the subject of their latest investigation, Michael Myers (James Jude Courtney), before he’s transferred to a more maximum-security prison. The duo approaches the serial killer, but Michael doesn’t budge; he stays with his back turned to them. But he’s very much aware of their presence as evidenced by a “reverse” over-the-shoulder shot.
Frustrated with the lack of discernible response, Aaron steps forward and taunts Michael with the latter’s iconic mask, hoping that the provocation will elicit a response. But the response comes from the other patients around Michael who start to panic and become disturbed due to the sight of the mask; the lingering presence of evil is palpable. The cries of the patients interrupt and disorient Aaron’s attempted interview but he persists, desperately asking Michael to say anything.
Title card. The jack-o-lantern is crushed. The jack-o-lantern starts to rebuild itself. The jack-o-lantern lights up and is fixed again. The title sequence references the original movie and makes the viewer aware that this sequel is about Michael’s rebirth; far from being crushed, the specter of Halloween is back for more carnage.
Suddenly, the title card drops and the iconic Halloween theme starts to play; Michael doesn’t need to speak when the music does it for him. The intro sequence pays homage to the original film’s opening. In the 1978 classic, the camera slowly pushes into a jack-o-lantern, becoming the “point-of-view” of Halloween itself. In the 2018 sequel, the camera pushes in on a broken and beaten jack-o-lantern which recovers back into its original form – a rebirth. If the original signified the birth of Michael, then this narrative is about the resurrection of the Boogeyman.
Aaron and Dana leave Michael and head towards Laurie (Jaime Lee Curtis); if the killer won’t talk, get the survivor to fill in the blanks. Aaron narrates his report on the drive over and gives us the subtext in not-so-subtle fashion. Have Michael’s actions had an impact on Laurie such that the latter has become metaphysically changed by the encounter. Has one monster made another?
Laurie’s house is gated. Lights on the top of Laurie’s house. Lights surrounding the outside of Laurie’s house. Cameras record the property.Laurie’s compound might as well be a prison with how secure the area is. Cameras, lights, and locks pervade the area and make it apparent that Laurie has learned from her encounter with Michael. Security is paramount.
The answers to these questions become murky as the reporters arrive at Laurie’s gated compound. They speak with her through a security system in order to secure an interview but receive no response until they offer to pay a fee. The gate opens and they’re allowed entry. But the inside of Laurie’s compound is even more securitized than the outside. Cameras and lights surround the outside. It’s clear that Laurie’s confrontation with Michael has radically transformed her, forcing her to live her life with a neve-ending fear of the darkness and the forces inherent to it.
Aaron and Dana mention as much in their interview with Laurie, probing into how the incident derailed her life. It’s apparent that the duo doesn’t believe in the legend of the Boogeyman and see Michael as just another serial killer waiting to be examined, a profile to be added to a personality database. They suggest that Laurie’s obsession with the myth of Michael have cost her dearly. She’s had multiple failed marriages. She lost custody of her daughter, Karen (Judy Greer), years ago and now lives estranged from any family. Instead of continuing to live her fear in deference to idea of Michael qua inexplicable evil, they suggest that she communicate with Michael and lay her grievances to rest.
But they don’t understand what Michael is or the nature of what he put Laurie through so many years ago. They don’t understand that the person known as Michael is nothing more than a moniker for a force unconstrained, an evil with no direction. Laurie knows they don’t care about such proclamations, so she end’s the interview almost as soon as it starts and sends the duo out after getting payment.
Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) looks outside and sees Michael. Michael (Nick Castle) stares at Laurie. Allyson (Andi Matichak) looks outside and sees Laurie. Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) stares at Allyson. Laurie seems to have adopted some of Michael’s mannerisms; her encounter has caused her to become a specter to her own family. Her concerns might be justified, but her actions have caused such division that she has to meet up with her granddaughter in such a roundabout fashion.
Meanwhile Laurie’s granddaughter, Allyson (Andi Matichak), asks Karen if Laurie was invited to a celebratory dinner. Karen claims that Laurie was too busy to come, but Allyson knows that Karen most likely never sent an invite out. This becomes clear when Allyson peeks out of her classroom window and notices Laurie standing outside staring back at her; this is an explicit call-back to the original Halloween where a young Laurie peeked out and saw Michael staring back at her. In spending decades preparing for Michael, it seems that Laurie has adopted some of his characteristics. Allyson calls this out when the grandmother and granddaughter reunite outside. The latter pleads with the former to give up the obsession with Michael and return to a semblance of normalcy in order to engage with the family again.
