Sunday, October 14, 2012

In Review: Sinister

The Gist
Grisly and disturbing, Sinister brings a flavor of SAW to Paranormal Activity. While not being as good as its predecessors, Hawke's strong performance and the eerie cinematography manages to make this film from sliding into cheap-scare film territory

The Good
  • Hawke remains a legitimate actor throughout the whole film
  • The cinematography inspires thrill rather than cheap scare
  • The film follows a healthy progression that wouldn't get you lost
The Bad
  • Has its dragging moments
  • Unfortunately not as scary as its predecessors
  • The uneven pacing desensitizes the conclusion
Synopsis
Ellison Oswalt (Hawke) used to be an accomplished fiction writer but he has since been relegated to less critical acclaim with his less successful crime novels that earn him the disregard from cops wherever town he moves to write a new novel. In his new novel, Ellison investigates a family hung by their necks on their backyard, while one of their daughters still missing. As they moved in to their new home, Ellison finds a box of home movies that opens a can of worms for him and his family.

Before Sunrise
I can't help but notice two things about this film. First, Ethan Hawke's performance (whichs kept this film from unhinging) and second, the time when it was filmed. I'd like to focus on the second matter, which, for me, spoiled the film. I have to wonder why most of the times, the Oswalt household is dreadfully dim, amid Ellison already scared out of his wits. Even at noon when the sun is at its brightest, the Oswalt household remains dark and dreary. While it did help the movie achieve a feel of creepiness and dread ready to rear its head, I don't think it does much for logic or realism. The fact that the Oswalt household was already feeling disturbed by Ellison's and Trevor's behaviors after moving into this new home should have made them keep the lights on more often and their curtains raised.

Taking Lives
Before anything else, I'd like to go back to my previous paragraph's first point: Hawke. Throughout the gradually degrading storytelling, Hawke remains a legitimate actor, dishing out extreme portrayal of depression, desperation for success, familial concern, and disgust. While his character remains to be extremely courageous throughout the film, you find that he's not your typical horror movie hero who loses all sort of humanity in favor of heroism (or sometimes stupidity). In fact, he remains very human through it all: greedy, stubborn, fatherly, frustrated, determined, frightened. Hawke has managed to flesh out Ellison, the central character, into something with more meat and more humanity--determined to stay alive, finish his work, and keep his family safe. This portrayal itself helped keep the film from losing its hinges and going all cheap thrills.

After the success of Paranormal Activity, fake found footage have been embraced by supernatural / horror films recently. Chronicle, The Devil Inside, and V/H/S, are among these films that embrace the combination of two genres with success. Sinister joins the fray, except instead of found footages of supernatural creepiness, it features sick documentation of people getting killed--some in very grisly ways that involve a gardening equipment. This part of the film always makes me flinch. The way the killings are done are very crude and are reminiscent of the SAW franchise, meant to evoke shock, and this is, I guess, one of Sinister's goals. It gives the crime a mask of visceral realness fitting perfectly into the horror and supernatural setup of the film.

I've noted above the Cinematography which made the simple suburban home fill up with dread and creepiness. But did I mention that the dreary atmosphere becomes annoying at times, too? Usually, horror films succeed by presenting and abject setup that is very commonplace in real life: for instance, watching a video that would trigger your death, or mirrors being passage ways for spirits, or even something as trivial as getting in contact with someone who's been cursed. Sinister goes for something less often encountered: a Super8 film projector that crisps while it plays. Horror movies are noted by how much effect they'd have on you after watching them. Some people would leave the lights on for days just because of seeing The Ring, but I cannot say the same is true for Sinister. It has a very specific setup that is hard to come by in real life and should only scare people who just moved in to their new home. Maybe it attempts to beat or better that formula, but does it make it any scarier, I can't say so. That projector trick eventually got old and Icouldn't be happier that Ellison has started burning it. And so much was my frustration when it came back. Not because of the horror that would ensue, but because it means another repeating trick that has tire itself very early on.

The pacing for Sinister is quite slow, it does not get scary at once and it takes its time, which can get pretty annoying. It does build up dread, but does not scare you much. The visuals were creepy, but nothing in the movie would suggest that anything creepy is about to rear its full head at the screen. Just more and more creepy visuals until you get desensitized for what is about to pop out later. Good news is that the progression is slow enough for you to appreciate the logic and mechanics of the movie's, er, curse that it will be a revelation in the end for you. Thing is, the payoff isn't as much as what the director could've hoped for and in the end, you sort of feel like Ellison's a nosy rat and that he had it coming anyway.

I couldn't say the movie skipped borrowing from other horror films and that it did not commit horror genre cliches, and it did, but it did with finesse and that you wouldn't mind. What I find fault in however, is the pacing that gave the movie its dragging moments--which eventually desensitized me for the final act--which albeit is still grisly and disturbing, wasn't as scary as needed.

My verdict:

Unfortunately does not outdo its predecessors or invents anything new for the genre. It does sidestep vulgar display of horror cliches and a great performance from Hawke supplies for a conflicted central character cast in a dreary and disturbing suburban atmosphere. I just feel that the pacing spoiled the surprise and desensitized far too great for the conclusion to have a greater payoff than it delivers.

3 out of 5 stars. Passed but against recommending.

4 comments:

  1. That was a long review for a movie of this type :P
    I was thinking about the house being too dim too....not to mention the conveniently-timed electrical failures.

    I was always rolling my eyes during build ups as we have all seen this type of scene before like when a character walks in a dark corridor in slow motion and eery music comes in and I was like "cmon...let's get it over with and move on with the plot!"

    I saw it more as a mystery or crime thriller than a horror film so when the supernatural thing comes in, I can't take it anymore seriously. But kudos to the writers, I didn't see that plot twist coming.

    Maybe it's just me but horror movies don't scare me at all these days. Movies that are marketed as horror always break the fourth wall for me. The last time I was really scared by a horror movie is 1999's Blair Witch Project (which I thought was an authentic footage by the time I saw the film) and the last 'horror film' I like was The Orphanage (El Orfanato).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably that's what annoyed me, too, other than the projector. I've seen that too often, walking in the dark, that's why Insidious was better for me, because there were spirits haunting the family any time of the day--even at bright day light. This one had to use the dark house and electrical failure tricks, which is hackneyed.

      I also did think it felt like a crime story with a supernatural twist. Why did I fail to note that down in my review?

      Anyways, thanks for dropping by and reading my review, Tiamy. I review everything quite lengthily, especially if I don't understand what I like / dislike about the film.

      Delete
  2. Ethan Hawke never shows up in movies like this, and it’s a real surprise because the guy’s great at looking absolutely terrified when he needs to. As for the rest of the film, it’s not as terrifying but still scary enough to fully give you that creepy vibe the whole way through. Nice review.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome back, Dan! I've always loved reading your reviews, though I avoid reading the ones I've yet to see. As I've noted in my review, I agree with you that Hawke is Sinister's biggest asset. I'm not sure if I'd like the movie at all if it wasn't for Hawke's performance. And yeah, not as terrifying as it needs to be. Too bad.

      Delete