Reviews

I've seen this film at least three times, actually, but what a viewing difference it makes when you watch it when you're not just trying to zone out after a long, stressful day.

Nothing happens until the last 20 minutes of the film, and that wouldn't be bad if it was paced well and threaded effective tension throughout with a shocking moment or two before everything goes south (think "Hereditary"). But no, you have to sit through cliché sadness-pørn flashbacks and awkward interactions. Thus, although they do an OKAY job of building some mystery (if not tension), it's stretched WAY too thin to be as effective as it might have been otherwise.

Also, NO, you don't get to express your grief by taking people's lives, especially when you don't give them an opportunity to say no/get away. They trap and keep the guests under false pretenses, then the killing starts. I didn't realize that murder was one of the stages of grief! They're taking the lives of people's partners right in front of them but I'm supposed to feel sorry for the female killer because she lost a child due to an accident? No! Let her pass away right on the floor where she falls! Insulting!

Also, I find it interesting that only one person's friend circle is invited to be killed. What about the other three cultists? Where are their family and friends (aside from that one dude's deceased wife)? They're so weird and off-putting that I could buy that no one likes them, but it says a lot that they only took the lives of one person's people. The gall of these randos to think they're entitled to the lives of people they don't even know.

S/N: While the diversity isn't weird (it's L. A.), the writer clearly had no black friends, because there's NO way that a black woman is gonna sit in that situation that long. If anything, she would have also left when they broke out drugs and the clearly mentally ill woman kissed the other female guest. In fact, she wouldn't have gone in the first place! She'd have considered the fact that her partner and his ex had broken up on doubly bad terms (the loss of a child and the partner cheating on him) and would have questioned why he wanted to go anyway. Anyone who has black friends, when inviting them to a party, will have heard the question, "Who's all gonna be there?"

What's more, she would have responded to her partner's reservations about being there and left! That woman didn't know that friend group. She's trusting her partner knows them well enough that she can be comfortable. Ergo, if he's feeling weird about it, she'd have responded the same way. The real-life Tamla Horsford case is an example of why it's unusual to go into isolating scenarios with strangers. It doesn't end well, and chances are there will be no justice.

Thus, it's clear that the role wasn't actually written with a black woman to play her in mind but was a "generic" role. So, it was difficult to buy/distracting. So, it's nice that they had a black actress (who did what she needed to do in the role), but they didn't consider how a black woman would possibly react in such a situation because they couldn't.

If you read nothing else I say, at lead read this first bit. I'm a long-time horror fan, but one of the most horrifying scenes I've seen in a film was in NOPE, a film that's not strictly horror. The Gordy's Home segment was such effective horror because literally everything in that scene served the horror. And the director had the sense to leave some things to the imagination. Now, that's important for two reasons: 1. It allows our imaginations to run wild, and 2. It keeps the victims sympathetic by not sensationalizing their brutalization/passing. You hear the thud of Gordy's fists as he beats his victims, and you hear the squelch of blood and flesh as he eats his victim's face. We didn't need to see it directly because we needed room to feel for the victims and be horrified by what we were imagining. The same applies in the case of the film 8MM. We didn't need to see what happens to the girl in the secret film. How it changed and motivated the main character told us what we needed to know. It made her passing mean something beyond her mother being sad. She was worth someone caring enough to risk their life for her, and her passing--the way she passed--was so abhorrent that a good woman was so devastated knowing someone she loved had a hand in it that it drove her to take her own life.

However, the director of this film was very clearly disinterested in sympathy for the victims. He was only interested in reveling in their brutalization and violent ends. He also clearly has contempt for women that is as such that I suppose we should be grateful he's in film instead of on the streets putting his fantasies into reality (though it's possible to do both). Anyway, people say that the Saw films are just gorn, but at least they pose questions worth asking: What are you willing to do in order to survive/save others? How much do you value life? Not saying they're high-brow or philosophical, and the execution isn't very effective, but there is some semblance of a point. It didn't need several films to ask and answer the question, no, but still.

People overrate this film because it's French, and we know how pretentious both Europeans and Francophiles can be when it comes to cinema, looking down their noses at U. S. cinema yet still consuming it in droves. So, this, like Switchblade Romance (which partly stole from an American author), gets graded much higher than is warranted. It's not special. It's not transcendental. It belongs in a dumpster nestled right next to A Serbian Film. It doesn't say anything, even when "explained" by the director, a man who compared the remake being made to seeing his mother getting r_ped. CURIOUS choice of words by a man who made a sadistic sicko's beat-off film that focuses on the extra-brutal torture of women and girls. What does he know about r_pe from the victim's side? He knows only of making victims, clearly.

