Murphy and Peters survived the messy amalgamation of cults. AHS: Cult – TV series review

Undergone intense rewrites, the seventh season of American Horror Story has, finally, embraced the US presidential election as main plotline.

Cult, the very much explanatory title given to the season, is really an amalgamation of themes and storylines.

Mostly, we follow Kai (Evan Peters), a deranged dude who sees the victory of Trump as an opportunity for underdogs to rise to the power in the United States. The fictional city of Brookfield Heights, Michigan is indeed left divided by the election outcome and Kai is using people fears and uncertainty to achieve his sick goals.

AHS Cult 1.gifIn fact, Peters’ character orchestrates acts of terrorism, fake assaults and, especially, a gang of killer clowns (not from outer space, this time around) to weaken the sense of security of Brookfield Heights. Long story short, Kai Anderson wants to become a dictator and manipulates people’s feelings to achieve that.

Continue reading “Murphy and Peters survived the messy amalgamation of cults. AHS: Cult – TV series review”

Advertisements

The most Lovecraftian out of King’s adaptations. 1922 – movie review

In 1922, Wilfred James (Thomas Jane, Dreamcatchers and The Mist), a farmer in Nebraska, is dealing with hard moments in his wedding. His wife Arlette (Molly Parker, House of Cards) wants to sell the land, get a divorce and take with her the couple’s teenage son (Henry, played by Dylan Schmid) to Omaha, to live the city life. Continue reading “The most Lovecraftian out of King’s adaptations. 1922 – movie review”

A feature-length Goosebumps episode; only less scary and very uninspired. Wish Upon – movie review.

After Mortal Kombat: Annihilation (1997), Butterfly Effect 2 (2006) and Annabelle (2014), it’s now official: John R. Leonetti is among the worst horror directors ever!

Mind you, I never go into a flick wishing (no pun intended) it’s awful. As a matter of fact, I’m quite excited whenever I watch a film, even when the synopsis sounds laughably bad. Sure, I have my opinions on certain subjects or directors, but I try not to be biased while watching a film. For instance, I’m not the biggest fan of Andy Muschietti, but I can’t deny IT is one of the best horror films of the year and that he made a pretty great job with the material he had to work with.

All of this boring and self-referential intro is to explain that, no matter how hard I tried to find redeeming qualities in Wish Upon, this is a God-awful movie.

Firstly, the plot is taken by an episode of the Goosebumps TV series – Be Careful What You Wish For – which is more entertaining than Leonetti’s movie, despite the TV series campiness and the fact that it was made for children.

Wish Upon 217-year-old Claire (Joey King) is bullied at school, unpopular and unlucky with boys; until her father gives her a Chinese wish box. Claire uses it to wish for a better school life but soon enough discovers that every desire she tells the box requires a blood payment and people around her die inexplicably.

Before going into the analysis of technical flaws, let me just state that the script is highly stupid, almost downright offensive.

Wish Upon 1Claire, the character we are supposed to root for, discovers she has 7 wishes at her disposal and decides to use them to harm school rivals, get the boyfriend of her dreams, gain popularity. Not even once she thinks about, I don’t know, wish for world peace? End of terrorism? Nicolas Cage for President of the World?

Seriously, though, her character has been written so badly and that’s entirely Barbara Marshall’s fault and her dumb script.

Besides a terrible person as the lead and a silly script, Leonetti’s direction of Wish Upon is totally formulaic and aims to naïve horror viewers. For example, I counted the horror tropes (dog sensing things, dark shades moving around, lights out for no reason…) utilised in the movie: twenty-four! Basically, this flick rips off everything that has been done, with better results, in previous movies.

Plus, the soundtrack is mundane at best. It doesn’t match the tone of the movie and seems more suitable for a straight to television rom-com.

Even the colour scheme is generic and uninspired: this film uses a bluish tone throughout, a la The Ring, that should make us feel in danger, while the only feeling I got from this movie was boredom.

Wish Upon 3Also, other than an unintentionally laughable scene (a slap-fight in school between two girls), Wish Upon doesn’t even belong to the ‘so bad, it’s good’ category. Which is something that could have made this movie slightly enjoyable!

