Pearl (2022) Review

Time: 102 Minutes
Cast:
Mia Goth as Pearl
David Corenswet as the projectionist
Tandi Wright as Ruth
Matthew Sunderland as Pearl’s father
Emma Jenkins-Purro as Mitsy
Alistair Sewell as Howard
Director: Ti West

Trapped on her family’s isolated farm, Pearl must tend to her ailing father under the bitter and overbearing watch of her devout mother. Hoping for a more glamorous life, Pearl’s ambitions, temptations and repressions all collide to horrific effect.

I had been interested in watching Pearl ever since I first heard about it. Earlier this year, Ti West made X, which I found to be a really good horror movie. Directly after making that movie, West filmed a prequel focussing on X’s main villain Pearl played by Mia Goth (in one of her two roles in that film), and got Goth to reprise that role. I was interested for that reason alone, and I thought it succeeded in what it set out to do.

Pearl is a very different movie to X, from the approach to the story, to the horror itself. Its less seedy and sleazy exploitation and goes more for the Golden Age of Hollywood (and is set in the 1910s). However, it retains its dark humour and leans into some of the over the top camp elements. I think Pearl is a perfect companion piece to X and enriches that original movie now. As a prequel, it does improve X as we get the full backstory behind the main villain. There are some references and callbacks, and the farm that Pearl lives at is the main setting for X. However, this movie can be seen on its own without having seen X. Pearl is essentially a character study about a girl with a personality disorder, we see the tragedy of her character and what led her to how she is in X. It gives her depth and humanises the character. The story is intimate, and the plot is slower, with fewer explosive payoffs. Its not really heavy on the horror, most of the horror comes from the main character. So if you’re looking for kills and thrills, you’ll be a little disappointed. The movie did drag at some points, part of that is that you can tell how things are going to end (even if you haven’t seen X), and you are just waiting for it. Still, I liked how the movie played out, and it concludes with one of the most memorable end credits scroll scenes I’ve seen.

Pearl is Mia Goth’s show, she’s fantastic and the main reason to watch this movie. From the beginning, you can quickly tell that this character has some issues, but you’re hoping that things go right for her even though you know that it won’t. Goth’s performance helps with that, showing all the different sides to the character. She showcases an outstanding emotional range and conveys everything brilliantly. Probably one of the best performances of the year so far. The rest of the cast are good too, but again its Goth’s movie.

Ti West returns from X to direct Pearl and his work is great here. Stylistically, the two movies are very different. It swaps out the 70s sleaze, instead recapturing the magic of classic Hollywood with vibrant technicolour for the production design, costumes and cinematography, almost like it’s the Wizard of Oz. Tyler Bates also returns to compose this movie after X and again the music is very different, generally going for a classic old Hollywood feel while serving the more horror moments very well.

Pearl is a really good horror character study, its visually stunning and vibrant, it works well as a prequel to X, and it is led by an incredible lead performance from Mia Goth. While I think X is more rewatchable, Pearl might be the better movie overall. I’m looking forward to Goth and Ti West’s next X collaboration with MaXXXine.

Advertisement

Emma. (2020) Review

Time: 124 minutes
Age Rating: Nudity
Cast:
Anya Taylor-Joy as Emma Woodhouse
Johnny Flynn as George Knightley
Bill Nighy as Mr. Woodhouse
Mia Goth as Harriet Smith
Miranda Hart as Miss Bates
Josh O’Connor as Mr. Elton
Callum Turner as Frank Churchill
Rupert Graves as Mr. Weston
Gemma Whelan as Mrs. Weston
Director: Autumn de Wilde

Following the antics of a young woman, Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy), who lives in Georgian- and Regency-era England and occupies herself with matchmaking – in sometimes misguided, often meddlesome fashion- in the lives of her friends and family.

Emma was one of the movies from 2020 that I was rather looking forward to. I’m not familiar with the novel it’s based on (or really any Jane Austen novel), however I liked the cast involved (with the likes of Anya Taylor-Joy, Mia Goth and Bill Nighy involved), and from the looks of the trailer, it looked quite good. While I wasn’t really sure what to expect going in beyond what it’s based on, I thought Emma was quite good, and I had some fun with it.