I've been watching gory horror films since childhood, so I'm largely desensitized. But if you want to make a gorn, just say that. Don't pretend it's something it's not. The NERVE of screening this at Cannes, even if the creator is French. It's low-level brutality posing as horror (nothing about it is scary, just brutal) because it can't be presented as anything else without inviting some uncomfortable questions. The movie stops being interesting as soon as the chick offs the family and then starts seeing someone who obviously isn't there. So, I look forward to the day when people look back at this film and reassess it to give it the contempt it deserves.

If it says anything, it's that the French can be edgy try-hards too.

I must applaud the direction, editing, production design, ambient music, and acting. They did a good job with creating this persistent sense of dread throughout the film, especially with the ambient music in the background and the tension between the main character and his uncle. Every sneer, every stare, every implication punctuated the horrible relationship between them.

I have to say that the main character really is a tragic figure. I saw a man trying to get away from the stain on his life but having it follow him everywhere. I don't know if he actually preyed on others (it seems to be implied but it left unclear), but as we see him in the film, he is a broken semi-man. He clearly needed help, and he clearly wasn't getting it. All his life seemed to be was the pain and awful memories he was carrying. What a cruel existence. If he was a predator like his uncle, then I'd feel less bad for him, but things were vague enough for us to either fill in the blanks or keep some doubt.

It's not a "fun movie night" kind of thing but something you watch alone that makes you think.

I'd love to gush about this film that I saw eleven times in the theater (everyone did well, but my goodness, Angela and Letitia were just...amazing), but there is something that's sat on my mind for a while. I mention the number of times I've seen it to say I've seen it enough to form an opinion of it. Secondly, I'd suggest anyone watch the film at least twice. Why? Because the first time you see it, you're going to have baggage going into it. I've done my best to try to avoid the hatred directed at this film for merely existing, but it does seep in. And whenever a minority or women or (goodness forbid) minority women do anything, the hateful are going to misuse the slang usage of the word "woke." Black folks came up with that term (as slang) to say to stay "awake" (i.e., keep your eyes open to what goes on in the world); however, certain people use it to mean "minorities are there and aren't in service." You know what I mean.

Now, to get more to the point. The title of my review is because a lot of people (including some confused black people) have been using a far-white lens to look at this film. However, black people know good and well that black women have always (and I mean always) led families in the absence of men, whether it was because they passed away, were locked up, or simply left. And that goes for on the continent as well. There have been female warrior queens in African history, but what does the U. S. or any colonist country know or care about that? What do their descendants know about it? Nothing. Point is, it is not unusual, even in the world of this fictional franchise (because a woman has been the Black Panther before, as was Shuri in the comics) for black women to lead anything. I hate to bring up statistics because they're so often used as a weapon but need to do so to make a point, but just over ten years ago, 72% of black babies were born to unwed mothers. Goodness knows what the statistic is for 2022. You have black male celebrities like Nick Cannon, Future, and several others having children they don't intend to fully parent by several different women. But some of y'all are mad that the film features black women in leadership roles? It's a reflection of life whether you accept it or not, and even though two black men wrote the script, you still don't want to accept it. There are no "girl power" or "in spite of being a girl/woman" moments because womanism (not feminism) doesn't work like that. Like, at all.

Something I like that Letitia pointed out in an interview is that they don't make some big, showy deal about women doing anything. And that's true. It's not a "fxminist film," and if you think so, that's because you're looking at it through a far-white gaze. It is unusual to them for their women to lead in such ways, to be the military leaders, top spies, the whole of the king's guard, etc. And the tone of their films about women leading things tends to be "girl boss," abrasive, and emasculating. However, Wakanda shows what real equality between men and women would look like. Not someone humbling someone based on their gender but disagreeing based on opinions and policy and adherence to non-gender-based traditions.

But in Africa, that's not as strange and "empowering" as you think it is. It's just a thing. I almost feel sorry for any black folks that have a colonized mind to dare to look at this film in that way. There is rising far-rxght sentiment in young black men, and they turn to black women to blame for the fathers who weren't there. And so they hate this film that literally worships Chadwick and his memory while they are using the memory of a good man as a weapon to attack black women and whomever else. I might not have known Chadwick personally, but I watched every single interview I could about the film and listened to his FRIENDS/FAMILY talk about him. I wish I could have known him -- he sounds so cool and interesting and smart and kind! It still hurts that he's gone (I literally still cry) because I wish I could have known him personally. He was studious, curious, selfless, and LOVED his co-stars like family and they him. If they'd recast him (which they technically do anyway), would we have gotten the outpouring of love on screen that we did? The movie was about him and how his passing affected everyone, even the Talocanil! (Also, Shuri was his favorite character, btw.)

