Sinister by reputation, not-so-Sinister by fact.
Sinister had already been hugely hyped up by the time I saw it. Critics have been calling it great and genuinely scary, which is significant because getting a good mainstream review for a horror movie is almost impossible. It's all "that wasn't very scary," or "the monsters looked stupid," or "female protagonists? This was clearly all a metaphor for menstruation."
Well, I went and saw Sinister fully aware of its reputation as the first horror movie in existence to be appreciated in its own time, and that's all it was: reputation. If I hadn't heard a damned thing about how scary it was supposed to be, it wouldn't have been scary at all. It's literally all anticipation before throwing a spooky face at you complemented by a piano chord or a shrill scream that only the audience is supposed to hear. And the only reason I was anticipating anything is because I was told to expect something really scary.
I was on the edge of my seat, tensely waiting to be scared, which is usually scary enough in its own right; but every time the movie delivered, I had to laugh afterward because it was so ridiculous. The monster literally peaks in quickly from off camera—twice!—and that's supposed to be the big payoff.
If anyone tells you that the movie doesn't rely on surprise "boo!" scares, you have my permission to call bullshit on it. First you tell them "no," and then you get out of there.
I'm actually very easy on horror movies. You may recall that I gave The Thing (2011) a favourable review and a valiant defense, and most people were shitting on that before it was even released. I like horror movies, and even if they're not scary I can usually find something that I like about them. Maybe they're so campy that they're hilarious (like anything by Wes Craven), or maybe the mythos is really strong (like Hellraiser). But Sinister isn't ridiculous and its entire mythos is explained in one short scene. If directors want me to care about their monster, they should watch The Mothman Prophecies a thousand times and figure out why the mythos of that movie is so good. Here's a hint: it has nothing to do with any "based on a true story" crap.
I'm also usually one of the first to defend the ending of a horror movie, because it can be difficult to wrap up a story about an ageless horror unless you're going to just kill the damned thing. But Sinister's ending is so predictable that I even anticipated the monster quickly peaking back on camera again before the credits rolled.
I'm going to ruin a part of the movie right now, so if you don't want any spoilers … too bad.
There was one scene where the monster's previous child victims (this is starting to sound like To Catch a Predator, but hear me out) are sitting in Ethan Hawke's attic, watching a film of the monster projected on the wall. It stands there on the screen, seeming to look right at our protagonist, before suddenly peaking in from camera left, directly in the face of a very startled Mr. Hawke who is hecka startled by it.
 |
| This scene. Just imagine that creepy face jumping out at you in three seconds. (No, this isn't secretly a GIF, but that would be funny.) |
This was a sorely missed opportunity. Ethan Hawke's character, Ellison, is already horribly disturbed at this point, so seeing a quintet of ghostly children sitting in front of a projection of the monster that has been stalking him for three nights should have been enough to turn him into a blubbering mess. If the film had kept Mr. Boogie on the projected screen and let Ellison freak out at that, it would have been way more poignant than tossing a spooky face at the camera. No, it wouldn't have made the audience jump, but if they did it right we could have all been having nightmares about the tall, horrible looking man that just stood there, watching us for an uncomfortable amount of time. I hate having to continually say this whenever I review a movie, but it's called subtlety.
The only two good things I can say about the movie are that it smartly relies on Ethan Hawke to carry it—his is the only noteworthy performance, and he also has 90% of the screentime to himself—and it was genuinely funny when it tried to be.
You know what other movie was funny, but also had good performances all 'round and, if not scary, at least had a remarkable mythos? Cabin in the Woods, and that's a movie that I almost wrote off before seeing because they did such a good job of making it look like yet another generic horror movie in the trailers. I really wish that I had thought to write a review of it back when I first saw it.
…
Actually, you know what? It's not too late for me to correct that mistake. This is now a review of Cabin in the Woods.
I give Cabin in the Woods ten Ethan Hawkes looking like Gordon Freeman out of ten.
Post a Comment