But Laurie is right and Michael proves that her concerns are more than valid when he manages to escape from the bus transporting him for his prison transfer. Now free again, the shape is more than ready to begin his nightmarish slaughter. However, this time there’s a party that’s willing and who’s trained the majority of her life for such an encounter.
The film’s set-up offers a lot of promise by building upon the original’s themes in an organic fashion. Laurie becoming jaded and militaristic after her encounter is understandable. She witnessed a person survive fatal wound upon fatal wound with no genuine injuries. She’s the only one to have an understanding of the terror he brings, so she’s focused on eliminating him and not understanding him. Opposing her are parties that attempt to domesticate Michael, either because they have trouble evaluating what he’s done in a grander or context or because they believe that his drive towards destruction contains within it some kernel of truth which can help inquiries into the psychological nature of evil. All the while, Michael kills without reason and gives no indication that he cares or remembers any of the parties desperate to control him.
If done properly, the narrative could have interweaved between all the different strands chronicling Michael and taken the question of how narratives form around evil to its most literal sense. Alas, the narrative fumbles around with its ideas in haphazard fashion, wasting much of its potential in favor of scraping the surface of the most basic themes. Part of this stems from the noted sub-text problem above; much of the story relies on characters explaining the themes and ideas as opposed to showcasing the same visually or through the sound design, so there’s a constant discord between what the films aspiring to be and what it manages to achieve.
This is an effect of the film’s misguided focus. Instead of building up its primary cast of characters and letting them get entangled naturally as the night builds up, the story gives them only the basest amount of characterization necessary to get them ready for the next story beats. Time that could have been used to flesh out the characters and make their journeys more engaging is spent on building up Michael’s soon-to-victims. These characters are little more than “cannon fodder” and do nothing but converse in “comedic” [1] Comedy is subjective, but most of the jokes between minor characters are irritating more than anything else. fashion. Cuts from the main storyline to these characters are meant to introduce a levity and get the viewer to care about the carnage to come, but the conversations between said characters are so insipid that not only do they not get the viewer to care about what’s to come but also serve as an ugly contrast with the purported severity of what the film is trying to do. It’s hard to take Michael seriously as a threat when his violence is intercut with small talk and comedic banter.
In this sense, what’s missing from the 2018 incarnation of Halloween inherent in the original is a sense of gravitas capable of transforming the on-screen violence into a nightmare that gets under the skin. Without this severity, the discussions of the film’s subtext by major characters feels even more out of place. Consequently, while the film’s depiction of Michael’s night of violence is technically satisfying, none of his murders rises past the level of momentarily shocking spectacle.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Halloween is one of the better attempted sequels to John Carpenter’s seminal 1978 classic, Halloween, but is still a far cry from the original in terms of its ability to leave an lasting mark of fear on its viewers. There’s a missing gravitas that makes this update to the slasher franchise feel lacking, but the technical competence and general respect given to the original film make this more than satisfying for fans looking for decent Halloween or slasher fare.
Rating
7.5/10
Grade
B
Go to Page 2for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Jaime Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode Donald Pleasence as Dr.Sam Loomis Nick Castle as Michael Myers Will Sandin as young Michael Myers P.J. Soles as Lynda Nancy Kyes as Annie
The title sequence to Halloween is a work of art in itself. The iconic theme song plays getting the audience uncomfortable and entranced at the same time as the camera zooms in slowly towards an eerily lit jack-o-lantern. The camera seemingly goes into the void within the pumpkin before the setting and date are revealed.
John Carpenter’s iconic Halloween theme song plays the as camera zooms in slowly on a jack-o-lantern whose inner light seems to be flickering menacingly, complimenting the unsettling music which feels like something out of one of Argento’s giallo movies. Eventually the light from the pumpkin fades and the screen blacks. The menacing theme transforms into a Halloween mantra being collectively chanted by children as on-screen text indicates the setting is Haddonfield, Illinois and the date is Halloween, 1963. The screen blacks once again before the camera seemingly moves left, out from the darkness of the title screen to a view of a typical suburban house.