So, as a kind of TL; DR: This film shows love to an actor (i.e., Chadwick) in a way I've never seen a film do before. Never before have I seen a giant corporation spend hundreds of millions of dollars to dedicate this much to the memory of an actor. If you can't see that, if all you could see is women-this and black-that, then you're missing out on so much. As I said, I saw it eleven freaking times in the theater. While it's not perfect, there's so much love put into it and such a powerful message about confronting and processing grief. Also, it DID "recast" T'Challa by giving us his son (of the same name) AND possibly M'Baku as the new king of Wakanda. If you watched in hate, even if you think you didn't, I think you did because the film, like the first one, humanizes black people and doesn't center whiteness, and you're simply unused to that. But at the end of the day, it's a HUMAN story, whether you see black folks as human or not.

S/N: Anyone who didn't see the greatness in M'Baku's role really missed out. He earned that kingship (if it truly is to be his) by being level-headed, empathetic, brave, self-less, and a sound source of council. Two of my favorite scenes/dialogues in the film involve him and Shuri. I loved M'Baku's character in this film! Also, I loved the interpretation of N'amor (kind of not "Namor" anymore) and his motivations. He was fully fleshed out and his concerns were understandable. Great job by Tenoch, Mabel, and Alex. This film has my favorite ensemble cast (with Chadwick there in spirit) of all time!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's a good film. It's not. I can't really say it's an entertaining one either. However, as a cinephile of both quality cinema AND absolute dreck, while this is not so bad it's good (like Death Promise or Troll 2), it's not the worst like some claim. There are movies I've seen that truly frustrate and boggle the mind, movies that barely/don't really qualify as movies, movies that shouldn't be. I'm talking your Rollergator and your Things. Watch either of those two films and this movie will seem competent by comparison. But don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying people shouldn't complain, only that it's not the worst.

Why they thought Europe could pass for NYC, I don't know, but they certainly don't make it any less European with the poor lighting (in a morgue? Really??), Rammstein, style, and the accents. Also, if the ghost is web-based, why can't she just directly attack the killer...who is STREAMING his murders?? He's online more than the investigators or anyone whose life she took! Why is she killing innocent people who 1. Didn't ask to watch her little show, 2. Clicked choices that said they didn't want to hurt her or whatever. She calls them a liar, which implies she doesn't care about the truth, only about whatever she wants to believe. How can people help her under duress and increasing insanity? What if they were very poor and didn't have the resources to conduct an investigation within 48 hours? What if the unwitting viewer was a single mom working three jobs that will disappear like a vapor if she misses one shift? The "victim" ghost seems like a d-bag; having her take the lives of innocents makes the audience unempathetic. If she was as stupid as the one chick we saw be easily picked up by the killer, she has no one else to blame but the killer (and her poor choices).

The film seemed like a proof-of-concept of something by a music video director. People keep saying it's like The Ring (which hadn't come out yet, assuming they mean the U. S. one, considering the style), but I very much got edgy 90s alt-rock video vibes. Actually, it'd totally work if it was recut into a music video, like someone did for The Cell (another utterly boring "horror" film that banked on aesthetics but forgot that the leads needed chemistry and appropriate acting ability).

S/N: I think it's funny one of the 2002 reviews was so sure Stephen Rea was Geoffrey Rush. His performance, especially the truly awful (not as in evil, just awful) dialogue they had him say, was the worst thing about the film for me. So vapid and cliché.

I really enjoy Guillermo del Toro's work. In fact, for me, one of the biggest cinematic what-ifs (and, quite frankly, missed opportunities) is if he'd directed The Hobbit. Another is if he'd directed a third Hellboy film (what about the twins??).

Simply put, it is a beautiful film. It looks great, the story is great, everything works for me.

And the creature is truly beautiful! I get Abe Sapien crossed with the Creature from the Black Lagoon and upgraded. But whereas I wouldn't have been able to understand a woman falling in love with the Creature from the Black Lagoon (largely in part based on how it was always characterized), I could buy anyone falling for the creature in this film.

The costume is AMAZING. Whenever I watch this film, I'm in awe of how it works (the look he gives Eliza at the end when she's not going with him, the way his eyes moved -- he looked so sad and hurt!) Honestly, when I think about this creature and Grogu from The Mandalorian, I think about how crippling it would have been to their respective media to make either of them CGI. In any case, Doug Jones does a great job, as he always does in anything he does!

