 |
| Bugs are delicious. The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) |
My adoration of horror began when I
was quite young and I found the film E.T.:
The Extraterrestrial the most terrifying thing to be born into
existence. From there my tastes matured
and I became an avid viewer of Are You Afraid of the Dark at the ripe
age of seven. My friend and I secretly
rented Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer from our local
convenience store and were subsequently grounded when my mother found out. My slightly more grown-up self is no
different. I will view virtually every
scary film to occupy theatres or inhabit my Netflix suggestions. So, upon seeing the trailer for Scott
Derrickson’s film Sinister, I was skeptically optimistic. Although giggle-inducing on occasion, I
enjoyed The Exorcism of Emily Rose well enough to buy the five-dollar
bargain-bin DVD, so I hoped Sinister would be at least on par with that.
Now, as I mentioned, I love horror
movies, although they often tend to disappoint me. Insidious (2010) is a fine example of
a film that was spooky and engrossing up until the last 20 minutes which I can
sum up with a resounding “What the fuck?”
Or how about the Australian film Lake Mungo (2009)? Talk about a waste of 87 minutes. I’ve been more creeped out by episodes of “A Haunting.” Sure it had its 60 seconds of spooky
images, but that’s cumulative throughout the entire film. But, that’s not what I’m here to discuss
(thank goodness). I’m here to talk about
Sinister; a film which I’d describe as a satisfying and hair-raising
horror which rises above its gory “vanilla” peers.
 |
| Shot composition like a boss. Sinister (2012) |
To sum it up, Sinister is the tale of Ellison (Ethan Hawke), a true-crime
writer struggling to reclaim his 15 minutes of fame, who after moving into a
new home with his family finds reels of home videos depicting the gruesome
murders of families. Does Ellison turn
these tapes into the cops? God, no! However, instead of throwing popcorn at our
protagonist, we get it. He wants to
write a kick-ass book. Doesn’t
everyone? So he keeps these films and
reviews them over and over again. These
videos were incorporated into the overall film in a way that I found to be bordering
on excellent. The content of these films
was disturbing, but the filmmakers did something I love: they didn’t spoon-feed the audience the
violence. Subtlety in filmmaking is so
often overlooked, especially in horror.
If a family gets mowed over with a lawnmower, we don’t need to SEE
it. If a family has their throats slit,
seeing it reflected in Ellison’s glasses is a much more artistic and tasteful way of displaying something no one really
wants to see. Unless you’re f’ed in the
head. Speaking of f’ed up junk, how
about that creepy-ass jack-o-lantern looking dude that Ellison finds lurking in
the background of the clips?
I love the supernatural. Hell, I
love “Supernatural.” So I’m all about a
movie with a paranormal element. Sinister includes this in a way that I think is great. It’s there, it’s scary, and yet the film remains
believable. If the supernatural element
had been stripped away, the film would still have been able to stand based on
the fact that “that shit could happen!”
However, adding that little preternatural element leaves the audience with
a comforting feeling of “oh, the Bughuul isn’t real so I can sleep easy at
night.” Wrong! Kids can still kill people without the
nurturing guidance of Mr. Boogie. Eric
Smith? Joshua Phillips? Mary Bell?
Or maybe those kids had Mr. Boogie’s hand on their shoulders as well? The Bughuul may have simply been an
occult-based construct of Mr. Derrickson, but in my opinion he does exist. He is evil incarnate. He is that intangible darkness that
inexplicably dwells within certain individuals and drives them to do horrific and
unforgivable things. And that’s why I
love Sinister.
 |
| Oh, God shallow-focus, what's back there?! Sinister (2012) |
Now, to the scare-factor. Sinister, although it contained the generic “boo!” factor, as I’ll call it, did
very well in creeping me out. Not an
easy task. Ethan Hawke definitely
contributed to this. His deterioration
into being totally freaked out by the stuff happening in his new house is
totally believable. I never got pissed
at him or felt the need to yell at the screen because he was being an
idiot. He acted like a genuinely scared-shitless
guy. No unbelievable bravado or
dismissal of the freaky events. He wasn’t
perfect, but was imperfect in human-like way.
In addition to Mr. Hawke, the cinematography was quite exceptional,
especially when my expectations are so low for a horror flick. The use of a shallow depth of field and hand-held
camera were an excellent decision.
Normally I can’t stand handheld camera, because I prefer to not have to
keep one eye closed to avoid a headache.
However, Sinister used the handheld in a way that contributed
to the film. More than once the
character(s) was taking up a small portion of the frame with the background out
of focus. The handheld camera swayed in
a way that made small portions of the background go in and out of frame. The entire time, I was waiting for Mr. Boogie
or some freaky-ass little kid to be out of focus and in frame on one of the
sways. It never happened, but it gave intensity
to the film that wasn’t distracting.
Thank you filmmakers for showing that just because a film is a horror
film, doesn’t mean attention shouldn’t be paid to cinematic technique. Special effects only get you so far.
Overall, if you enjoy scary movies, pay money to watch Sinister. I’m just so excited to have seen a horror
flick in a theatre that didn't make me leave pissed off or confused. So, although it may not be The Shining (1980), it’s definitely up there on some imaginary list of horror
movies that pack a punch and are worth your time.
Fin.
No comments:
Post a Comment