While I’m not familiar with Jane Austen’s original novel, it seemed to have been adapted very well for today’s audiences here. The script is well written, very witty and snappy, and the dialogue is particularly great. The tone is handled well also, it’s very humorous (and most of the movie is generally comedic) but also quite heartfelt. One problem with the movie is that although the runtime is just over 2 hours long, it feels just a little longer than that, and that’s due to the pacing. You are still into the movie throughout, but occasionally there was the feeling that it dragged a little bit at certain points. That didn’t prove to be too much of a problem though, I was generally entertained by the movie.

The cast all work really well in their roles, and are among the highlights of the film. Anya Taylor-Joy is in the lead role of Emma Woodhouse, and she gives an absolutely wonderful performance. She’s incredibly charming, yet doesn’t shy away from the more selfish aspects of the character, and really grabs your attention every time she’s on screen (which is pretty much almost the entirety of the movie). The supporting cast with the likes of Johnny Flynn, Bill Nighy, Mia Goth, Miranda Hart, Josh O’Connor, Callum Turner and others work as well, also giving some solid performances. Among them however, Goth was the standout for me, she’s perfect in her role, and is definitely a ‘different’ character that we’re used to seeing her playing (considering the number of gothic and horror movies she’s starred in recently). She and Taylor-Joy particularly shine in their scenes together, sharing some excellent chemistry.

Emma is the debut film from director Autumn de Wilde, and her work here is impressive for a first movie. On the whole, it’s outstanding on a technical level. Visually it’s stunning, and the use of colour was really effective, it was absolutely gorgeous to look at. On top of that, the costume designs and the production design are amazing, which you’d expect from a period piece movie, but nonetheless is great impressive to see. Much of the movie is very stylish (more so than you’d expect it to be really), but it’s done in a way that suits the material.

Emma is quite good for what it is, and I generally had a good time with it. It’s entertaining, written and directed well, visually colourful and stunning, and the cast all round is great, especially Anya Taylor-Joy and Mia Goth. I’m not sure what people who have read the books will think about this adaptation, nor can I say how well it has adapted the original book to the big screen (or how it compares to previous adaptations), but I enjoyed what I watched. Definitely give it a watch whenever you get a chance to see it.

High Life (2019) Review

Time: 113 Minutes
Age Rating:
Cast:
Robert Pattinson as Monte
Juliette Binoche as Dibs
André Benjamin as Tcherny
Mia Goth as Boyse
Director: Claire Denis

Monte (Robert Pattinson) and his baby daughter are the last survivors of a damned and dangerous mission to the outer reaches of the solar system. They must now rely on each other to survive as they hurtle toward the oblivion of a black hole.

High Life was one of my most anticipated movies of 2019. I’m not familiar with writer/director Claire Denis but with the cast involving the likes of Robert Pattinson and Mia Goth, as well as the trailers and very polarised reactions, it was something I was excited for. I really didn’t know what to expect, as it was a bit of an artsy movie and of course the reactions to it were a little confused and mixed. High Life is an effective and haunting sci-fi movie that’ll no doubt remain one of the most memorable movies of 2019 by the end of the year.

High Life is a movie that’s definitely best experienced not knowing too much about outside of the general plot summary, so I’ll try my best not to reveal too much as I didn’t know too much about it going into it. High Life certainly is a weird sci-fi movie, you might hear about the movie involving a bunch of people go into space to a black hole, however this isn’t like Interstellar by any means. I mean this is the movie that has the ship is equipped with “The Box” (also known as “The Fuck Box”), which the crew can use to masturbate, so at that point you can kind of figure out what kind of movie you are in for (or at least not in for). Also, the levels and places that the movie goes to might just be too much for people. Personally, I was on board and intrigued with everything that was going on. It does feel quite long, even at an hour and 50 minutes long and it’s because it’s a very a slow moving movie. I still like the movie quite a bit, but I’d be lying if I said that I didn’t feel the very slow pacing. It requires a lot of patience, and I had enough of it to sit through the whole thing, and I’m glad I did. If it seems like I’m being vague about the movie, it’s because I’m doing it deliberately.

Robert Pattinson continues to show how talented he is, giving one of his best performances here. Outside of his character and maybe a couple others, you don’t really root for many of the characters. So as incredible as the rest of the movie still would’ve been without it, much of it is riding on Pattinson to deliver a performance with a large amount of humanity, and a role that the audience can latch on to, which he does incredibly well. Juliette Binoche is also good as a scientist who’s conducting sexual experiments on the crew whilst taking on this suicide mission. Mia Goth always manages to take what she’s given, big or small, and with that makes herself one of the most memorable parts of each of the movies she’s in and High Life is no exception. The rest of the cast consisting of the likes of Andre Benjamin also play their parts very well but aren’t really the focus of the movie.