As a scary movie, Leonetti’s work fails on every level possible: throughout the entire runtime, there isn’t a single tense moment, a single effective jump-scare. Gore and violence? Forget about it. As a PG13 flick, Wish Upon doesn’t even dare using those techniques.

In conclusion, add the aspects mentioned above with some product placement and a few unimaginative deaths, and you’ll get a soulless, money-grabbing flick with no redeeming quality whatsoever. I feel sorry about being so hard on this movie, but that’s what it deserves. Cheers!

Classics of Horror #10 – Halloween (1978)

John Carpenter’s Halloween is the first modern slasher and, therefore, it inspired every other flick of this sub-genre ever since, including the beloved Friday the 13th and Nightmare franchises.

Halloween 1For horror purists, I know that some previous films could be considered as slasher as well: Psycho (1960) represents a prime example. Nonetheless, Halloween had redefined the sub-genre and made it suitable for mass audiences and many forms of exploitation.

Basically, John Carpenter’s low-budget film represents for the slasher sub-genre what The Blair Witch Project (1999) meant for the found-footage style: it’s been done before by Ruggero Deodato’s Cannibal Holocaust, but BWP undeniably gave it an unprecedented popularity.

Halloween 2.jpgHalloween, which is the turning point of my series on The Classics of Horror, tells the simple story of Michael Myers who escapes a psychiatric institution he’s been locked up in 15 years before, in light of the murder of his sister when he was only a child.

The serial killer on a loose comes back to Haddonfield on a Halloween night to satisfy his blood thirst and kill the local teenagers.

As oppose to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), which I didn’t like as much upon second view, Halloween deeply struck me the second time I watched, in order to right this review.

In general, the first film of what would have become a successful franchise based on Michael Myers is just an amazing, unpretentious, entertaining movie.

However, three factors made me fall in love with it.

Firstly, the good characters are extremely compelling. In comparison to the majority of slasher flicks (actually, 99% of the slasher flicks), the three main girls (played by Jamie Lee Curtis, Nancy Kyes and P.J. Soles) are well-rounded and feature different, distinguishable traits. Their ways of speaking resemble closely the way teenage girls used to argue with each other in the late 70s, which provides the film with an extra layer of realism.

Halloween 6.jpgYet, Donald Pleasence as Doctor Loomis – the psychiatrist who took care of Myers for 15 years – is simply eye-grabbing. His performance is fully rounded and features a vast range of emotions which make for a compelling character who, basically, carries an entire sub-plot along by himself.

Another prime character in Halloween is the soundtrack: composed by John Carpenter himself, the score is iconic to say the least and it’s able to deliver a subtle sense of angst that never fades away. Personally, I think the sound design alone makes the film worth watching.

Halloween 3.pngFinally, the cinematography is spotless. Every single shot is a feist for the eye and, in my humble opinion, such a high level of gorgeous cinematography has never been reached since in a non-artsy horror film (with the exception of It Follows, 2014, which indeed constantly pays homage to Halloween).

Halloween 4The combination between music, camera-work and photography creates an overall dreadful atmosphere which doesn’t need Michael Myers on screen to give the audience goosebumps. Some shots that frame Myers from behind, while focusing on other characters are just so simply beautiful. At the same time, long sequences composed by single takes give a realistic impression, make you feel like you’re integral part of the Haddonfield community to the point that you could communicate with Laurie, Annie or Linda.

Besides that, Halloween is just an entertaining flick with a few, tiny, plot holes that can be easily overlooked: for instance, after having been in a mental institution for 15 years, Myers escapes and drives a car, something that, realistically, he shouldn’t be able to do.

Halloween 5If I could only change something about the film, it would be Myers’ behaviour in certain scenes. In the first half of the movie, the villain just stares at people from behind bushes, cars, trees and so on, which is not really scary or unsettling in my opinion.

On the other hand, though, I understand that this specific behaviour humanises his character rather than turning him into an indestructible monster – which, eventually, he became in the sequels.

All in all, I think Halloween should on everybody’s must-watch list and, although not really frightening, it well deserves its spot among the classics of the genre. One last suggestion: if you can get the Blu-ray of this film, please do, it will make your viewing experience unforgettable.