As for the subtexts beyond the basic story, they were was on point as well. Overall, I honestly can't say anything bad about the film. It just does exactly what it intends to do so well.

While it is metaphorical, it is a slow, plodding film in very much the wrong way that is typical of these kinds of films, only worse because what they fill the space with is so unattractive, from the people to the locations. Even when Marita is "dressed up" for a party, she looks worse than her usual self. I started skipping ahead after a point because it's just so boring and subtly distasteful.

The main character is unsympathetic because she's so hypocritical and creepy, also weird in her attractions, from inappropriately young to inappropriately old. She's a creep. The headmaster is a creep. The other teachers are creeps. Even some of the kid characters are creeps. I was wondering if there was no one in her town her own age until the party, but now I see that there was just no one attractive in that entire town.

Everything about this movie is bad. I can't believe the same director directed this and The Thing!

The characters are the cheapest cardboard cutouts. The performances are wooden and stereotypical. The music is generic. The story is sparse. It's filmed and lit like a Syfy original. And you have Pam Grier but use her like that??

I cannot think of a single redeeming factor. I truly cannot. And looking directly into the camera at the end?

S/N: Why, knowing he's an obvious creep, would the main character kiss the sleazy fellow cop who's been making overtures to her that she's rejected. Also, WHY would "Desolation" (stupid name) come back to help her?

But, man, it's really let down by the lead, who cannot generate any kind of empathy even outside of being someone who goes farther than just hit someone and run but make sure they cannot get help were they alive but merely unconscious and dying. He's bland and unlikable, a scrub who somehow lucked up on a rich girl despite having all the charm of a weed eater and no business acumen. He's just lame, and the movie giving him a happy ending in which he gets off scot-free is insulting. I don't care if the guy he killed was a murderous bank robber: He's ALSO a criminal. And despite how the movie makes him inconvenienced, he's not paid his debt. And I can't root for someone so creepily bankrupt that he'd kill someone, hide it, keep going to look at the body, and never turn himself in. He thought he killed his wife's brother, saw that family's pain, and did nothing! So I'm assuming they're implying he took over Ashbury's spot? Also, he's a nasty piece of work for covering for the guy cheating on his wife, leaving her possibly at risk for STÎs or worse!

Also, his wife sucks, willing to help cover things up even when suspecting her husband killed the brother she's so broken up about. I kept hoping that bag she threw in the water would come back to sink her husband, given how stupid it was of her to do that, but no.

James Spader is that go-to guy for a villain, but I'd rather he'd been the lead. At least he has charisma.

Weird, random stuff: Lacey. Just everything with that annoying, superfluous character. (Also, stick to voice acting.) And the ridiculously unprofessional secretary who keeps her chest out. I'd fire a secretary for dressing like a barmaid.

Finally, they could have been more ambitious. The ways I saw the story potentially going would have been better than what we got.

The only good, interesting thing about this is James Spader, who expertly plays the slimy, ambitious backstabber turned creep that you love to hate. Jack, on the other hand, is way too old for this role and he sleepwalks through it.

I've seen this maybe twice before at different points in my life, and it's clearly not aging well with me.

I used to be hooked on black and white films, usually ones involving some femme fatale, but I hadn't watched one in years. So maybe that's partially why I got so much enjoyment out of this. It was great to relax to at the end of the work week. I simply found it entertaining, so much so I told my sister about it so we can talk about it.

If I disliked anything, it was the fact that Grace was clearly forced into activity (there's a more appropriate word for that) in the beginning even though she went along with it (likely so she wouldn't get hurt, no matter how the movie framed it). I don't like the judgment placed on her for doing things everyone knew good and well young men were doing at the time as well. For who were young women doing it with if not them? Yet society only judges the women. So, I didn't like that, but I understood the mindsets at the time, and I appreciated that they skipped the whole ostracization bit. Don't get me wrong, I HATE cheating. It's one of my most hated things.

So I felt bad for her husband because he seemed like a good guy (though I got worried for a second there when it seemed like he was gonna hit her but knocked something over instead -- still not cool), and I appreciate that he pointed out the fact that, no, he doesn't deserve praise just for being true but he stayed true because he believes in it. I also like that they didn't do the predictable thing at the end by having Grace get shot. If the film had come out in the 40s and not the mid-60s, she likely would have.

I feel like this: Grace was taken advantage of as a minor, and as often happens, she became promiscuous thereafter. I'm not saying it's solely due to that, but there's a moment when she's outside of her party and she looked disturbed by what she's doing. It's brief, but it told me something.

Still, though, she got the ending she deserved. Because I don't believe in the kind of love in which my partner can cheat on me either.

S/N: This has made me curious about the book.