So after watching Blade Runner 2049 and being completely wrecked and drained on an emotional level (in the best possible way), I decided to calm down and watch a Netflix Original. Because it's October, I obviously had to watch a horror film, so I settled on Hush. Hush is directed by Mike Flanagan (the same guy who directed Gerald's Game) and stars Kate Siegel as a deaf woman who is being hunted by a deranged serial killer (John Gallagher) in the woods. While Hush is obviously nowhere near as epic and masterful as the new Blade Runner, it was definitely one of the best slasher films of the 2010s.
Going off of our prompt of arguing someone of the opposing opinion, I feel like this is the perfect movie to do that with. Most modern slasher films are very poorly regarded and deservedly so. Some of the most recent in the genre include the Hatchet trilogy, The Gallows, and a whole slew of remakes based on the original slasher flicks. It really is no question as to why the genre has gained such a poor reputation over the years. This film, however, is one of the best made slasher films since the original Scream. Unlike most modern horror films in general, Hush is well written, well directed, and well acted. Most films of its nature over bloat the runtime with obnoxious characters that are there simply to be cannon fodder for the killer. In this film, only a few people are murdered, and none of them are annoying. In fact, some of the people that are killed in the film only appear to be killed. However, like I previously stated, only a few people are actually killed in the film, which to me makes it more suspenseful than most slashers. It is common for films in the genre to have the killer slaughter dozens of people usually in creative ways which completely undermines the overall intensity of the situation. So, not only is the film just a better movie than most slasher films, but it is also more thrilling than most.
Another reason people could oppose the film is because it seemingly is just like any other run of the mill killer in the woods kind of film. However, that is where they would be seriously wrong. The main character in the film is deaf, which means that much of the film is completely silent. This is honestly incredibly original, which is fascinating considering how many horror films there are. The character's disability also allows the writing to avoid deus ex machines that many films have to rely on to keep the survivors in the situation, usually by having them make stupid decisions such as hiding in obvious locations. In fact, the main character is also incredibly intelligent. This is a case where somehow the film is able to make a cake and eat it as well. Remember how I mentioned only a few people are killed in the film? Well, that's because there are only five characters in the entire movie. That's right: FIVE. This is completely fresh in the stale, tried and true formula horror films use which involves using as many characters as possible. Additionally, the lack of characters helps to keep the film going at a steady pace as well as never becoming an overly long film.
I would also like to point out another fresh idea that the film brings to the table: we actually follow the killer quite often. Not only that, but he has a face and a personality, a far cry from horror icons such as Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees. Not only that, but the killer in this case is the less intelligent one, another far cry in horror films. Most horror villains are the smartest characters in their films, such as Freddy Krueger and Hannibal Lecter. Even though the likes of Jason and Michael Myers may not seem smart, they are quite cunning in their own rights as well as creative when it comes to using makeshift on the spot weapons. John Gallagher's killer here, simply credited as The Man, is not one of these characters. In fact, he at times has more in common with the Three Stooges, constantly injuring himself.
Finally, one of the sharpest and most common criticisms to befall slasher films is that they commonly are unrealistic and that most of the situations in those films would never happen in real life. Hush, on the other hand, feels all to real at times. The main antagonist is unmistakably human as he can be beaten and is hurt often. Unlike other "human" horror villains, The Man is built like an average sized person with no seemingly superhuman qualities that many slasher villains seemingly possess (I'm looking at you Leatherface). Not to mention, we never actually get some lame motivation for why he kills. All we know is that he just does kill. The film additionally double as a home invasion film, which is one of the more realistic and possible genres in horror films. Most importantly, the main character is not invincible. In fact, she is fighting consciousness following an injury she receives from the killer throughout a decent chunk of the film. Much of the film has both the antagonist and protagonist exchanging small blow to each other. By the end, both are seriously banged up and have one foot in death' door. For most of the film, I actually believed that she could perish at the end, something almost unheard of in horror films.
Overall, Hush is definitely an inventive, original film in a genre that has seemingly played out ever single scenario possible. It also helps that the film is much better edited, acted, directed, and written than most films in the genre. If you aren't a fan of slasher films or the current state of horror films, I definitely recommend checking out this underrated flick.