The Classics of Horror #8 – The Exorcist (1973)

I knew when I started my blog that, sooner or later, I would have gotten the chance to review this genre masterpiece. And now I feel like I’m not ready to do it.

What can you say about an exceptional product that has been disected over and over throughout the years by the best critics in history? How do you approach the “scariest movie ever made” and make it justice? What smart comment can you add to what has been said millions of times before?

Reviewing The Exorcist is simply an impossible task.

However, I’ll try my best to pinpoint some of the incredible features that made this film so great and influential.

Based on William Peter Blatty’s novel of the same name, the first game-winning decision by Warner Brothers in the making of the film was to hire the author himself as screenwriter and put William Friedkin at the helm.

The involvement of the author of the novel guarantees a substantial loyalty to the source material and its themes, whereas Friedkin’s direction adds the gritty realism and shocking value required for a movie like that.

We all know the plot of The Exorcist: a little girl, Regan MacNeil (Linda Blair), in Georgetown is possessed by an insidious demon. Her mother Chris (Ellen Burstyn), a famous actress, takes Regan to several doctors, experts and psychiatrists, whose attempts to cure the girl are utterly useless.

Close-up of a bruised Ellen Burstyn as Chris MacNeil sitting in chair.Despite being a devout atheist, Chris then clutches for the last straw and summons a priest to help her: Father Karras (Jason Miller), who himself is dealing with grief and anger due to his mother’s death, is however unable to provide the proper support, so that he uses expert exorcist Father Merrin to perform the exorcism and backs him up throughout the process.

Running for about two hours, The Exorcist never has a single dull moment. The build up to the climactic battle between good and evil, God and Devil, the two priests and Pazuzu is as compelling as the ritual itself.

The Exorcist 1The story, unheard back then in a first-class drama, is compelling because there are no disposable characters. Every single cast member is on point in their performance: the doctors are not just oblivious paper-thin figures; instead they cleverly try every way to improve Regan’s conditions, convinced they derive from some form of disease or mental illness that could be treated medically.

The accuracy with which Friedkin approaches the medical exams and attempts is mesmerising. From the machinery to the hospital procedures, every single scene involving a scientific feature is spotless.

The audience is, therefore, compelled to the story because it looks extremely realistic (even though the subject matter might seem absurd to the sceptics) and emotionally attached to the characters.

Ellen Burstyn’s performance, in particular, is truly Oscar-worthy: the viewer feels for her as a mother, mostly because her acting is top-notch and her love for Regan overcomes her fear and desperation even in the darkest (and scariest) moments.

Linda Blair, as Regan MacNeil, is also perfectly cast. Starting off as a sweet, innocent girl, she soon turns into one of the most iconic and scariest characters in cinema history.

The Exorcist 3The practicality of the effects, combined with Blair’s acting skills, make for gut-wrenching possession scenes. Although a couple of them were clearly sped up in the editing room, The Exorcist holds up better than 95% of the movies that came out in the 2000s.

This film is genuinely frightening on many levels: from the actual scenes depicted in the movie to the implications hidden in every dialogue.

Featuring no exposition whatsoever, The Exorcist is ahead of its time and, thus, an immortal motion picture that unlikely will lose impact in the years to come.

Since it’s an actual scary film that doesn’t need jump-scares to startle the audience, this movie is not an easy watch. For example, my parents (who are in their 50s) still can’t manage to sit through it in its entirety.

The Exorcist 4In particular, the sequences in which Regan stabs her intimate zone with a holy cross or those where she unnaturally twists her neck are genuinely off-putting and disturbing, no matter how old you are or how many horror movies you’ve seen.

Yet, the constant aura of angst and uneasiness is carried throughout the film because of the immaculate cinematography created by Owen Roizman and the soundtrack by Michael Oldfield, easily the best horror score in cinema history.

Besides a minute lack of explanation about the death of a doctor (probably killed by Regan under the control of Pazuzu), The Exorcist is a solid film that has it all. Do you really need me to recommend it?

Final Destination meets Jacob’s Ladder. Camera Obscura – movie review

A war photographer affected by severe PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) picks up the camera again after more than one year of inactivity due to the terrible things he’s seen and photographed in war zones (presumably Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria).