The camera moves left from the darkness and opens on the Myers house.The entrance of the Myers house.Jack-o-lantern present at the front door of the Myers house.Judith Myers( Sandy Johnson) and her boyfriend (David Kyle) get amorous with each other. The latter wears a clown mask during lighter activities. Judith Myers( Sandy Johnson) and her boyfriend (David Kyle) go upstairs. Michael darts to the front of the house.Judith’s room’s light is on. As the couple gets ready to have sex the light in the room goes off. Michael enters the back of the house.Michael grabs a knife from the drawer.Michael waits for the boyfriend (David Kyle) to leave the house. Michael picks up David’s discarded mask and puts it on. The clown mask fills the frame with darkness. Michael goes towards Judith (Sandy Johnson). Michael stares at the phallic motion of the knife as he stabs Judith. Michael’s parents show up. Michael’s parents take off his mask revealing Michael’s (Will Sandin) identity as a child. The camera cranes away as if recoiling from impact of Michael’s (Will Sandin) actions.The first scene is presented as one continuous take in an attempt to give us a full run-down of Michael’s decision making process. The camera appears from the blackness of the title sequence suggesting that Michael’s point-of-view is akin to the spirit of Halloween’s point-of-view, charging him with a supernatural sense of agency. As he moves from camera to camera, it becomes apparent he’s fixated on his sister and the sexual activities she’s engaging – the extent and nature of this fasciation is unknown in spite of the fact that we’re literally in Michael’s shoes. As he realizes his sister is engaging in sex, he goes to the back of the house – his impermissible desire is granted access through unregulated passages. It’s through this entry that he gets the knife and same mask used by his sister’s partner – both parts somehow necessary for him to engage and enjoy the murder . It’s only after the prohibited act that he’s allowed to access the normal entrance to the house when he exits the front door. When the mask is removed and it’s revealed he’s a child, we recoil along with the camera at the shock that the murderer is someone who should be considered a source of innocence, not heinous brutality. It’s a shocking opening that lets the audience know the stakes of what’s to come and makes Michael’s presence one to be feared because we’re incapable of understanding him in any way.
The camera moves forward and it becomes apparent that we’re in a point of view shot – the subject of whom is yet to be revealed. We move towards the house where we see a young man and women engaging in amorous activity. As the two move around the house in their playful flirtations, the young man picks up a clown mask. All the while the subject of the camera, the point of view by which we’re experiencing the scene, darts around from window to window to keep an eye on the two before they eventually make their way to the woman’s bedroom . When the lights go off in the bedroom, the camera’s subject runs from the front of the house to the back of the house, picks up a knife, and waits for the boyfriend to leave the house before going upstairs to where the girlfriend resides. At the same time, the soundscape which had consisted of only diegetic noises – the call of birds and the sound of footsteps – gives way to another distressing Carpenter track which creates a feeling of distress – is this what the camera’s subject hears or is this music coming from elsewhere?
It’s at this point the subject’s hand reaches out to grab a clown mask on the floor putting it on over their face, thereby obscuring both their own face and the camera’s view in a shroud of darkness. From this newly adorned “vantage” point, the subject walks towards the unsuspecting victim-to-be who remains in the nude. She turns and looks at the intruder exclaiming, “Michael” before being brutally stabbed to death. The camera’s subject, Michael (Will Sandin) as we know now, takes more visual pleasure in watching the knife glide through the air, penetrating and coming out, than he does in watching the damage being done to the body. He looks at the lifeless body for a moment, as if trying to process what has happened, before going downstairs and leaving the house from the front door where two adults, make his way to him and remove his mask.
Point of view changes and the camera looks at Michael, now revealed to be a young child in a clown costume holding a bloody knife. His face seems untroubled given that he’s just murdered his sister. Horrific doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the revelation that such violence could happen in a safe environment, let alone by a child. Echoing this sentiment, the camera slowly cranes away from the scene of domestic terror both giving the audience time to process what’s happened while letting the impact of Michael’s brutality be felt visually as an inexplicable shock that can’t be contained.
In under 7 minutes, Carpenter’s masterpiece delivers not only one of the best title card sequences in cinema but also one of the greatest opening scenes. Both movements serve as thematic calling cards for the movie while blending into one another, setting the groundwork for what’s to come both at the level of Halloween and at the level of the slasher genre. A journey through the “mind” of “Halloween” as we traverse from the jack-o-lantern’s inner darkness to the point of view of Michael, tying his subjectivity with both the holiday and the force of darkness itself. The location – a suburban house- and Michael’s geographical route- going from the front of the house to the back – makes it apparent that the supposed protection of the suburbs is unable to contain deviancy which will always find a way in. The intimate relationship sex and violence that serves as the foundation for all slashers is enforced by the chronology of events – Michael’s sister has sex and is then murderdered immediately after- the phallic nature of the stabbing itself – two types of penetration- and the transference of the mask – lover turned into murderer. Finally and most importantly, from start to finish, the tension never lets up. We start uneasy because of the music and end completely shocked by the events that transpire – perfectly primed for what’s to come.