This is the first film from Claire Denis I’ve seen and I really want to watch the rest of her movies now because her work here is amazing, she’s definitely an expert behind the camera. This is an absolutely stunning looking movie, whether it be showing what’s inside the ship or outside it, and of course, the space sequences are breathtaking. I can imagine that it would be best experienced in the cinema. Apparently, a real life physicist and black hole expert was involved with the movie, and it certainly feels like it, making the movie feel somewhat plausible and even more authentic overall. Even the production design and costumes look authentic, it really feels like they made the movie as practical as possible and only resorted to visual effects when they needed to. We don’t see black holes a lot in this movie but there’s a very strong ominous feeling and sense of dread whenever they are on screen. Black holes are always kind of scary and you never want to go near them, but High Life particularly makes them unsettling. The score by Stuart A. Staples was also good, really giving the movie even more of that eerie vibe.

High Life is definitely not going to work for everyone. It may be too weird, disturbing or slow for some, and so I don’t blame you if it doesn’t quite work for you. However I personally really liked it. The cast all do good work (especially Pattinson, Binoche and Goth) and Claire Denis directed it immaculately. There’s no denying that it is an incredibly memorable movie. It might be a movie I need to revisit later on, as I feel like it will benefit from repeat viewings. All I can say for those who haven’t seen it yet is to go into it with an open mind.

Nymphomaniac: Vol. 2 (2013) Review

Time: 124 Minutes
Age Rating: Explicit material & content that may disturb.
Cast:
Charlotte Gainsbourg as Joe (ages 35–50)
Stacy Martin as young Joe (ages 15–31)
Stellan Skarsgård as Seligman
Shia LaBeouf as Jerôme Morris
Christian Slater as Joe’s father
Jamie Bell as K
Willem Dafoe as L
Mia Goth as P
Michaël Pas as Older Jerôme
Jean-Marc Barr as the Debtor Gentleman
Udo Kier as The Waiter
Director: Lars von Trier

The continuation of Joe’s (Charlotte Gainsbourg) sexually dictated life delves into the darker aspects of her adulthood, obsessions and what led to her being in Seligman’s (Stellan Skarsgard) care.

I’m assuming that if you’re reading this review, you’ve already read my review of Lars von Trier’s divisive Nymphomaniac Volume 1. While I didn’t love the movie, it was very interesting, with some great performances and von Trier had a very unique style and vision (it was the first film of his that I saw). That was only the first half of the story however, and I heard very different reactions to the second volume. Some said that it was better than the first volume, others says that it was a significant drop in quality. I actually quite liked Nymphomaniac Volume 2, though it is (understandably) less enjoyable than the first volume, and the rather obnoxiously forcibly bleak ending really took away from both movies.

