The Unbinding

Ok, I can see from other reviews that this documentary was a labor of love for many and tells a story that is clearly very important to its community. I totally respect that.

I think that you get from it what you bring to it. It invites you to go along for a journey. It doesn't force anything on you, and you have to pay attention.

If you like intentional, slow-burn stuff, especially the original Wicker Man with Christopher Lee, this is potentially up your alley. You can sit back and try to find the cracks in the facade and play the "Wait, how much of this do they actually believe?" game and still have a really good time with this film, but keeping your cynicism at bay for an hour or two gives the best experience.

If you are tired of seeing the same old story/format over and over and over again, give this a try. It's rare to find something that is truly different and it's genuinely hard to categorize. Let this one in.

This is quite blatantly a scripted, fiction film, that is- for some reason- listed here as a "documentary".

It's not.

And is quite clear about that fact.

That being said...the reasons for this become obvious when you learn who the filmmakers behind the project are: the husband and wife team of Greg and Dana Newkirk.

A couple who run a museum and podcast dedicated to haunted objects, and stories about haunted objects.

So...this is effectively just an elaborate marketing pitch, and call for you to send them your claimed to be haunted items for free...so they can put it in their museum, and make bank off it.

Now...I do believe in haunted objects...I have a painting called "Evil Man", which has a demonic entity attached to it.

So...I am by no means a skeptic.

However...the story presented here- about an effigy found in the Catskills mountain, with nails driven into the eyes, that is said to be haunted a "Crone" type entity- is quite absurd.

And backed by no evidence whatsoever...other than unfounded, unreliable, unreplicatable "ghost hunting" techniques that can easily be dismissed.

As previously noted...when all is said and done, it's actually quite clear that the whole thing is scripted.

They not only allude to this fact...but even poke fun at it.

So, as a documentary...it has zero value.

Though, as a mockumentary...you might argue it's cleverly done.

That is...if you ignore that it's mainly a feature length commercial for themselves, and their museum.

Acting as a desperate plea for you to send them your thought to be haunted objects.

So it doesn't deserve anything more than a 2.5 out of 10.

Which is being generous.

By no stretch of the imagination is this a documentary, not journalism, not contemporaneously filmed, no suggestion that it is fact, no evidence to demonstrate or support the idea that it is fact.

It reminds me of the mockumentary style of the drowned man by Markiplier or some other similar efforts.

If it weren't for the fact that it is a blatant attempt to draw susceptible wanna believes to their other content, if it wasn't for the fact that the production value and continuity is so poor, if it wasn't for the fact that the script is so weak, it could have been a good plot for a comedy.

Unfortunately it fails on every level, I did laugh out loud at a couple of the absurd moments in the film but I probably wasn't meant to.

What on earth were you thinking? You should not be making films, you should not be writing scripts and you certainly shouldn't be acting in them.

I have experienced many paranormal events and seen many inexplicable things during my life. This film makes a complete mockery of a rather more serious subject and may actually push people away from wanting to find out the truth.

Dong do it again, it is just a cynical exercise.

This is not a horror film, nor can it be categorized as part of the typical paranormal reality tv genre, rather it is an investigation into a series of mysterious (and creepy) events surrounding a strange figurine, and the search for answers.

The Newkirks' approach to this investigation is a deep dive into folklore, mythology, religion and witchcraft, combined with their insatiable curiosity, respect, and humor. The atmospheric cinematography, soundtrack, and audio mix draw the viewer into the Newkirk's world.

Their investigation spans several years, and the film relies on recreations from time to time to illustrate the teams' personal experiences, but the look and feel - moody, dark and eerie - is consistent throughout.

Watching this film leaves the viewer with a desire for more opportunities to travel into the Newkirks' world in search of answers - or at least insight - into the unexplainable.

Like I said in the title, I knew nothing about this film before watching it. It popped up on some random Amazon Prime list when I was in the mood for a horror movie, I googled the name and saw the RT and IMDB scores were decent, and I watched it.

Looking at the reviews here, I have learned that the cast are actual real-life paranormal investigators, with a sizable fandom and a smattering of detractors (who seem to be duking it out in the reviews).

And I am very confused. I keep trying to write a review, deleting it all, and starting over.

I 100% thought it was a mockumentary. I'm still not sure that it isn't. I mean, I think it's certainly fiction, because I think paranormal stuff isn't real (sincerely sorry, not attempting to bash people's beliefs).

But, I don't know if the cast also think it's not real. I mean, obviously they think paranormal stuff is real. But did these events happen? Or are they just a story they're telling? Or are they dramatizing something that kind of happened, and they're fancying it up with little creepy vignettes?

And is this a deceptive thing? Like, are they positing that this is a 100% true story, and we're supposed to believe it's 100% true?

Or, is it a real story that's been kind of dramatized for the film, and we're supposed to know that it is?

Or, are these ghost hunters who are telling us a creepy fictional story, and we're supposed to know that it's just a fictional story?

What level am I supposed to be watching this on?!

When I thought this was a mockumentary, I thought it was pretty good. Naturalistic dialogue, great restraint with the scary parts, really believable relationships. I even thought some of the bit characters, like the Russian Studies professor, were fantastic actors.

Of course, now that I know it's real, it's really thrown me for a loop. I think that, if I were to watch it again through that lens, I might have an entirely different take on the film. When I thought these people were actors, I thought they were doing a fantastic job. Now that I know they're actual paranormal investigators, I think it's kind of embarrassing, and more than a little self-aggrandizing.

When I was still ignorant to the nature of the film, I thought all the goddess/folklore talk at the end of the movie was kind of smarmy and boring. I'm not a big fan of Horror movies that have a moralistic, happy ending. Basically, if the evil spirit gets put to rest, and the heroes live to fight another day, and we all learned something valuable, I'm not usually a big fan.

But the rest of the film was fine, so I gave it a pass.

But now, knowing that these people aren't actors, isn't that kind of....self-aggrandizing? They really believe they helped an ancient Slavic goddess? It's one thing to have a character say all this saccharine dialogue about beliefs and stuff, it's another thing entirely to just...say it.