Released on an avalanche of hype last year, The Void received a considerable amount of positive comparisons to 80's horror, particularly the work of John Carpenter, with most reviews contrasting it with his remake of The Thing. Online, reactions were more mixed, with many citing a lack of focus on the behalf of the filmmakers and a script that almost seemed made up as it went along.
The reality falls somewhere in between. Much like the creature in Carpenter's version of The Thing, The Void is kind of the sum of its many different parts, and to some extent, it does feel a bit unfinished at times, as if it weren't quite allowed to finish its transition from all of those parts to a fully realized finished product. The end result feels more like a "greatest hits of horror" than a movie, but it's certainly watchable.
The ingredients include: some body horror, with a particular emphasis on the horrors of pregnancy, a la Cronenberg circa The Brood (with a little bit of The Fly tossed in for good measure); some cult-driven horror, as seen in The Wicker Man or The Kill List; the whole gambit of trapping a group of people in an isolated location to fight for their lives, such as in Night of the Living Dead (which is actually shown playing on TV in the movie); otherworldly horrors from another dimension, like the work of famed horror author H.P. Lovecraft, or as seen in movies inspired by his work like From Beyond, In the Mouth of Madness or The Dunwich Horror; and yes, some gory, shape-changing beasties, a la The Thing.
Factor in some metaphysical, physics-defying psychological horror, as seen in Kubrick's The Shining or Raimi's Evil Dead- remember how the houses seemed to defy logical construction and twist and turn in ways they couldn't possibly have IRL?- and an ending straight out of Fulci's The Beyond and you basically have this movie. Is it original in the slightest? No- it's as if the screenwriters filled out a horror-themed Mad Libs and went with that. But is it reasonably entertaining? Sure.
The set-up is indeed straight out of The Thing, only with a human instead of a dog. We see two people corner a man (Evan Stern, Robocop) and a woman, killing the woman violently, while the man runs for his life, the other men in hot pursuit. None of it is explained at the time- this is just how the film begins: in media res, as they say.
The man all but collapses in the road, where he is picked up by a cop, Daniel Carter (Aaron Poole, TV's Salvation), who spirits him to a nearby hospital, where his ex-wife, Allison Fraser (Kathleen Munroe, TV's Resurrection and Alphas) works. The hospital is in the process of being closed down, a la Assault on Precinct 13, so staff and working equipment is in short supply.
As if that weren't enough, there's also a crazy cult of hooded figures prowling around outside, ready to pounce on anyone that tries to escape. But why? Needless to say, it's a lot to take in, and I can see where some might find all these disparate elements overwhelming- and worse, confusing as all get out.
Basically, the filmmakers are gambling on the fact that the viewers have seen those movies, too, and, as such, will be able to fill in the blanks themselves. I was able to, certainly, as evidenced by my success in playing "spot the reference" above, but will the average audience? Obviously, a lot depends on how well-versed you are in old-school horror.
If you aren't, expect to be lost a good deal of the time, though the film isn't that hard to follow until about the halfway mark, around the time the cop goes in search of his missing ex-wife in the basement of the hospital. One problem with that- there IS no basement. It's at that point that things start to get really out there, for better or for worse.
On the one hand, I'll give the film this much- all of the aforementioned disparate elements do tie together reasonably well for those paying attention, even if you haven't seen the movies I mentioned. On the other hand, to what end, really? The ending- and this really isn't even a spoiler- isn't really an ending at all, but more of a beginning. (You'll just have to see it to see what I mean.)
As such, a lot depends on the kind of horror you like. Do you like your horror open-ended, leaving a lot to the viewer's imagination? Or do you prefer solid, fixed endings, in which everything is explained in the end? Oddly enough, we actually DO get a little of both.
In addition to the more out-there, choose-your-own-adventure style ending, there's also a more fixed one in which certain characters' fates are revealed and we have a pretty good idea where they stand. Some main characters die, others live, in other words.
While one could debate whether or not those who "die" really die, or if they live on in another plane of existence, as is heavily implied, it does seem fairly concrete who lives, at least. So, those looking for answers get some to a certain degree, thanks to a particular character who we might as well call "Exposition Man"- played by Twin Peaks vet Kenneth Welsh, appropriately enough. (Fans of that show will know what I mean.)
But it may not be enough for some, as it does leave a fair amount of unanswered questions- and gaping plot holes. For instance, if the man from the beginning is contagious, and can spread his insanity to others, why does he basically act pretty rational for most of the film? Is he cured at some point? And if so, how? And why are some people affected by him and not others?
Then we have the cult's master plan, which makes little sense. What was the main goal there? It seems like it failed, and yet, we still have that crazy ending. What are we to make of it? Or did the plan succeed and I'm just misunderstanding what the plan was in the first place? I think I got the gist of it, but I'm not entirely sure.
Still, I'm not mad that the film didn't wrap everything up in a tidy little box. I don't mind a good ambiguous ending, as long as it's well done, and this one was, at least to a certain degree. I mean, at the very least, we got two solid endings, one in which the main story "above-ground" was finished, and another "below-ground," which was not. I can live with that. But I suspect some may not care for it.
And TBH, I get both sides of the coin. I guess how much you enjoy this rests on how crazy you are about the fact that the film tries to have it both ways. At the same time, it's not as if it blatantly leaves the door open for a sequel, either. One can easily see where there could be one, likely with a whole new cast of characters, perhaps with the return of a few, just to serve as a go-between.
But it could just as easily be a one-and-done stand-alone movie and that would be fine, too. If anything, sometimes it's over-explaining things where people get into trouble. Think of, say, the infamous "Architect" scene in The Matrix Revolutions.
On the other hand, and on the opposite end of the spectrum, there's the ending of TV's Lost, which really pissed a lot of people off by being too open-ended and leaving a lot of unanswered questions. The Void lies somewhere in the middle of these two approaches, and that may indeed tick some people off. I guess it all depends on your personal tastes.
Personally, I enjoyed the movie well enough, even if I still had a lot of questions when it was over. I wouldn't have minded more answers, sure, but at the same time, I'm also glad they didn't overdo it. As a hardcore David Lynch fan, I can do ambiguity just fine, and I prefer it to the whole Hitchcockian approach of "Let's explain everything in the last five minutes." The Void explains just enough to not leave the viewer feeling like they've been cheated, IMHO.
For those who do prefer everything wrapped up tidy at the end, maybe this isn't the movie for you. On the plus side, though, it's got solid special effects (many of which are old-school practical FX, for those of who who loathe over-use of CGI), the cast is decent, and there are enough solid twists that even those people who are not completely satisfied by the ending may find themselves entertained, at least.
In short, not unlike the creature in The Thing, it's a mixed bag. It's nowhere near the classic that film is, but it's watchable, nonetheless. I get the sense that the filmmakers made exactly the film they set out to, for better or worse, which is more than you can say about some films. Whether or not they succeeded in making a good film is up to the eye of the beholder, I suppose.
Check it out- but lower your expectations, and don't buy into the hype too much. I look forward to seeing what the filmmakers come up with next, though. If it's half as interesting as this- or better yet, even more interesting and better-thought-out- it could be something really special.
Emoji Review: 👨👩😨💨👨👱😠👩💥💀👨💨👮🚨💨🏥👨👱💨👨💤👹🙎😈🔪👦💀👨👱😠💪👮🔫🏥👻😨👩😧👶👧💉👨👹💀💀💀👇💫✨🌠👫👹
No comments:
Post a Comment