Long story short, if you didn’t like Volume 1 at all (as in was disturbed by it or found it to be absolutely horrible as a movie), Volume 2 isn’t going to be that big of a difference for you, whether you like or dislike it more. Otherwise, if there was something that you liked or were interested in with Volume 1, you’re pretty much going to need to watch the second volume. I do recommend reading my review of Volume 1 as there are some similar things between the two volumes and I don’t want to repeat myself too much. I’ll do my best to mostly talk about the new parts and differences between the two. Volume 2 is as long as Volume 1 at around 2 hours, despite this, instead of being split up into 5 chapters, it is split up into 3 chapters. It really does feel like the second part of the story, there’s not opening credits or anything like that, it goes straight into the rest of the story. There are clear differences between the two volumes and you can tell why Nymphomaniac is split at this particular point. Volume 2 is much darker, while the first volume had spots of dark comedy, the second volume has just specks of dark comedy. While the main character of Joe had many sexual experiences seemingly without any consequences in the first part of the story, without spoiling anything, let’s just say that things just go extremely bad for her in the second part. For example, at the end of Volume 1, Joe is numb from sex, which is particularly significant to her given that she’s a sex addict (or nymphomaniac as she self proclaims to be). So she has to find extreme methods of reigniting her sexuality. While Volume 1 at many points could be hard to watch, this second volume is much more so. In that it’s a less enjoyable experience, but I can’t exactly fault the movie for that. Once again it doesn’t feel like it’s necessarily done for shock value (though knowing Lars von Trier, that probably did play a part in some of the things that happen), it feels honest for the story that’s being told. There are parts that do feel more riveting than the first volume, but it is quite possible that this is because it has less chapters than the first volume or that it is darker. Despite this, enjoyment wise I preferred Volume 1 much more. The conversations between Joe and Seligman are once again interesting and one of the best parts of the Nymphomaniac movies, though once again they could be a little self indulgent (for lack of a better term to use while avoiding the term ‘pretentious’), though they don’t go to absurd levels like the first volume could be at times. Then there’s the ending which has divided a lot of people. Now I knew the ending a long time before going in and I hated the ending already. I did hear about people’s defence of the ending and I kept that in mind while watching both movies, and it still didn’t work for me after watching it. I won’t spoil what it is, but basically it involves one of the two main characters in present day (played by Gainsbourg and Skarsgard) doing something incredibly out of character. While it may have been meant to be a twist, it feels really forced. There’s nothing even small during the movie leading up to the end that hints towards it happening at all, just because people won’t expect a twist to happen doesn’t make it good. This also affects one of the best parts of the movie(s), the conversations between the two characters, instead of making you see them in a different light, it just makes them feel confused and it doesn’t really work or make sense. As a result it all just feels like a cheap way for Lars von Trier to make one of his typically depressing endings. While apparently he has many of these types of endings, I’m sure that they aren’t this lazily bleak. The ending is more than just underwhelming and disappointing, it’s infuriating and does notably detract from the overall film. I’ll just say that if the film ended with some random character we’ve never seen before appearing out of nowhere and killed both characters, it would feel less frustrating. Then again you might actually like the ending, some actually do.

The acting all around is great once again. Charlotte Gainsbourg was fantastic, this time she’s much more front and centre to what was going on. In Volume 1 she was very present throughout, but only in her scenes when she’s telling her stories. Here’s she’s actually present in the flashbacks and being present throughout most of them. She has to go through a lot, both physically and emotionally. Joe’s story in the first volume wasn’t particularly light but the second volume is especially dark. I’ve not seen much from Gainsbourg in terms of acting but from Nymphomaniac she has really shown herself to be an excellent actress. The scenes with Gainsbourg and Stellan Skarsgard in the present day are great as well and their conversations are really one of the more interesting parts of the Nymphomaniac story, especially how they played off each other with how different they are with regards to their outlook on life and all that. Stacy Martin is once again great as the younger Joe, despite her pretty much being the lead in Volume 1 though, in Volume 2 she’s not in the movie as much, given that in this point in Joe’s telling of the story she’s like in her mid 30s. Shia LaBeouf and some of the other actors return to their roles, once again they are really good and served their purposes well but really they are supporting players. There are mainly 3 newer actors added into the second part of Nymphomaniac. Willem Dafoe at one point is in the movie playing Joe’s boss, he doesn’t really get a lot of screentime but Dafoe brings a lot to whatever role he’s in and here it’s no exception. Jamie Bell plays a sadist who Joe comes in contact with in order to somewhat rehabilitate her sexuality. This is a role that Bell hasn’t really taken on before or since and he is suitably unnerving and violent, really great performance. Mia Goth is the other addition to the story later on, as Joe’s accomplice. This was really one of her first performances and she was really great in her role whenever she was on screen. It seemed like plenty of people were also impressed with her performance, seeing that she would go on to deliver more great performances in A Cure for Wellness, Suspiria and other movies.

Lars von Trier’s direction once again is impressive, with the cinematography being really stunning and direction-wise, a lot of impressive things being done. Regardless of how you feel about the story and all the things that happen, it’s clear watching this that he knows his way behind the camera. The sexual parts to everything is once again graphic and uncomfortable. This time there aren’t as many sex scenes, the sexual aspect of it is border more on fetishism, but again it doesn’t feel like it’s trying to titillate the audience, the sexual acts aren’t pornographic at all, they are actually more disturbing and even darker this time around. Despite some of my issues with Nymphomaniac, it didn’t feel exploitive. Volume 2 is arguably more uncomfortable in general, but that’s mainly because of the story. A weird thing I noticed that differed from the first volume is the lack of drawings, numbers and words that would sometimes appear on screen. Not that it was the glue holding everything together (the diagram of Joe parking a car certainly wasn’t the peak moment of Volume 1), it’s just something I noticed. Also to the second volume’s credit, it doesn’t make random directing decisions, like how it had one chapter with a smaller frame, and another chapter in completely black and white, it actually feels consistent throughout the movie.