The main story picks up 15 years later in Haddonfield on Halloween once again, this time on a young woman, Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis). Unlike our introduction to Michael, our introduction to Laurie is one from a distance, from a more objective neutral position. We observe her leaving her house, talking to her father, calmly walking the streets before running into one of the neighborhood kids, Tommy Doyle (Brian Andrews). As she goes through her daily pattern we learn that she’s a down-to-earth nerdy type with a keen sense of perception and end up getting in her corner empathizing with her. However, our growing fondness of her is matched by a parallel sense of dread, as we’re shown early on that an recently escaped Michael (Nick Castle) has taken notice of her and her friends. It’s the perfect set-up.
First we see the monstrosity of the villain whose point of view is given a special privilege by being the first vantage point by which we experience the movie. It’s shot as though its one cut, meaning we get to see every detail he sees. Despite the fact that we experience his subjectivity so intimately we are unable to understand it – why does Michael kill his sister on this night in this way? Then we see the domesticity of the hero whose point of view is framed more objectively. However, we’re able to understand her reasons for action and her motivations. It’s a conundrum in comprehension as the point of view we should be more intimate with-Michael’s- is the one that escapes us, demonstrating the imperceptibility of evil and the way it escapes understanding. By tying both these character introductions in the same suburban environment, Carpenter is able to set their journeys up in parallel, as though two sides of the same coin – the normal domestic order and the sinister chaotic underbelly inherent within.
Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) lays in bed. Sherriff Brackett (Charles Cyphers) and Dr.Loomis (Donald Pleasence) investigate the old Myers residence. Our heroes are all agents associated with a normally functioning social order where peace and idyllic life is preserved. Laurie is a model student and responsible babysitter. She represents the ideal “good kid.” Meanwhile Dr. Loomis and Sheriff Brackett are representative of the medical and legislative orders respectively. The movie constantly highlights the tact and perceptiveness of its heroes to make their struggles all the more terrifying. For if our most perceptive struggle at the individual and communal levels, what hope is there for us really?
This schema becomes more nuanced with the inclusion of the movie’s deuteragonist, Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence), who acted as Michael’s psychiatrist after the latter’s initial murder and is now obsessed with tracking him, Michael, down after his escape to prevent more violence. He spends the majority of the movie with law enforcement and can therefore be seen like Laurie, as an extension of a normal “acceptable” order. Thus the stage is set – a metaphysical battle in suburbia – between an unspeakable force of evil that can’t be controlled and the agents of “good” that desperately try to keep the peace by maintaining order. The movie reveals that the domains of safety we’ve constructed – homes, adult defenders, even institutions are unable to provide real security against evil.
Tommy (Brian Andrews) leaves Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis). Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) starts to sing to herself. Michael (Nick Castle) shows up behind Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) intruding the frame with his presence. Michael constantly takes control of frames that were free of his presence earlier acting as a force of cinematic horror. Early on, the camera lingers on Laurie and Tommy as they walk. Tommy leaves one way and Laurie proceeds to walk down the street singing to herself. However, the tranquility of the song is interrupted as Michael enters the frame from the right, reminding us that he’s the one in control and that no scene is ever “safe” from his presence.
Even the frame isn’t safe from Michael’s influence as he threatens to take control of any shot at any point. There are multiple moments in the movie where Michael appears for just a moment, usually as a kind of taunt to Laurie, before disappearing back into the background. He will only be seen when he wants. There are other moments where an objective shot of Laurie and/or her friends lingers for just a few moments longer than usual before Michael shows up in it, thereby transforming the shot into a point of view complete with the sound of his breathing invading the soundscape. Whenever any of the discordant themes play, our eyes immediately start looking at the screen alert that Michael is present. Passing cars go from everyday neighbors to a serial killer in the wait. Every bush goes from innocuous to a possible hiding spot where one will meet their demise. This anxiety over Michael’s presence is exacerbated by the way cinematographer Dean Cundey lights scenes, often times allowing only just enough light to see our victims’ faces and their immediate surroundings. When Michael eventually comes out it feels mythical, like he’s literally forming from the darkness – a callback to the transition from the title sequence to the opening which showed his point of view emerging from the blackness of the screen.
Combined with his physical appearance, it’s no wonder that Michael is so terrifying. His iconic white mask gives his presence an incomprehensibility that terrorizes by evoking the image of a human while being so radically anti-human, thereby causing an uncanny valley that’s disturbs us [1]Lay, S. (2021, April 8). Uncanny valley: why we find human-like robots and dolls so creepy. The Conversation. … Continue reading This effect is amplified because we know under the mask is a “human”, so our struggle at reconciling his existence with our ideas of normalcy is made all the more disturbing. In many ways he feels similar to the xenomorph from Alien – the corporealization of violence qua sexuality- a predator made from aspects of humanity taken to extremes . Given the introduction, we know the mask warps perspective shrouding everything in a darkness. His obsession with the mask thus cements his association as a harbinger of darkness. Thus, the movie transforms Michael into the truest form of the Boogeyman – he has the power to dominate the movie at any point, inflict violence on anyone, and is imperceptible. Transformed from a person into a force truly evil.
