Don't Say Its Name

When I watch any film, but particularly my favoured genre I ask a few questions. Did they love what they did, did they treat the audience with respect, and how did the do with what they have.

I was extremely impressed with Don't Say Its Name.

You can tell they had a passion for the story they told, which is both Indigenous, and Universal. The freshness and realness of the people who were real people and not just caricatures comes through for the whole thing. For those of us who are descended from colonizers, this story may very well provoke a reaction. That's another piece of an extremely well crafted puzzle.

They respected me and my time as the audience. The scares, while not intense, were earned and not cheap. I am really used to being treated like an idiot by a large section of the horror genre, and it was really nice to be able to watch something that wanted me to pay attention to the people and the ideas in the story.

They did a tremendous amount with what they had. They alternated between CGI and practical effects with a deft hand for, despite Telefilm and SuperChannel funding was not a huge budget film. They made the story work for them, and there were large parts of the movie where I actually lost track of the time, and that's really rare in horror films these days, especially when you're watching on TV Streaming services with all your devices around asking for attention.

While it's true that at it's heart it's not a blazingly original idea there are few of those left, and they took a classic story and made it their own.

I was really impressed - this is well worth your time.

I had the opportunity to sit down and watch the 2021 horror movie "Don't Say Its Name". And I did so without having the slightest clue what the movie was about, aside from it being a horror movie. But it being a horror movie that I hadn't already seen was sufficient to make me want to watch it.

Now, I am not by any means familiar with Inuit folklore or myths, so the whole Wheetago thing was new to me. That being said, then I will also say that writers Rueben Martell and Gerald Wexler actually managed to put together an entertaining enough movie.

But while "Don't Say Its Name" wasn't a milestone in horror cinema, not even by a longshot, then it was actually an entertaining enough movie for what it turned out to be. And I do believe that this was my very first Inuit horror movie ever seen.

The acting performances in "Don't Say Its Name" were good. And I wasn't familiar with a single actress or actor that were in the movie, and that is something that I enjoy in movies.

Visually then "Don't Say Its Name" was actually surprisingly good. They definitely managed to put together the visual CGI effects well enough and that certainly added a lot to the movie.

"Don't Say Its Name" was a nice surprise, though hardly a movie that I will return to watch a second time. Nor is it movie that I would recommend horror fans to rush out to get their hands on.

Watchable, although not an outstanding movie. My rating of "Don't Say Its Name" lands on a five out of ten stars.

This film packs in a lot of complex themes into its story without being one sided or overly preachy.

Unfortunately, much of what it explores is hampered by a less than perfect delivery.

Watching this you can't help wishing someone with a stronger vision and more deft touch had been behind the wheel.

Where the movie could have used subtlety to communicate, it relied on dialog and over the top characters.

That had the unfortunate effects of slowing the pace down and giving too much away, too soon.

The mystery and suspense aspects of this film are therefore less successful than the social commentary and supernatural elements.

Still, there is enough in Don't Say Its Name to be worth your time.

You simply need to approach the film when you are feeling patient enough to overlook its flaws, in favor of focusing on its strengths.

This movie was actually pretty solid. Not really for me, but that doesn't mean others cant enjoy it. The story is decently engaging though the audio mixing is ATROCIOUS. To the point where I almost wanted to turn it off entirely but I managed to stick it through. Subtitles are your friend here.

The acting is actually pretty good, the scenery is very beautiful (movie takes place in Alaskan woods on a rez) but the transition between scenes is a bit lackluster and makes things a little hard to follow. There's also not really a clear timeline unless you really pay attention to the day/night cycles in the movie.

There's a more than a few scenes that honestly didn't need to be there, or were just written poorly which sadly detracts from the movie but they aren't so egregious that it totally, totally ruins it. I think by far the most angering part of the movie is the cold open as it was a situation that could've been avoided if she just....didn't keep walking in front of a suspicious car but ah well.

Poor acting from virtually all the cast denigrates what would otherwise have been an average supernatural "myth" movie.

Quite boring with lots of extended conversations about the meaning of life ie padded script fillers which just seemed like the writer did not have much to say.

The special effects / gore looks like tomato sauce (and not even of HP quality, more your Lidl cheapo watery variety) and the horror is the usual invisible predator to save cash. It is obviously low budget and to be fair I do judge based on many things including the movie budget but this was just badly made - from the absolutely out of place music which really annoyed me at points in the movie where it jarred badly as it was so out of place.

Then we have the rather poor acting from the main female lead - it was as if she was reading off a cue card at times. She was so out of place as a Ripley / Vasquez hard-ass female ex-army vet, it elicited a chuckle on more than one occasion - what was the casting director thinking?

Nope as a horror movie this one is a bit of a plonker!