Showing posts with label Mike Flanagan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mike Flanagan. Show all posts
October 7, 2017
October 1, 2017
Gerald's Game: Yes, Your Kinks Will Get You Killed
After listening to Nick Toti's speech, I decided that I definitely wanted to watch a horror film for this week's blog. While I'm a huge horror fan regardless, Mr. Toti made me more interested than usual in watching one of the specific genre. So, I picked the most surreal and psychological horror film that Netflix Originals had to offer: Gerald's Game, based off of the 1992 novel of the same name written by horror icon Stephen King. The adaptation is directed by one of horror's brightest new stars Mike Flanagan (Hush, Oculus). The basic plot of the film revolves around a married couple played by Carla Gugino and Bruce Greenwood. After experiencing extended marriage problems, they decide to get their kink game on in the remote summer house to spice their love up a bit. The situation turns a 180 when Greenwood's Gerald suddenly dies of a heart attack during their "love making," leaving Gugino's Jessie handcuffed to the bed posts, unable to get out of them. Gerald's Game, along with It, has definitely made 2017 a strong year for Stephen King adaptations (minus The Dark Tower of course).
The first thing I want to focus on is the psychology of the film. This is a film that is every bit about a woman forgiving her tragic past as much as it is about her trying to escape. Essentially, the plot is just there to act as a window to exploring this woman's past, eventually taking a back seat to the real plot: Jessie becoming psychologically strong enough to escape her demons, which I think is incredibly interesting. This is the closest movie that I may have ever seen before that actually allows you to know what the character is thinking without a narration. While tied up, Jessie talks to imagined versions of Gerald and herself, which also helps the audience understand how she views Gerald herself as well as how she wishes she really was with the imagined version of herself being calm, strong, and always offering good advise. Had the film been solely about her trying to escape her sexual death trap, then it would have gotten very old very fast.
The film also has a very interesting and thoughtful look at sexual abuse, something that was also explored in It. Unlike It, the sexual abuse is a much stronger element here and, while It did handle the controversial topic well, Gerald's Game handled it stupendously. Without getting to deep into spoiler territory, the events in the film are all basically caused by Jessie being abused as a child by her dad, played very well by a creepy Henry Thomas (by the way, that's Elliot, the little boy from E.T.). Through the use of superb editing, Jessie's past is gradually revealed through impeccably timed flashbacks, something most King adaptations struggle to do well (the original It from 1990). At first, Jessie will act in an odd way towards something seemingly innocent, which at first appears to be annoying. Later, however, the audience is shown why a certain event makes her tick in such a way, not only making her actions understandable but making the audience feel bad after judging her actions. The editing of the film is almost poetic and very reminiscent to the work done on last year's multi-Oscar winner Manchester by the Sea. Had the editing not been done well, the whole sexual abuse aspect would come off as odd and out of place.
I really must also sing the praises of the acting in this film as, for the most part, the film consists solely of the three actors I have previously mentioned, all who did a wonderful job. Gugino definitely shined in her dual role as her imaginary and real self, easily flipping between helpless and distraught to confident and strong. Greenwood is also terrific in probably the best role of his career. For most of the film he plays the imaginary Gerald, a far cry from the lovable, reserved real one who lays on a floor dead while being eaten by a stray dog for much of the film. This Gerald is insincere, narcissistic, and manipulative. I personally have never seen Greenwood go so far out of his acting range as he did here, not to mention he did a great job of doing it as well. As I already have mentioned Thomas himself was also very good, mainly due to his creepy performance. His performance is very important to the success of the film as it is he who holds the whole abuse plot over his head. His performance as a perverted father feels all too real and far more accurate than these kinds of characters are normally portrayed as. It really is so weird seeing the lovable, cute Elliot from E.T. turn into a pedophile creepy dad, but Thomas really does pull it off quite strong.
The only real problem I did have with the film was the last 20 minutes. Without getting into spoilers, the first part of the finale is pretty generic and cliched. It's the kind of ending just by reading this blog post you could probably figure out. The second part is just odd and completely out of nowhere, concluding an unnecessary subplot that felt like it was in the movie just to make it more of a horror film than a thriller. While this subplot is actually generally creepy, it bogged the film down and messed with the overall themes and point of the film.