His presence only works because it’s positioned against the countervailing heroism of both Laurie and Dr.Loomis. From the very start Laurie demonstrates her intellectual capacity, demonstrated by the fact that only she seems aware of Michael at any point. Her perceptiveness gives her an edge up compared to her friends because she’s aware of the danger. Her wit and quick-thinking skills are utilized in ways that are intelligent, naturally line up with the plot, and don’t require some horrible exposition earlier on to set up. She’s one of the best models for the “final girl” archetype for a reason. Even in the moments where Laurie seems to be at her wits end she never loses her tenacity towards trying to solve the problem. Dr.Loomis, gives the movie a more cerebral philosophical side. As Michael’s former psychiatrist, he has a lot to say both about his former patient and the logistical problems that arise with trying to deal with genuine evil through normal social channels like the law or medicine. Pleasence manages to deliver the severity and dangers Michael poses in a way that grounds our seemingly supernatural antagonist in a very real setting. Some lines about Michael being pure evil could come off as melodramatic elsewhere, but here they feels as real and important as the everyday medical prescriptions we receive and follow. Without Pleasence’s delivery, Michael risks feeling too phantasmic and gimmicky. With his delivery, Michael becomes the Boogeyman incarnate.
Both characters are positioned as serious and resourceful. Both characters are positioned as being able to adapt to situations. Both characters are aware of Michael and what he can do. It’s precisely because the both of them are portrayed as heroes capable of saving the day that their subsequent inability to handle Michael’s reign of terror creates such a resounding sense of despair. If they can’t handle it, what hope is there for containing such evil?
It’s precisely because Halloween forces us to probe this question at every point – start to finish – that it has remained one of the greatest movies – horror or otherwise- from the date of its release. It takes the working parts of some of horrors best – the soundtrack from giallo, the camera movements from Black Christmas, the perversion from Psycho, and so on – and packs them into a tightly packed thriller that never lets up, constantly building up a palpable dread as it forces you to question how the characters will find a way out of the hellscape they find themselves trapped in. From the very start of the movie, we’re made aware of the stakes making every encounter feel unsafe. We’re left fully at the mercy of Carpenter, who relishes in teasing us with Michael’s appearance, making us almost beg for the violence to start so the tension can end. It’s no wonder then that Halloween has served as the archetype for the slasher-genre decades since inception.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Halloween is considered the best slasher for a reason and any fan of the horror genre owes it to themselves to watch the movie that pioneered/refined most of the tropes and camera techniques we’re familiar with today. The story of Michael Myers, the masked immortal Boogeyman, is timeless, violent, and genuinely frightening . From the iconic theme song to the brutality in each murder scene, it’s clear that Halloween is a cut above the rest in both presentation and execution. It’s plot might be simple, but Carpenter’s direction elevates it into a masterpiece that’s stayed scary since it first came out in 1978.
Rating
10/10
Grade
S+
Go to Page 2for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Olivia Hussey as Jess Margot Kidder as Barbara Keir Dullea as Peter Marian Waldman as Mrs.MacHenry John Saxon as Lt. Kenneth Fuller Douglas McGrath as Sergeant Nash
Release Date
1974
Language(s)
English
Running Time
98 minutes
If you’ve been keeping up with the site since the Halloween 2k19 Marathon (also known as when I first started this whole shindig), you’ll know I’m not the biggest fan of slasher movies. Growing up the only one I ever saw (and am a huge fan of) is John Carpenter’s Halloween. Thankfully, after taking a dive into the slasher cannon (Nightmare on Elm Street,Friday the 13th, Scream) , I’ve gotten fonder of them and wanted to catch up on the basics. After the mess that was Black Christmas (2019), I figured I’d kill two birds with one stone and watch the original Black Christmas, often hailed as one of the most important slashers from a technique standpoint. I went in curious and have come out a true believer. I’m happy to see that Black Christmas is not only my number one Christmas horror now (replacing Krampus) , but it deserves even more recognition and fandom than it currently gets.
From the moment the movie starts, you know something is wrong. The camera surveys a sorority house from the outside, like a voyeur. It’s made clear that we’re following the antagonist’s point-of-view through the beautiful and impressive at the time, first person shot. Just within the first few scenes, it’s clear there’s a very real danger waiting for the girls in the comfort of their own home. Soon after, the telephone rings as all the girls listen to the apparent ravings of some psycho-sexual pervert. As the night goes on, the girls are targeted one by one as they attempt to navigate the harrowing events they’re facing. It’s a setup that thrives because of its unsettling atmosphere. No gore. No awful jump scares. No absurd exposition. Every scare is well set-up, well executed, and well earned being viscerally jarring enough to shake you without disrupting the tension that’s building in the background. The movie dumps you straight into a state of anxiety and leaves you there from start to finish.
