wdavidmiller

The actors in this movie made you believe in their characters. Their actions, reactions, and incidental chatter sounded like people really talk.

Unfortunately that's the only nice thing I can say about this movie. The setting and setup is great... if Stephen King hadn't thought of it half a century ago. The direction is uneven, sprinkling a few interesting scenes into an hour-and-a-half of ennui. And the writing.... Four characters that I cared nothing about, trying to survive, or not, whatever. This movie-other than the actors-came across like the product of a high school English assignment from an ineffective teacher: "Write a new ending for 'The Shining.' And remember, if less is more, then nothing must be everything!"

It's hard to watch a character turn into a gibbering idiot because he/she is in shock. It's a trope that has been largely retired from Hollywood since the 60s. The slobbery babbling does nothing to advance the plot, and you feel like every second you watch them communicate that they are AFRAID is like sitting in a dentist's chair. This movie doesn't have one or two of these stereotypes, but virtually every character falls back on this tired cliché of play acting.

Not that the script gives the actors much to work with. The dialogue is predictable and as entertaining as listening to two old men play chess. (Actually, some of those games would beat the conversations in this movie.). The directing is fair, but the decision to show the monster in clear view at the beginning of the movie erased any hint of suspense. And surely at some point someone must have noticed that the monster looked like a reject from an old Dr. Who episode. I imagine if you took the time to advance the slides on slow motion you'd see a zipper or two.

This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen. The idea is a good one, and the scenery is nice to look at. But this film is just one more frustrating example of cinema gone bad. Quality horror movies are not impossible (Alien, The Shining, Lake Mungo, Rec), but apparently they are just too much trouble for too many productions.

Those who think this is supposed to be a regular adrenaline-inducing movie are sadly disappointed. Those who understand this is another modern interpretation of a Shakespeare classic are intrigued. The acting is solid, the direction is polished, and the soundtrack moves us along the story right to the end. Many of Shakespeare's works have translated well onto the big screen in a modern setting. Macbeth (2015), Romeo + Juliet (1999), and Hamlet (2000) starring, again, Ethan Hawke are just a few examples. The English of Shakespeare is not easy to follow if you are unfamiliar with the story (closed captions help), so a ten-minute summary on YouTube before you watch the film will go a long way.

Expectation is the key to enjoying this production. Expect Shakespeare, not Michael Bay.