Jack Zeller (Christopher Denham), the titular character of Camera Obscura, is given an old camera from his fiancé Claire (Nadja Bobyleva), who desperately wants him back on track.

camera Obscura 1.jpgHowever, the photos Jack takes are black-and-white – despite the rolls being coloured – and, mostly, show dead bodies that lay in the locations he shot.

What started off quite premising, with a first half hour that features non-linear storyline and good character development obtained without exposition scenes, soon enough turns into a bloody mess that doesn’t know what’s aiming for.

Although rather original, Camera Obscura tries too hard to resemble the Final Destination movies and Jacob’s Ladder (1990) in its themes and development.

Unfortunately for the director Aaron B. Koontz, the film falls short in its attempts: the campiness of Final Destination is replaced by an unnecessary seriousness, whereas the social commentary on the horrors of war are completely avoided. What a missed opportunity!

The overall movie is quite confusing.

Camera Obscura 3More or less 40 minutes into Camera Obscura, the main character is convinced he has to do something extreme to protect his fiancé from an impending doom. The decision to include this sudden change of tone in the script, makes Jack less compelling (he was rather relatable up to this point) and the plot take a convoluting route involving paranormal elements.

Yet, an initially psychological thriller/horror begins to include supernatural features and a good dose of laughable gore that adds up to the general confusion.

The ending, which I’m not going to give away, is probably the pinnacle of frustration in Camera Obscura, since it doesn’t resolve any question or sub-plot brought up throughout the runtime.

Camera Obscura 2.jpgAgain, the characters are overall formulaic: we have the main character (fairly portrayed by Denham), his screaming and confused fiancé, a police officer who knew everything before the audience, another one who couldn’t figure out the simplest clues and the junkie, silly protagonist’s best friend who is helpful like a toothbrush on a desert island.

Especially Walt, Jack’s best friend, is highly disappointing. He represents my biggest disappointment with the direction: Walt is, in fact, portrayed by Noah Segan, a more than decent actor who proved himself in the past to be able to pull off complex roles.

Seemingly, Koontz has no idea what to do with him, since he randomly throws Segan in many scenes without developing the character’s arc or purpose.

Nevertheless, this is the only mistake made by Koontz. Besides that, his direction is really good for an indie horror. The cinematography is impressive and the editing cleverly resembles a sequence of photos projected on a wall.

Entirely shot on location (in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA), Camera Obscura makes good use of the environment, whilst the bright colours are toned down to make the atmosphere gloomy and sumber.

On a side note, Koontz’s direction avoids silly jump-scares and futile loud music to mark a moment of tension. Instead, the soundtrack is persistently earing and purposely irksome.

Since the direction is, overall, pretty decent, I’d say that the script is what scales down the film. It simply doesn’t make any sense and hides the redeeming qualities of Camera Obscura.

If you ask me, Camera Obscura is not a completely shipwreck, but the script for it is plain awful nonetheless.

Quoting directly from the movie: “this seems one of those weird episodes of Goosebumps!”. Therefore, I wouldn’t recommend to watch it, but neither I’d say it’s a complete and utter waste of time. Cheers!

Forget about Freddy and Jason, a new slasher will haunt your nights. Lake Alice – movie review

Yes, it will. Lake Alice – a crowdfunded slasher flick directed by Ben Milliken – won’t let you catch sleep anymore.

Why? No, not because it’s scary or unsettling or disturbing. Instead, Lake Alice will keep you wide awake wondering how on earth it got made.

lake alice pic1Recently released straight on Amazon and Netflix, this ‘thing’ tells the story of a Californian family – mom, dad, young daughter and her boyfriend/fiancé – that ends up having Christmas holidays in the mountains being hunted down by two masked killers. As if it really matters…

In fact, the film is so horrendous that doesn’t even deserve a regular review, instead I tried to imagine the making-process behind Lake Alice by creating a hypothetic conversation between the director and the screenwriter (Stevie Jane Miller).

Milliken: Stevie, this material looks awesome! I can’t wait to start filming the movie!

Miller: I know, I put a lot of effort in it. It took me an overall of four hours to write the script… although I played Clash of Clans while writing it.

Milliken: Oh, that’s why there are so few scenes to film. I could fill the gaps and make for a feature-length movie?