Unlike the 2019 sequel/remake , the original takes its time exploring women’s agency from smaller issues like being told in patronizing fashions how to be secure to larger issues like whether or not abortion is morally okay. The genius comes from how subtle the social commentary comes of. Nothing hits you over the head screaming “MAN BAD” or “WOMEN MOST OPPRESSED GROUP EVER”. Instead, the story generates its thematic discussion by juxtaposing the differences in the way agency is accorded to men versus women in similar circumstances. For example, when the girls initially put in their call for assistance they don’t get a real response until things start becoming more serious. Meanwhile, when an elder gentlemen literally SHOOTS a police officer, he gets a slap on the wrist. Moments like these are littered throughout to constantly highlight the hypocritical standards by which women are judged. Whenever one of the girls ends up getting killed, their murder often transitions into a joyous, everyday, playful kind of scene. It’s almost like an sick demonstration of how violence against women gets crowded out/erased and the way the technique consistently used makes that all the more apparent.
Now what pushes the movie over the top is the wide array of fleshed out and memorable characters at its disposal. Jess is our no-bullshit, cooperative protagonist who’s trying to live her own life and keep the peace. Barbara is the foul-mouthed , highly independent, deviant lifeblood of the sorority and has some of the best comedic moments in the movie. She takes the role of the traditional “sex-d” up male side-kick and makes it fully her own. Speaking of funny, Waldman absolutely knocked it out of the park as the house mother, Mrs. MacHenry. She’s the perfect blend of sardonic and fake sweet and watching her put on her airs is a delight. I was surprised at how much I was laughing in the first and second acts , but with characters this funny it’s not hard to tell why. What surprised me is how likable,diverse, and developed the male characters are. Sure, there are your generic domineering chauvinists like Sergeant Nash. However, there are also well-meaning people like Lt.Fuller, who outside of his thematically necessary blind spots, acts like a decent human being.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
If you love horror movies or are a big fan of the slasher genre and haven’t checked this gem of a movie out you’re doing yourself a disservice. Black Christmas blends together a compelling story, layers of mystery, memorable and likable characters, and ties them all together in a way that demonstrates the trials and horrors of women’s’ agency without being preachy or too on the nose.
Rating
10/10
Grade
A+
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report.
Elizabeth Reaser as Alice Annalise Basso as Lina Lin Shaye as old Lina Lulu Wilson as Doris Henry Thomas as Father Tom
Release Date
2016
Language(s)
English
Running Time
99 minutes
I actually watched this movie before Ouija, the ill conceived first movie, in the hopes of better understanding incongruities that appear in the last 20 minutes. After having finished the first movie, all I can say is Mike Flanagan deserves a lot of credit for giving one of the most vapid and forgettable horror movies of recent years an emotionally resonant backstory that somehow makes the original movie a little bit better. It’s hard enough to make a good movie let alone one that elevates a poor one which makes this sequel-prequel all the more rare.
Unlike the first movie, the prequel sequel makes full use of its first scene. Alice, the matriarch of our main family, is in the middle of a seance with an elderly man and his daughter. As the ceremony continues, things become more fantastical and it feels like a supernatural presence is there. Every time the daughter expresses skepticism, the presence grows along with her father’s faith in the process. It’s a tense introduction that’s made all the better when you realize that Alice is running a con service. All the paranormal events are just the result of a tricked out room and the help of her two daughters. It’s effective because it baits us into expecting scares from the start, while establishing our main family’s background as well-meaning con-artists. In 10 minutes, Flanagan manages to give his characters more of a backstory than the entirety of what Ouija does to develop its main lead.
In fact, the story takes its time establishing character motivations, essential relationships, and sources of conflict to ensure that subsequent scares have significance. When things get first get harrowing close to the 40 minute mark, you’re already invested in the family and their tribulations. They may be running a con, but they don’t do it maliciously. They’re just struggling to get along, weighed down by tragedies from the past and the financial struggles that accompany them. After the supernatural events turn more sinister, you feel for the family and root for them, even as the twists and turns start to get more ridiculous by the end of the movie. Because Flanagan doesn’t rely on cheap jump scares , there’s always a palpable sense of tension looming in the air. There’s no cheap outlet for that anxiety to so when something terrifying does happen it hits with a real momentum.