Nymphomaniac Volume 2 mostly succeeds in telling the rest of the story. It is harder to watch, darker and more uncomfortable, however that seemed to work for the story. As I said and detailed earlier though, the ending really didn’t just disappoint, it really worked against and detracted a lot from the movie. So even aside from the fact that Volume 1 is more enjoyable to watch, Volume 2 ends with a horrible taste in the mouth, and not the good kind, thus making it not as good as the first part of the story. All in all, I understand why it was split into two parts, the first volume of the story was rather overwhelming and there was a lot of story to cover from what I’ve seen (haven’t seen the director’s cut). However, I think it still would’ve been possible to cut down some things from both volumes and release Nymphomaniac as one 3 hour long movie (or even 3 hours and a half). Nymphomaniac isn’t a movie I want to rewatch ever again and I don’t know if I can ever recommend it, but I guess the best thing I can say is that if my reviews of it made you the least bit interested in it, go check it out and hopefully you’ll get something out of it.

Marrowbone (2018) Review

Time: 110 Minutes
Age Rating:
Cast:
George MacKay as Jack Marrowbone
Anya Taylor-Joy as Allie
Charlie Heaton as Billy Marrowbone
Mia Goth as Jane Marrowbone
Matthew Stagg as Sam Marrowbone
Kyle Soller as Tom
Nicola Harrison as Rose Marrowbone
Tom Fisher as Simon Fairbairn
Director: Sergio G. Sánchez

Three brothers (George MacKay, Charlie Heaton, Matthew Stagg) and a sister (Mia Goth) have just lost their mother. After her death they fear to be separated, so to protect themselves and prevent this from happening they decide to flee to an abandoned farm, a place that is not what it seems, because it hides a dark secret between its walls.

I had been meaning to watch Marrowbone for a while. It’s a horror movie starring Anya Taylor-Joy, Charlie Heaton and Mia Goth and is written and directed by the person who wrote The Orphanage (a horror movie I heard is good that I haven’t seen yet). With all that, it really interested me despite some rather mixed reactions to it. Marrowbone is a rather solid horror drama which actually really works quite well, more so when you understand what kind of movie it’s aiming to be, and in that it really succeeds.

Marrowbone is just under 2 hours long and I was pretty interested throughout. I think something that some people will not expect is that it’s more of a drama than a horror and is a bit of a slow burn. I had a feeling going in that it wasn’t going to be a jumpscare fest or a typical horror movie, so I was fine with that. So yeah, go into Marrowbone expecting a drama with horror elements. I will admit that I spoiled a big part of the movie for myself while watching it (looked up ahead at the plot by accident), that being like the last scene of the movie and thus a big twist. I will say however that watching the movie knowing this, I can say that it was done rather well and it didn’t feel overly predictable, yet it makes sense and doesn’t cheat the audience at all. With that said, there are some bits to it that do indicate which direction the movie is moving towards, and some bits that seem completely obvious, so you might be able to figure it out. Also there was a minor aspect of the movie that I found a little hard to buy happening in real life, it’s not completely impossible, just rather unlikely.

The cast is all great in their roles. The main cast is the family, which are made up of George MacKay, Charlie Heaton, Mia Goth and Matthew Stagg, with all of them doing a great job. Their characters aren’t particularly developed (for the most part) but their performances more than made up for it, elevating their parts quite well. Also by the end when certain things are revealed, I think the lack of character depth was okay. There’s also the addition of Anya Taylor-Joy (no stranger to horror movies) who as usual adds quite a lot to every movie that she appears in. She’s very much a supporting character but she’s really good when she’s on screen.

Sergio G. Sanchez is the director and as I said earlier, he’s at least familiar with horror movies and you can feel that watching the movie. It’s quite a good looking movie, the cinematography is good and so is the production design, everything feels appropriately in the 1960s. The scares didn’t really scare me at all, there’s quite a few jumpscares in the movie but it doesn’t really get that annoying. Marrowbone doesn’t really create a lot of tension throughout the movie, though when you consider the story in its entirety, it’s not that big of a problem (unless you’re expecting a pure horror movie). However there is some very effective tension made when it comes to a chimney in the movie.