Miller: Mmmm… that’s why I wrote 10 out of 12 pages on character development, where nothing else happens of any interest.

Milliken: If you want to call it ‘character development’… it’s just a series of random encounters between the main characters and other people living in the town. Which, by the way, don’t carry the plot along whatsoever.

Miller: Whatever. At least we can use those moments as fillers.

Milliken: Not really. Even when the action kicks off, I haven’t got enough material to work with.

Miller: Oh, well, then just take some amazing landscape shots.

Milliken: I don’t know how to do it.

Miller: What? Are you not supposed to be a director?

Milliken: Well, I filmed a wedding once, so I figured I would be able to film a horror movie.

Miller: Sounds like quite a good CV to me. Okay, what do we do then?

Milliken: I’ll just take absurdly elongated shots of car lights, basements, curtains and woods. To be fair, my strength is the action scenes!

Miller: Alright! How are you going to film them?

Milliken: Okay, listen. I am going to film the killer from behind his victims while he stabs them slowly and with no sense of urgency.

Miller: Sounds good. I don’t know how to write about brutal killings, so I might just as well let you do your stuff.

lake-alice-2017Milliken: I know what I am doing. Also, get ready for this, the killers will be revealed to be the guy who was in love with the main girl, backed up by his insane mother!

Miller: It seems like a predictable plot twist to me, though.

Milliken: No no no! Because I will fake the guy’s death and, only at the end, I will reveal that he wasn’t a victim but one of the fillers all along!

Miller: That’s pure genius!

Milliken: Wait, wait! The last shot, after the serial killers will be murdered by the main girl’s mother out of the blue and with no rational explanation whatsoever, will show another serial killer hiding in the bushes… to hint for a sequel!

Miller: God Ben! This will make us rich and famous! Let’s give a look to the final product before telling the production company we are ready to release the movie.

1 HOUR AND 12 MINUTES LATER

Miller: Sorry Ben, I fell asleep. How was the film?

Milliken: Crap, Stevie! I’ve done the same! Well, it must have been good, let’s release it!

 

Needless to say, Lake Alice turned out to be a train wreck, one of the worst slasher ever made. Do not watch it guys. Cheers!

The director of The Loved Ones is back with an original take on demonic possessions and family drama. The Devil’s Candy – movie review

The Devil’s Candy  is a 2015 horror movie that was only recently released in the United States (17th of March) and in limited theatres around Europe. Nevertheless, it’s also been distributed straight on Amazon, where it can be rented for a reasonable price. Since it came out in 2016 only in Russia, whereas for the rest of the world it’s a 2017’s movie, I also consider it as a film that came out this year.

And, honestly, The Devil’s Candy is quite the surprise of 2017 so far.

devilscandy-carDirected by Sean Byrne, who brought us the widely praised The Loved Ones, The Devil’s Candy – 78 minutes of runtime for the theatrical cut – tells the story of Jesse Hellman (Ethan Embry), a painter who now must sell out a little more regularly to pay off a new mortgage for the new house where he moved with his wife and teenage daughter. A few weeks before, in the same house, a mentally ill man killed his parents because he heard voices in his head: the same voices that torment Jesse, pushing him to paint in a state of trance.

devils-candy-1200x675-e1442549010197As I mentioned above, The Devil’s Candy is pleasantly surprising, starting off with the acting: every single cast member did a great job embodying the respective character. Embry, who is usually an average comedic actor, is eye-grabbing in this movie, being able to handle a wide range of emotions and, simultaneously, giving a superb physical performance. Indeed, he frequently paints without his shirt on, unveiling us his tattoos and muscular frame, which gives to his character a physical dimension much needed in this movie.

devilscandy-tracksuitYet, Ray Smilie – played by Pruitt Taylor – is great as the main villain, the guy who wonders around and kills people with stones. Every single time he’s on screen, he emanates an aura of dread and unease. I was also impressed by the performance of Kiara Glasco, who plays Jesse’s daughter Zooey in a compelling way and is very well flashed out. On the contrary, her mother Astrid is a rather flat character, although the actress who impersonates her, Shiri Appleby, makes the best of the script she works on.