Overall, I think that Gerald's Game is the second best Netflix Original that I have seen up until this point. If you have not checked it out, I definitely recommend it, especially with today being the inaugural day of October, a.k.a. the month of Halloween. To Mr. Toti, I also recommend the film. It may not be overly surreal like a David Lynch film such as Eraserhead and it may not have an overly indie feel like It Comes at Night or It Follows, I still think it is one of the strongest hollywood horror films to come out in the past couple of years.
The first thing I want to focus on is the psychology of the film. This is a film that is every bit about a woman forgiving her tragic past as much as it is about her trying to escape. Essentially, the plot is just there to act as a window to exploring this woman's past, eventually taking a back seat to the real plot: Jessie becoming psychologically strong enough to escape her demons, which I think is incredibly interesting. This is the closest movie that I may have ever seen before that actually allows you to know what the character is thinking without a narration. While tied up, Jessie talks to imagined versions of Gerald and herself, which also helps the audience understand how she views Gerald herself as well as how she wishes she really was with the imagined version of herself being calm, strong, and always offering good advise. Had the film been solely about her trying to escape her sexual death trap, then it would have gotten very old very fast.
The film also has a very interesting and thoughtful look at sexual abuse, something that was also explored in It. Unlike It, the sexual abuse is a much stronger element here and, while It did handle the controversial topic well, Gerald's Game handled it stupendously. Without getting to deep into spoiler territory, the events in the film are all basically caused by Jessie being abused as a child by her dad, played very well by a creepy Henry Thomas (by the way, that's Elliot, the little boy from E.T.). Through the use of superb editing, Jessie's past is gradually revealed through impeccably timed flashbacks, something most King adaptations struggle to do well (the original It from 1990). At first, Jessie will act in an odd way towards something seemingly innocent, which at first appears to be annoying. Later, however, the audience is shown why a certain event makes her tick in such a way, not only making her actions understandable but making the audience feel bad after judging her actions. The editing of the film is almost poetic and very reminiscent to the work done on last year's multi-Oscar winner Manchester by the Sea. Had the editing not been done well, the whole sexual abuse aspect would come off as odd and out of place.
I really must also sing the praises of the acting in this film as, for the most part, the film consists solely of the three actors I have previously mentioned, all who did a wonderful job. Gugino definitely shined in her dual role as her imaginary and real self, easily flipping between helpless and distraught to confident and strong. Greenwood is also terrific in probably the best role of his career. For most of the film he plays the imaginary Gerald, a far cry from the lovable, reserved real one who lays on a floor dead while being eaten by a stray dog for much of the film. This Gerald is insincere, narcissistic, and manipulative. I personally have never seen Greenwood go so far out of his acting range as he did here, not to mention he did a great job of doing it as well. As I already have mentioned Thomas himself was also very good, mainly due to his creepy performance. His performance is very important to the success of the film as it is he who holds the whole abuse plot over his head. His performance as a perverted father feels all too real and far more accurate than these kinds of characters are normally portrayed as. It really is so weird seeing the lovable, cute Elliot from E.T. turn into a pedophile creepy dad, but Thomas really does pull it off quite strong.
The only real problem I did have with the film was the last 20 minutes. Without getting into spoilers, the first part of the finale is pretty generic and cliched. It's the kind of ending just by reading this blog post you could probably figure out. The second part is just odd and completely out of nowhere, concluding an unnecessary subplot that felt like it was in the movie just to make it more of a horror film than a thriller. While this subplot is actually generally creepy, it bogged the film down and messed with the overall themes and point of the film.
Overall, I think that Gerald's Game is the second best Netflix Original that I have seen up until this point. If you have not checked it out, I definitely recommend it, especially with today being the inaugural day of October, a.k.a. the month of Halloween. To Mr. Toti, I also recommend the film. It may not be overly surreal like a David Lynch film such as Eraserhead and it may not have an overly indie feel like It Comes at Night or It Follows, I still think it is one of the strongest hollywood horror films to come out in the past couple of years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)