You're Next
1/4
Starring: Sharni Vinson, Nicholas Tucci, Wendy Glenn, AJ Bowen, Joe Swanberg, Rob Moran, Margaret Laney, AmySeimetz, Barbara Crampton
Rated R for Strong Bloody Violence, Language and Some Sexuality/Nudity
Why would anyone want to see this movie? Seriously, there is nothing of value here unless you're looking for a bunch of generic slasher movie scenes strung together with a plot too thin to sustain a ten minute short. The acting is lousy, the characters are boring and stupid and annoying. And the camera rarely stops shaking.
For their thirty-fifth anniversary, Paul (Moran) and Aubrey (Crampton) are bringing their children (plus each's romantic interest) to celebrate at their out of the way vacation home. Crispian (Bowen) brings his new girlfriend Erin (Vinson), Felix (Tucci) brings goth Zee (Glenn), Drake (Swanberg) brings Kelly (Laney), and Aimee (Seimetz) brings Tariq ("The Innkeepers" director Ti West, who might want to deny ever appearing in this film if he wants to keep his reputation as a master of horror). As they're having dinner, Tariq gets up and investigates something from outside. Then he gets an arrow through the head, although it takes an awfully long time for everyone to realize it. That's when more arrows start flying and the body count rises. They soon realize that there are three psychos wearing animal masks on the loose intending to create a bloodbath in the middle of nowhere.
One of the main problems is that director Adam Wingard has no idea what he wants his film to be. Is it a "wink wink nudge nudge" spoof of the pseudo-documentary horror? Is it a black comedy/slasher? Is it camp? Wingard doesn't know, and appears to be attempting all of them. It doesn't work. At all.
After a violent opening scene, the film starts by introducing us to the way too numerous characters. Unfortunately, it's all tedious. The characters are personality deprived jerks. The exception is Erin, who turns out to have a legitimate character to play (or what passes for one). Shortly thereafter, the bloodletting starts.
Not that it gets any better. The kill scenes are badly staged, and occasionally funny (albeit entirely unintentionally). Even worse, Wingard insists on going the Paul Greengrass route and shaking the camera so we can't get a good look at what's going on. Done right, this sort of thing can work. It is not done right here. Looking back, I'm wondering if the cameraman was drunk.
In all fairness, Wingard's film isn't a complete disaster. He manages to successfully produce a shock or two, and one or two of the lines are moderately amusing. Plus there was one twist that I didn't see coming (not that I cared). But that's it.
In a small way, "You're Next" is a victim of timing. After the senseless murder of Christopher Lane, an hour of pointless (I'm not going to punish it for being gratuitous, since that comes with the territory) brutal violence is in bad taste. I would be more kind to it, I suppose, if it was in the service of a story or served a purpose, but that's not the case here. Controversial material, even if it addresses fresh wounds, can be acceptable if it deals with the material in an intelligent and honest way ("O, "Tim Blake Nelson's modern-day "Othello" and Greengrass's "United 93" are two examples). That's not the case here. The violence doesn't serve any purpose except to satisfy gorehounds who are sick of "horror" movies for the "Twilight" crowd. Lionsgate should have pushed back the release date after the tragedy (or, considering its utter lack of value, buried it next to "ET" game for the Atari).
The film received great reviews at midnight screenings. I'm wondering if those audiences were as intoxicated as the cameraman appears to be. Only a person with impaired faculties could find any enjoyment from this movie.
Starring: Sharni Vinson, Nicholas Tucci, Wendy Glenn, AJ Bowen, Joe Swanberg, Rob Moran, Margaret Laney, AmySeimetz, Barbara Crampton
Rated R for Strong Bloody Violence, Language and Some Sexuality/Nudity
Why would anyone want to see this movie? Seriously, there is nothing of value here unless you're looking for a bunch of generic slasher movie scenes strung together with a plot too thin to sustain a ten minute short. The acting is lousy, the characters are boring and stupid and annoying. And the camera rarely stops shaking.
For their thirty-fifth anniversary, Paul (Moran) and Aubrey (Crampton) are bringing their children (plus each's romantic interest) to celebrate at their out of the way vacation home. Crispian (Bowen) brings his new girlfriend Erin (Vinson), Felix (Tucci) brings goth Zee (Glenn), Drake (Swanberg) brings Kelly (Laney), and Aimee (Seimetz) brings Tariq ("The Innkeepers" director Ti West, who might want to deny ever appearing in this film if he wants to keep his reputation as a master of horror). As they're having dinner, Tariq gets up and investigates something from outside. Then he gets an arrow through the head, although it takes an awfully long time for everyone to realize it. That's when more arrows start flying and the body count rises. They soon realize that there are three psychos wearing animal masks on the loose intending to create a bloodbath in the middle of nowhere.
One of the main problems is that director Adam Wingard has no idea what he wants his film to be. Is it a "wink wink nudge nudge" spoof of the pseudo-documentary horror? Is it a black comedy/slasher? Is it camp? Wingard doesn't know, and appears to be attempting all of them. It doesn't work. At all.
After a violent opening scene, the film starts by introducing us to the way too numerous characters. Unfortunately, it's all tedious. The characters are personality deprived jerks. The exception is Erin, who turns out to have a legitimate character to play (or what passes for one). Shortly thereafter, the bloodletting starts.
Not that it gets any better. The kill scenes are badly staged, and occasionally funny (albeit entirely unintentionally). Even worse, Wingard insists on going the Paul Greengrass route and shaking the camera so we can't get a good look at what's going on. Done right, this sort of thing can work. It is not done right here. Looking back, I'm wondering if the cameraman was drunk.
In all fairness, Wingard's film isn't a complete disaster. He manages to successfully produce a shock or two, and one or two of the lines are moderately amusing. Plus there was one twist that I didn't see coming (not that I cared). But that's it.
In a small way, "You're Next" is a victim of timing. After the senseless murder of Christopher Lane, an hour of pointless (I'm not going to punish it for being gratuitous, since that comes with the territory) brutal violence is in bad taste. I would be more kind to it, I suppose, if it was in the service of a story or served a purpose, but that's not the case here. Controversial material, even if it addresses fresh wounds, can be acceptable if it deals with the material in an intelligent and honest way ("O, "Tim Blake Nelson's modern-day "Othello" and Greengrass's "United 93" are two examples). That's not the case here. The violence doesn't serve any purpose except to satisfy gorehounds who are sick of "horror" movies for the "Twilight" crowd. Lionsgate should have pushed back the release date after the tragedy (or, considering its utter lack of value, buried it next to "ET" game for the Atari).
The film received great reviews at midnight screenings. I'm wondering if those audiences were as intoxicated as the cameraman appears to be. Only a person with impaired faculties could find any enjoyment from this movie.
Comments
Post a Comment