Every single main performance is on point. Even exposition scenes feel less boring and artificial because of how serious and solemnly the information is delivered. When the nature of the main horror is revealed, it definitely feels nonsensical and less developed in comparison to the well-crafted family story at the heart of the movie, but I found myself caring in spite of all of that because of how much energy the actors take in conveying the situation. In particular, Lulu Wilson absolutely kills it as Doris. She starts off innocent, not even aware that her family’s main source of income is a scam. She genuinely thinks the spiritual services her mother offers and that her sister and her help with are real. However, after she becomes influenced by the dark presence in her house, she’s actually scary. I mean legitimately frightening. She has one monologue in the latter half of the movie that still hasn’t left my mind and chills me to my bones every-time I watch it.
Now in spite of my praises, I did think the movie suffered from serious story issues in the last chunk. Because it has to set up the first movie, it’s forced into story choices that undermine a lot of the overarching themes and the logic of the supernatural events occurring. While some of these decisions could have been done better (I personally think the underlying source of the haunting is hackneyed and disappointing), I don’t think they ruin the movie. If I had to describe the situation, it’s similar to Wonder Women in that its great first and second act are marred by a less than satisfying third act. It’s not that the movie is bad. It’s just disappointing because of where it could’ve gone. If anything, I wish that this was an independent movie that had nothing to do with Ouija so the third act could’ve developed in a natural way unencumbered by any storytelling restrictions.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Ouija: Origin of Evil is a surprisingly well thought out family drama turned supernatural horror that’s less about the ouija board than the title would let on. Though it’s hampered by having to set up it’s predecessor, Ouija, it somehow manages to still deliver some shocking and scary moments that’ll keep you invested in what’s to come.
Rating
8.6/10
Grade
B+
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Olivia Cooke as Laine Afra Sophia Tully as young Laine Shelley Hennig as Debbie Claire Beale as young Debbie Ana Coto as Sarah Izzie Galanti as young Sarah
Release Date
2014
Language(s)
English
Running Time
89 minutes
Unlike most people who had to suffer through Ouija’s theatrical run, I came into the movie after having seen the MUCH better sequel-prequel Oujia: Origin of Evil. I loved that movie up till the last 20ish minutes and couldn’t fathom how strange this section felt in comparison to the rest of the movie. I thought if I watched the original movie, it’d help make sense of where Flanagan’s sequel-prequel needed to go, given that his conclusion had to be able to lead into the beginning of this. After watching Oujia, all I can say is Mike Flanagan deserves serious recognition for even attempting at fleshing out a backstory for this horror aberration. Oujia is painfully slow, packed to the brim with cliches and cheap scares, and constantly undermines its own rules and setup culminating in one of the least satisfying horror blockbusters in recent years.
If you’ve read my reviews before, you know I love slow burn horror movies. However, that’s only if they’re done well. If a director is going to make me wait, there needs to be a huge spectacular visceral payoff or a poignant thematic resolution. Unfortunately, Ouija has neither and only ever manages to do the bare minimum to elicit scares. From the moment the movie started, I knew something was off. There’s a prologue/flashback of two young girls, Laine and Debbie, playing with a spirit board. After this the story goes to “present” day and the way the transition happens makes it obvious that Debbie is one of the girls from the flashback. There’s no tension or mystery about what the flashback meant which makes its presence just feel unnecessary. After meeting with Laine in, Debbie “kills” herself after being possessed. Laine, in her desperation to figure out what happened, tries to use a ouija board with a group of mutual friends to contact the deceased Debbie. Unfortunately, just like the first two scenes, what follows is a movie that feels empty and unexplained.
It always feels like there are weird exposition dumps instead of attempts at naturally developing the story. Information is always revealed at the most convenient times by characters the movie never wants to flesh out. For example, Laine’s grandmother appears early on to help Laine deal with her grief over Debbie’s death but randomly exhibits a profound knowledge of the occult in later scenes exactly when her granddaughter needs advice. I feel like these character traits could have been hinted at earlier and better integrated with the story, but instead of that, they’re haphazardly shoved in to keep the story going to the next telegraphed scare. At some point I felt like I was just watching generic scares from a grab-bag of supernatural horror scenes, tacked together with a contrived and emotionally vacuous plot. There’s never a reason to care about any of the characters. The inciting incident for the movie is never explained in a way that makes you care. Scares have no overarching purpose tying them together and don’t accomplish anything thematically. The worst part is they rarely made me feel anything, let alone fearful of some supernatural entity. The movie sets up that the spirit can only act in certain ways to create a sense of tension, but actively breaks those rules at every moment so there’s never a reason to think the supernatural presence is threatening.