Marrowbone isn’t quite what I and other people have expected it to be, but it really worked for me. The performances are great and it’s well directed and the story is really solid. I know that some people are rather mixed about it but I really do recommend checking it out sometime if you’re okay with watching a film that has some horror aspects to it.

Suspiria (2018) Review

Time: 152 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence, horror & nudity
Cast:
Dakota Johnson as Susie Bannion
Tilda Swinton as Madame Blanc/Mother Helena Markos/Dr. Josef Klemperer
Mia Goth as Sara Simms
Angela Winkler as Miss Tanner
Ingrid Caven as Miss Vendegast
Elena Fokina as Olga Ivanova
Sylvie Testud as Miss Griffith
Renée Soutendijk as Miss Huller
Christine LeBoutte as Miss Balfour
Fabrizia Sacchi as Pavla
Małgosia Bela as Mrs. Bannion/Death
Jessica Harper as Anke Meier
Chloë Grace Moretz as Patricia Hingle
Director: Luca Guadagnino

Young American dancer Susie Bannion (Dakota Johnson) arrives in 1970s Berlin to audition for the world-renowned Helena Markos Dance Co. When she vaults to the role of lead dancer, the woman she replaces (Chloe Grace-Mortez) breaks down and accuses the company’s female directors of witchcraft. Meanwhile, an inquisitive psychotherapist (Lutz Ebersdorf) and a member of the troupe (Mia Goth) uncover dark and sinister secrets as they probe the depths of the studio’s hidden underground chambers.

[youtube=

I was not really sure what to feel about the remake of Suspiria in the lead up to its release. I liked the cast involved and while I admit I’m not the biggest fan of Call Me By Your Name (I liked it though), the direction by Luca Guadagnino was fantastic and he would no doubt bring something great to this movie. However I just wasn’t especially looking forward to it. I watched the original (and reviewed it) and I liked it, a classic horror flick with stunning visuals, still I wasn’t really hyped for the remake. It was only when I was hearing the polarising reactions that got me excited for it, and from then on until I saw it at an early screening on Halloween my hype for it had been building and building. I had a great feeling about the latest Suspiria, and somehow the movie surpassed my expectations completely. Suspiria goes far beyond being a remake of the original, a beautiful and horrific nightmare of a movie that’s in a league of its own.

I think I should address some of the differences from the original movie, just briefly. As a remake, the only thing that’s similar to the original movie is the characters names, the setting and the initial setup. There may be similar plot points but overall it goes in a completely different direction from the original. The original film is a straightforward horror slasher/mystery movie, with strange things happening around a dance academy and the protagonist tries to figure out what’s going on. In the new movie, you learn pretty early on the main thing about what is going on behind the scenes and it’s not much like a familiar horror movie (though definitely has a lot of horror elements). Another interesting aspect is that it really goes out of its way to reference the time and location, with radio reports in the background about a hostage situation, little things like are interesting to see introduced here. 2018’s Suspiria is really all about something different to the original, so you don’t necessarily have to watch the 70s movie to get the full experience, but for those who have, its interesting seeing to see how differently it does things. Overall though, it’s more of a reinvention than just a remake.

Suspiria is broken up into 6 acts (I know this because title cards literally announce it for the audience) and it is about 2 hours and 30 minutes long, and the length and pacing will turn a lot of people off. It’s not quite like a normal horror movie, there aren’t many scares, and it takes it’s time. So it’s more than just a really disturbing horror movie. Personally I liked the pacing but I will say the early part of the movie does move at a slower pace, a little too slow for my liking but that didn’t bother me too much. You really need to give the movie your complete focus and attention, otherwise you could miss some details that could make following certain plotlines very difficult. There are multiple story plots going on and you have to really keep up with everything, it’s really a movie that requires more than one viewing because there is so much to process. Also I feel like a big part of whether you’re going to love this movie is whether you are completely invested in it. As I said the movie was slower to begin with but by the time it got to a certain painful dance scene, I was completely drawn into the movie’s world and atmosphere. From then on as the mystery continued and we get to see and learn more about what is happening, all the way to the 6th act which goes absolutely nuts. By the end I just felt exhausted and overwhelmed, it’s a lot to take in but I think it was all around a really rewardable experience. I tried my best to keep the plot details vague, it’s best going in not knowing too much about where this movie is going, I know this from personal experience.

