The Good: I'm not surprised by the negative reception Dave Franco's directorial debut has gotten (5.7 here, 45% on RT). Horror fans tend to be a tough bunch and are VERY dissatisfied when horror movies are untraditional. It's a shame, because this is a legitimately good movie.
Why? Because the flaws that other people have pointed out, to me, strengthen the narrative and the style. This is the first horror/thriller in a while - so reserved and grounded - that felt eerily real. Like there is something to actually be scared of and a legitimate new fear that I'm sure many will began to worry about in the future.
Suffice to say, this movie is essentially saved in the ending. Everything comes together and what we've just seen makes more sense. I also wanted to shout out some of the performances. Alison Brie has always been really good, but she excels here in a performance where she's kind of fighting for screen time. The rest of the cast is really good too, but Dan Stevens also feels like a real person; especially his mannerisms.
I also liked that this movie had an intentional tone and stuck with it. It didn't abandon what it was going for to excite audiences or be a crowd pleaser. I think for a reserved, low budget, tight movie like this, Franco has done a good job. Even visually, while this movie may not be the most memorable, it certainly looks quite good. Shout out to the location scouts.
The Bad: Yet, I have to admit that I sympathize with those who really disliked this movie. For a long stretch, it's hard to see exactly where it's going and even I got frustrated. I think this movie feels longer than it really is, which is a product of the slow pacing and rising tension, but that's a bit of a problem. There has to be a balance between these elements.
The Ugly: I don't know how anyone could watch this movie, see the ending, and not understand why the movie was the way it was. If it was a traditional slasher, it frankly wouldn't be as scary. This is a movie that's scary by implication more than what we see on screen. And personally, I think that's much harder to do.
Why? Because the flaws that other people have pointed out, to me, strengthen the narrative and the style. This is the first horror/thriller in a while - so reserved and grounded - that felt eerily real. Like there is something to actually be scared of and a legitimate new fear that I'm sure many will began to worry about in the future.
Suffice to say, this movie is essentially saved in the ending. Everything comes together and what we've just seen makes more sense. I also wanted to shout out some of the performances. Alison Brie has always been really good, but she excels here in a performance where she's kind of fighting for screen time. The rest of the cast is really good too, but Dan Stevens also feels like a real person; especially his mannerisms.
I also liked that this movie had an intentional tone and stuck with it. It didn't abandon what it was going for to excite audiences or be a crowd pleaser. I think for a reserved, low budget, tight movie like this, Franco has done a good job. Even visually, while this movie may not be the most memorable, it certainly looks quite good. Shout out to the location scouts.
The Bad: Yet, I have to admit that I sympathize with those who really disliked this movie. For a long stretch, it's hard to see exactly where it's going and even I got frustrated. I think this movie feels longer than it really is, which is a product of the slow pacing and rising tension, but that's a bit of a problem. There has to be a balance between these elements.
The Ugly: I don't know how anyone could watch this movie, see the ending, and not understand why the movie was the way it was. If it was a traditional slasher, it frankly wouldn't be as scary. This is a movie that's scary by implication more than what we see on screen. And personally, I think that's much harder to do.