Censor

"Censor" should on paper be a film that I would be instantly in to. Set in the "Video Nasties" time in the UK, it's about the story of a video censor and her descent into madness.

Similar stories have already been told in the likes of Berberian Sound Studio or Evil Ed - and while Censor has some brilliant moments of atmosphere and a haunting ending, the whole thing didn't really fully come together for me in the end.

I think maybe the psychological state of our protagonist was not established enough to fully believe her transition, so it all felt a bit too forced.

But there's still a lot to admire in Prano Bailey-Bond's debut feature, it just wasn't as engaging as I had hoped.

Censor isn't really a horror, nor is it a good slasher. They also tried to build up Giallo-like atmosphere, but I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, since it does not correspond well with the time period the film is set in.

The story is very short and basic, there's minimal acting and not that many details to make it interesting. There are no supporting characters, the main lead isn't particularly interesting as well. The ending is predictable and understandable (no ambiguity whatsoever).

It looks like they have used the setting only to oversaturate the film with hipster imagery, never going further with it.

Censor isn't a bad film, it just isn't interesting or engaging, they never try to show anything besides the visuals that serve no purpose other than eye candy for the hipsters (or how are these called today, IDK).

As someone who has a soft spot for Giallo and other "Video Nasties" of the 70s and 80s, I was intrigued by concept. It reminded me of "Evil Ed", a classic 90s film about a censor going mad, another film I have fond memories of (and which I can highly recommend to anyone who enjoyed this).

Censor starts strong - extremely strong. The photography is gorgeous, the use of color and sound are excellent and create a wonderful eerie, filthy arthouse feeling. Early gory scenes keep you on your toes for what may come.

Multiple plot points are set up: the media hype about violent movies and censorship, a killer supposedly imitating a killing from a movie the protagonist passed, someone leaking her identity to the press, a strange relationship with a coworker who seems to want to pass everything and of course her childhood trauma, manic search for her sister and relationship with her parents and a mysterious director who wants her to view his film after imitating her sister's childhood disappearance.

Considering all these excellent setups, it's a surprise then as the movie stumbles past the halfway point and leaves most plot points unresolved by the end. Yes, it's not that type of movie, it's not murder mystery or run of the mill thriller, but it fails to be a meaningful statement on censorship, video nasties or about someone's descent into madness.

I hate to say it, but "Evil Ed" did it better.

I still recommend the movie for its brilliant first half and a star making performance by Niamh Algar. She carries this movie, and it's hard to imagine it working with another actress in the part. There's a lot of talent here both in front of the camera and behind it. Sadly the film is less than the sum of its parts.

I liked that sorta Cronenberg-like atmosphere they created. Also as somebody mentioned here, the film definitely felt like giallo in some places, that weird feeling like you're watching from behind a wet window glass?

Good lead actress.

But the screenplay was bad, especially the ending.

I'll start by saying I am very glad I did not watch the trailer before viewing this film, and it is easy to see why some felt duped. To be clear, this is NOT a thriller. Do not go into this film expecting answers. Instead, it is an often-surreal (and in my opinion fascinating) look into a character's downward spiral. It is stylish, well-acted, and especially considering this is Prano Bailey-Bond's first feature it is surprising brave and bold with its narrative decisions. The film's greatest strength is its ambiguity, I also think this is where the film loses a lot of people.

I see a lot of reviews here complaining that this film has nothing to say, which is absolutely not true. However, it doesn't spoon feed you a concrete moral message such as "censorship = bad". It instead confronts these topics from multiple angles, both showing how ridiculous the conversation was around film during the video nasty era and also showing how a film can actually affect a vulnerable person's mind. I wouldn't go as far as to say it'll blow your mind with it's insightfulness, but it is at least trying to give the audience something worth thinking about, and I appreciate that.

Also, 84mins! Perfect length for a film like this, in fact some of my favourite films of the past couple of years have been below the 90min mark and I hope this trend continues.