The cast in here is all fantastic. Dakota Johnson as the lead character Susie is good but isn’t immediately impressive, it’s not like you instantly find her great or find her standing out from the rest. However, over time as the movie progresses you really get why Dakota Johnson is cast (just wait to see for yourself) and overall she was great. I feel like her performance will actually be better upon rewatches. Susie in the original movie (played by Jessica Harper) was much more of an innocent newcomer to the dance school sort of noticing weird and dangerous things and sort of investigating it. Dakota Johnson’s version is… different. Tilda Swinton is always fantastic in the movies that she’s in and her performance(s) here are no exception. Since it’s pretty known already now I won’t refrain from mentioning it (don’t worry it’s not a spoiler and doesn’t tie into the plot at all), she does play 3 roles, not just the role of Madame Blanc as advertised. She’s great as Blanc, the academy director. Her other role is as a psychotherapist named Josef Klemperer (Tilda originally playing the role under the name of Lutz Ebersdorf), a character not in the original movie and she’s very convincing. This character notices things aren’t quite right at the academy and a plotline is focussed on him looking into what’s happening. She also plays a third role that is probably best seeing for yourself. Also great is Mia Goth, I liked her in A Cure for Wellness and I loved her here as well. Here she’s one of the dancers and outside of Josef is really the one investigating what’s happening in the dance academy. She also gives the most human performance of all of the cast, I can’t wait to see more of her work. Chloe Grace Moretz is also good, although isn’t in the movie a ton. The rest of the cast are also really good.

From watching Call Me By Your Name, I knew that Luca Guadagnino would craft this movie well (even though they are completely different movies) and he absolutely did. One of the biggest changes from the original movie (and that’s saying a lot) is that the striking technicolour lighting and bright colour pallet is gone. Once again, Guadagnino goes for his own kind of movie, it is less colourful, less fantasy like and really giving off a feeling that’s much more cold and dark, and that was perfect for the film that Luca is going for (besides, no one could recreate the original’s visual style). The cinematography is really fantastic, the movements and everything were done so incredibly well, especially during the dance sequences. Despite it being set at a dance school, the original movie didn’t place too much emphasis on the dancing aspect but it does play a big part in the newer movie. So much of the dancing is animalistic and nightmarish, and were among some of the highlights of the movie. No, the movie wasn’t very scary, but I don’t think it was trying to be, not in a conventional horror sense at least. It is however very quite disturbing, if you are easily squeamish, this won’t do it for you. There are some very grotesque and gory sequences throughout the movie and particulary at the end. There’s particularly an infamous and much talked about scene in the 2nd or 3rd act (you know the one), by that point if you can’t handle that scene, the rest of the movie isn’t going to do it for you. I will admit that I don’t get uncomfortable in movies a lot, but here they really do make it hard to watch, really uncomfortable and chilling, so credit to Guadagnino for making them effectively horrifying.

Most of the visual effects are also pretty great, bar one that was used many times and it just looked out of place and goofy, like it should’ve been in the 1977 original instead of the 2018 version (you’ll know it when you see it). The editing is so effective, it makes the tense moments even more suspenseful and the hard to watch scenes much more biting and impactful. Sometimes there are some random shots spliced together in a nightmarish sort of way that gives a really unnerving feeling. The music by Thom Yorke is very unsettling and haunting, perfect for the movie. On another note, try to watch this in a cinema, I was very lucky to catch this in an early screening and I can’t imagine watching this on a smaller screen, it just wouldn’t have the same impact.

Suspiria was a completely overwhelming experience that blew me away on all fronts. The direction by Luca Guadagnino was fantastic, the cast were great and it still has stuck with me every since I saw it. It’s also not for everyone, even if you know what kind of movie you’re getting into beforehand there’s no guarantee that you’ll love or even like this movie. If you are able to stomach some brutal scenes and have patience for a slow moving 150 minute long movie, then at least give it a try, and try to watch it in the cinema. For me, this is one of the best horror films in recent years, one of the best films of the year, and currently (I know I’ve been saying this a lot recently) my personal favourite of 2018.

