There's this strange thing about horror movies that I have come to notice recently.
Almost every time one of them gets famous and popular, I hear how "this is not like the other horror movies". But this promise rarely proves to be true.
"Ghost Stories" is certainly inventive and watchable enough to justify its image as one of he year's more noteworthy horrors. But it's actually exactly like the others of its type. Which is, this time, both good and bad. I'll explain.
Good is that although the screenwriting-directing team of Andy Nyman and Jeremy Dyson have enough skills to use the ghost movie cliches effectively, they have also created a proper movie around them, with authentic atmosphere, characters, suspense and content.
This kind of high level of storytelling is relatively uncommon in the genre. And this is possible because the authors have taken their time and care to ensure everything has had room to develop and breathe.
Every one of the five stories included is good enough to keep us enterained and interested. Every time one ended and the next began, I was left wanting more - get more answers, stay more in the world created...
The tempo is rather slow and the movie only 98 minutes long, so every story and character has relatively limited screen time. And yet nothing feels rushed.
This sense of rhythm and flow is definitely "Ghost Stories's" biggest creative achievement. The menu consists mainly of cliches but they don't all that cliched thanks to some proper storytelling supporting them.
Having said that, the experience would probably benefit from using less "sudden scary noises" - a tactic which feels often cheap even in cheap horror movies.
So, what is bad about "Ghost Stories" being just like other horrors of its kind? It also shares their "curse of the final act". Meaning the story turns out to be less clever as it first seems.
And the end-game is more about tying the loose ends together than combining everything into coherent whole - or building the already satisfying tale up to memorable finale.
Still, there's a lot to like about the movie. I have yet to mention acting, the great quality of which also seems much higher than horror's usual.
The acting style is horror's usual (all those wide eyes and beat-skipping hearts) but much more nuanceful, so watching all the performances is joy in itself.
Some of the players - mainly Martin Freeman and Alex Lawther - have a chance to combine the characters' somberness with dry humour, and they prove to be superb at that, without turning anything into bad comedy.
The co-screenwriter and co-director Andy Nyman also fills the main role of skeptic investigating the supernatural. He has an extensive acting background, so he's actually capable leading man, and has impressive acting range at that.
His character feels almost too well written for "just a horror movie". There's this beautiful human softness and fragility about Nyman's performance, which contrasts quite starkly with the movie's gritty and ominous atmosphere. What a delicious combination, come to think of it!
I feel there's so little uniqueness or innovation in horror genre that watching those movies is usually not quite worth one's time. "Ghost Stories" is better than many, but sadly the whole is not nearly as great as its parts which I wrote extensively about.
It ultimately fails to jump over the high bar the authors have set for themselves. But this is surely one of the the best 7/10 movie you'll see this year.
If you are scared of horror movies, then rather skip it. "Ghost Stories" stays true to its title and has lots of scares to offer.
Almost every time one of them gets famous and popular, I hear how "this is not like the other horror movies". But this promise rarely proves to be true.
"Ghost Stories" is certainly inventive and watchable enough to justify its image as one of he year's more noteworthy horrors. But it's actually exactly like the others of its type. Which is, this time, both good and bad. I'll explain.
Good is that although the screenwriting-directing team of Andy Nyman and Jeremy Dyson have enough skills to use the ghost movie cliches effectively, they have also created a proper movie around them, with authentic atmosphere, characters, suspense and content.
This kind of high level of storytelling is relatively uncommon in the genre. And this is possible because the authors have taken their time and care to ensure everything has had room to develop and breathe.
Every one of the five stories included is good enough to keep us enterained and interested. Every time one ended and the next began, I was left wanting more - get more answers, stay more in the world created...
The tempo is rather slow and the movie only 98 minutes long, so every story and character has relatively limited screen time. And yet nothing feels rushed.
This sense of rhythm and flow is definitely "Ghost Stories's" biggest creative achievement. The menu consists mainly of cliches but they don't all that cliched thanks to some proper storytelling supporting them.
Having said that, the experience would probably benefit from using less "sudden scary noises" - a tactic which feels often cheap even in cheap horror movies.
So, what is bad about "Ghost Stories" being just like other horrors of its kind? It also shares their "curse of the final act". Meaning the story turns out to be less clever as it first seems.
And the end-game is more about tying the loose ends together than combining everything into coherent whole - or building the already satisfying tale up to memorable finale.
Still, there's a lot to like about the movie. I have yet to mention acting, the great quality of which also seems much higher than horror's usual.
The acting style is horror's usual (all those wide eyes and beat-skipping hearts) but much more nuanceful, so watching all the performances is joy in itself.
Some of the players - mainly Martin Freeman and Alex Lawther - have a chance to combine the characters' somberness with dry humour, and they prove to be superb at that, without turning anything into bad comedy.
The co-screenwriter and co-director Andy Nyman also fills the main role of skeptic investigating the supernatural. He has an extensive acting background, so he's actually capable leading man, and has impressive acting range at that.
His character feels almost too well written for "just a horror movie". There's this beautiful human softness and fragility about Nyman's performance, which contrasts quite starkly with the movie's gritty and ominous atmosphere. What a delicious combination, come to think of it!
I feel there's so little uniqueness or innovation in horror genre that watching those movies is usually not quite worth one's time. "Ghost Stories" is better than many, but sadly the whole is not nearly as great as its parts which I wrote extensively about.
It ultimately fails to jump over the high bar the authors have set for themselves. But this is surely one of the the best 7/10 movie you'll see this year.
If you are scared of horror movies, then rather skip it. "Ghost Stories" stays true to its title and has lots of scares to offer.