The only redeeming part of this movie is Lin Shaye’s performance. I won’t spoil what her role is because it’s relevant to latter portions of the story, but the moment I saw her, both in my initial watch and re-watch, I felt like I cared about what was happening. She doesn’t get a lot of on-screen time, but she absolutely gives the movie a much needed pulse when she does show up. With her performance in this and The Grudge, I’m convinced you can chuck her in any horror movie and have at least some good moments. Unfortunately, everyone else in the movie came off anywhere from outright unbelievable to kind-of passable. There are definitely some “emotional” moments that feel like first takes that were just given the thumbs up with no attempts at revision.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Ouija is as boring as it is contrived. The story is slow,boring, and never manages to deliver effective surprises because it undermines it supernatural set-up at every point. Outside of a great performance from Lin Shaye, there’s nothing here, even for ardent lovers of the supernatural genre.
Rating
3.2/10
Grade
F
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Riley Keough as Grace Jaeden Martell as Aidan Lia McHugh as Mia Richard Armitage as Richard
Release Date
2019
Language(s)
English
Running Time
108 minutes
The moment I saw the trailer for this movie and realized that Franz and Fiala were attached to the project , I waited with baited breath till the movie came to my area (which thankfully it did). Though it doesn’t reach the same heights as the duo’s debut feature, Goodnight Mommy, it’s still a standout in a sea of boring and uninspired horrors. The Lodge may fumble with the logic of some its grander narrative decisions, but it more than makes up for that with the dark,twisted offerings it has in store.
The movie follows a family on retreat to a winter cabin. When work events come up, the father, Richard, is forced to leave his children alone with his new girlfriend, Grace. There’s an immediate tension between the two parties as Grace tries to be amicable with her partner’s children who seem to want nothing to do with her. After a blizzard strands the party in the cabin, things start going bump in the night and Grace is forced to deal with the unpredictable and tumultuous state of affairs. Based on the first 10 minutes of the movie, which are absolutely shocking, I knew I was in for a brutal experience.
Unlike their first movie, this one revels in teasing the audience with what’s really going on. There’s deception and layers to deception that’ll have you constantly questioning what’s happening. I came in with some initial ideas and then was hit with switch-ups that I genuinely did not see coming. It culminates in some of the most twisted stuff I’ve seen on the big screen in a long time. This is not the movie you want to see if you’re trying to have a good time or forget about the worries of your day. The story is dark and explores the deepest, most intimate parts of the human condition. It focuses on grief, depression, and heaping doses of internalized resentment and how those elements disrupt and warp our ability to properly evaluate the proper course of action. That being said, the way certain twists are executed border on neigh unbelievable given the information the audience is presented. In their attempt to create twists that are impossible to predict, Franz and Fiala are forced to really stretch logic in ways that’ll have sticklers for rules in movies feeling frustrated. This is a story driven movie with interesting characters that’s more focused on getting to the shocking thematic and viscerally unpleasant scenes than developing the underlying logic as to why those things are happening in the first place.
While the characters aren’t as developed as I would have liked, the performances of the actors playing them are refined and accentuate the tension and uncomfortable nature of the situation. Both Martell and McHugh manage to show their disdain for their dad’s new lover in their own unique and petty ways, from the silent treatment to the mean side-eye. Their obvious care and affection for one another leaps off the screen and it’s completely believable that they’re siblings struggling to find their footing in the world. Likewise, Keough manages to portray the range of emotions any desperate person would do trying to impress their partner’s kids going from enthusiastic to laid back to assertive. At the same time, she shows the cracks in her psyche as the blizzard and her isolation continue. Given the nature of the twists ,the twists within twists, and so on, it’s even more impressive just how well everyone managed to keep the nature of the mystery under wraps until just the right moment.
Unfortunately, despite being stylish and packed with scenes I won’t be able to get out of my head for the foreseeable future, one of the movie’s bigger reveals feels like it comes out of left field. I don’t want to spoil anything because the movie should be seen with absolutely no knowledge of any of the mystery, but I think the way everything pans out feels undeserved at some level. If the movie spent another 10-15 minutes developing character backgrounds, tightening up the references to Christianity, and making better use of a dollhouse set that’s used to transition between scenes it would’ve been up there with some of very best. The elements are all there. It’s just that they’re not meshing all the way through.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
The Lodge is as dark as it is twisted in its depiction of how grief and hatred warp our perception of the world. The story of a new girlfriend trying to get her partner’s kids to open up to her goes places you won’t be able to un-see and will manage to chill you even if the setup feels over-the-top at times.
Rating
9.0/10
Grade
A
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
