An Original Take on Found Footage
Let me begin this review by talking about the horror genre, one of my very favorite genres. Why? I'm not entirely sure I can adequately answer that question, but there is a greatness and admiration to be found in films that have the ability to instill feelings of tension, suspense, thrills, and scares. That's the beauty of cinema - it can move you in so many ways. In the case of comedy, you laugh. In a drama, you might cry. In a horror film, you may find your skin crawling. Perhaps it's also the elusive nature of a great (or even good) horror film that makes it all the more appealing to me. Each year is typically littered with great dramas and other genre pictures, but great horror films are few and far between. The last truly great horror film I can recall is Let Me In, which I found to be just as good as the film it is remade from: Let the Right One In. Those are films with atmosphere, compelling characters, and original stories with scares that don't hinge on ninety years of horror film cliches.
So is Sinister a great horror film?
The film opens with a creepy scene - actually, it's more like an image, as it's simply Super 8 footage of four dead bodies hanging from a tree. We then cut to a family moving into a new house, two children, and a husband and wife. The main character (center-stage of every scene of the film) is Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke), a true crime novelist who hasn't had a huge success in a decade. His last two books were failures, and when the Sheriff pays him a visit on moving day, he points out that one of Ellison's books got many facts wrong, and helped a murderer go free. He concludes the not-so-friendly welcome to the town by pointing at the house and saying he finds it to be "in very poor taste." Seconds later, Ellison's wife, Tracy (Juliet Rylance), questions Ellison, "please tell me we didn't move two houses down from a crime scene." He tells her they did not. This isn't a lie. They moved into the house of the crime scene, where in the backyard four bodies were hanged from a tree.
Much of modern horror cinema is riddled with either a) torture porn, b) found footage style, or c) both. Sinister wisely side-steps (a), preferring slow-burn tension and suspense, combined with a dark, moody atmosphere. But with (b) it embodies a fascinating technique - the film itself isn't shot in found-footage style, but the plot hinges on a series of Super 8 films that Ellison finds in the attic; quite literally, he finds footage that sets off the hair-raising, creepy plot that ensues. There are a variety of films; some dating back to the 60s, and one as recent as 1998. They all depict gruesome murders of different families, and perhaps they may be connected.
Ellison is searching for his next hit. In one scene, he replays an interview from ten years ago, discussing the success of his New York Times best-seller novel, "Kentucky Blood." In the interview, he states that justice is all he cares about. He'd "rather cut off both [his] hands than write something for fame and fortune." At another point, he tells his wife that "bad things happen to good people, but they still need to have their story told. They deserve that much." But is his research and writing all about justice? Is it altruistic? That's for you decide, but Ellison's motivations will come to a test.
The film is not without its share of cliches and typical jump-scares, but thankfully the film doesn't rely on them. The cinematography is often dimly-lit, sometimes as dark as you can get without watching a black screen, and it creates a brooding atmosphere, wherein we suspect something "sinister" (pun intended) may happen at any moment. At times it borders on the unrealistic - you almost want to tell him to turn the damn lights on. Either Ellison loves to work in the dark or he loves to save on his electric bill.
Unlike many modern horror films, this one relies on a slow-burn story that gradually creeps up on you before the real scares begin. Why can't more filmmakers understand this approach? A first act of amazing build-up and atmosphere before bringing in the scares results in a far more effective viewing experience than a scene of gruesome bloodletting within the first five minutes.
The acting on behalf of Hawke (who is the only character truly to speak of - most of those others have minimal screen time, though several, such as Vincent D'Onofrio are crucial to the plot) is great for the material. He plays an every-man very well, and imbues the crass, hardly altruistic nature of his character to great effect. The film rests on his shoulders, and he does not disappoint.
This is the creepiest film I've seen all year, and likely the best horror film of the year (I discount The Cabin in the Woods as I found that more of a comedy than anything else). It is far without its flaws, but Hawke and director Scott Derrickson keep this notches above the average modern horror film. Don't see it expecting to be wowed by an impeccable script, or an incredibly original plot. But if you're a fan of horror, this is worthy of seeing, especially in a time when even decent horror is few and far between.
No comments:
Post a Comment