A Cure for Wellness (2017) Review

Time: 146 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence, sexual violence, offensive language & content that may disturb.
Cast
Dane DeHaan as Lockhart
Jason Isaacs as Dr. Heinreich Volmer
Mia Goth as Hannah
Director: Gore Verbinski

An ambitious young executive (Dane Dehaan) is sent to retrieve his company’s CEO from an idyllic but mysterious “wellness center” at a remote location in the Swiss Alps. He soon suspects that the spa’s miraculous treatments are not what they seem. When he begins to unravel its terrifying secrets, his sanity is tested, as he finds himself diagnosed with the same curious illness that keeps all the guests here longing for the cure. From Gore Verbinski, the visionary director of THE RING, comes the new psychological thriller, A CURE FOR WELLNESS.

A Cure for Wellness was very polarising upon its release, some hated it, others loved it. It definitely had a lot of potential, I liked the actors involved with Dane Dehaan and Jason Isaacs, I really like Gore Verbanski as a director and the trailer and premise of the movie was very intriguing. So I was definitely interested in how the film would be despite the mixed reaction. Having finally seen it, I personally think that it’s one of the best films of the year.

A Cure for Wellness is a long movie, it’s nearly 2 hours and 30 minutes long but it kept my interest from the beginning to the end. Yes, the pacing is quite slow at times, perhaps unnecessarily at times, but I was nonetheless engaged despite this. This movie is not completely different from anything we’ve seen before, watching it you can recognise some similarities to other movies (such as Shutter Island). What is different is the way the film tells its story, the structure is a little different, all the details of the movie are important to understanding everything, some of these aspects are ambigious and you actually have to really think about to full grasp what’s going on. I know this because that’s what happened with me, there were parts of the movie that I only understood hours after watching the movie, when certain things clicked for me I could more fully grasp what was going on. However generally the movie is straightforward, with maybe the exception with the ending (specifically the last shot of the movie) which is a little ambiguous. However, with many of the details being ambiguous and with all the twists and turns throughout the film, I can see A Cure For Wellness getting better upon repeat viewings. In terms of flaws, there aren’t many to be honest. There was a possible continuity error and the first act is non-linear for no reason really, it didn’t bother me or hinder the film but it did feel unnecessary. However that’s it to be honest.

The acting all around is great. Dane Dehaan is really good in the lead role. There is an aspect to the film where its questioning whether Dehaan’s character is just imagining and hallucinating a lot of what’s happening and Dane pulls it off well. Mia Goth is quite good as a unique patient at the wellness centre, her performance really worked for the movie. This is the first performance I’ve seen from her and I can tell that she’s very talented, she definitely deserves some more work. The best performance of the film however is from Jason Isaacs, who is in the role of the director of the wellness centre, a very sinister character, definitely leaves an impression on you.

The direction by Gore Verbenski is perfect. The cinematography was excellent, everything from the framing, to the camera movement, the lighting and colour was perfect. It’s a beautiful looking movie overall. This movie is full of disturbing imagery, things that make you genuinely uneasy and uncomfortable, and I don’t usually feel like this during movies so that says a lot. The production design is excellent, the location chosen for the majority of the film is a castle and it gives the film a very unique enbironment. This movie also does well at making you feel uneasy, you can tell that something is off, but a lot of the time you can’t pin it down what it is. The sound design was very effective and it all worked to feel very real and unnerving, the creaking sounds of Dane Dehaan’s crutches as he moves from place to place (he is on crutches for the majority of the film) was an example of this. The music by Benjamin Wallfisch ranges from being haunting and eerie to loud and intense, definitely very effective and memorable. I’m confident in saying that A Cure for Wellness is really one of the best directed movies of 2017 so far.

A Cure of Wellness gets everything right, the acting is great, the story is very intriguing and its different structure and storytelling method makes this a unique and fascinating movie. However, it is Gore Verbenski’s direction that ties everything together and makes everything work so well and makes this movie even better than it already is. As shown by the reactions, it seems that A Cure for Wellness is not for everyone. It is a weird movie, along with the dark tone and grim and grotesque imagery, it is a very different movie in terms of its structure, this structure could potentially turn some people off. If you are curious enough however I recommend checking it. I personally think that it’s safe to say that A Cure for Wellness is going to be one of those films which receives a mixed response upon its release but gains a cult following and is later appreciated as an excellent film.