D candyHowever, the main character of The Devil’s Candy is probably the overall atmosphere, both the cinematography and the soundtrack. Every character is framed perfectly within the single shot; wide takes create great visuals; the colours and their tonality are masterfully balanced; the camera-work, combined with the editing, is amazing. Seemingly, the eerie and unnerving soundtrack conveys a sense of urgency and desperation that gets under your skin.

Nevertheless, this film has some small and some big flaws. As I mentioned above, the character of Astrid is not given much to do throughout the movie to the point that she becomes necessary only at the end. Another nit-picking revolves around the pace, which is quite uneven during the first 15-20 minutes, going from 0 to 100 with no explanation.

However, what unfortunately downgrades The Devil’s Candy is an outwardly useless and confusing subplot involving a rich paintings’ buyer who prefers the ‘demonic art’ of Jesse over his previous works; and an ending which, although fairly enjoyable, is also fruitlessly ambiguous and unnecessarily symbolic.

If the first weakness can be explained by the fact that the theatrical cut was 15 minutes shorter than the original version – not allowing the director to expand the subplot – the ending is slightly disappointing (at least to me), although it doesn’t ruin the movie. But I bet it will piss off many viewers.

With all of that said, I obviously recommend you guys to watch this film. If you can’t get the chance to see it in theatres, due to its limited release, you can always rent it on Amazon, it’s worth your money. Cheers!

 

Complexity and unicity to come up with an original mystery. A Cure for Wellness – review

A Cure for Wellness (2017) is directed by Gore Verbinski and stars talented actors such as Dane DeHaan and Jason Isaacs.

A young, successful and unscrupulous business man (Lockhart, played by DeHaan) is forced by his board of directors to move to a sanatorium in Switzerland where he has to convince an older colleague (Roland Pembroke) to come back to New York and face some serious consequences of financial frauds committed by the company.

As soon as the protagonist gets up to the hill, at the castle-like recovery centre, it seems to him that something is off, out of place and, perhaps, it will not be easy to leave the sanatorium nor to ‘rescue’ Mr. Pembroke.

Most certainly the concept of unsettling asylums filled with uneven doctors (such as the director Mr. Volmer, portrayed by Isaacs) is not new, however, in A Cure for Wellness, it’s handled in such a unique and dreadful way that is impossible not to consider this film as a stand-alone product.

hqdefaultDefinitely, the movie is reminiscing of The Shining and Shutter Island for many aspects – the build-up is similar to the Kubrick’s masterpiece, whilst DeHaan and DiCaprio’s character in Scorsese’s film follow alike paths. Nonetheless, the plot development as well as the way Lockhart progressively discovers the secrets of the structure make for an original movie which, honestly, has no benchmark in the history of cinema.

cure-for-wellness-3Moreover, the visuals are simply outstanding. Verbinksi has always been a great visual director – for instance, the look and feel of The Ring, which I’m not a big fan of, are hands down the best part of that movie – and here he gets over himself, exceeding the brightest expectations. Every shot looks beautiful, the editing and camera work are immaculate and, sincerely, they are very close to those in The Shining, or at least closer than the other ‘horror’ movies made throughout the years.

A sharp eye may have noticed the ‘bunny ears’ around the word horror and that’s because A Cure for Wellness is not a straight-up horror movie by any means. Honestly, this film is so original that it would be unfair to restrain it within a single genre boundary. Most definitely, though, it’s a complex pile of puzzles which the viewer tries to solve through the eyes of the main character.

a-cure-for-wellness-official-trailer-2-twThe characters, indeed, are both interestingly developed throughout the movie and amazingly portrayed by DeHaan as the protagonist and Isaacs as the villain. DeHaan, in particular, gave the best performance of his already brilliant career ever since Chronicle – which is the most underrated super-hero movie and the best one, except for the Nolan’s Batman trilogy, obviously. Mia Goth (Nymphomaniac Vol: II) is also in this movie, where she plays the creepy but innocent Hannah who, beyond being a ‘special case’ in the sanatorium, might also be the key to solve the mystery…

As per issues with this movie, I have only a couple. The biggest one concerns the exposition. Sure enough, the key-element of the ‘cure’ is depicted as something to be paying attention to since the very first sequences at the sanatorium, whilst it would have been better, in my opinion, to keep it more hidden and subtle.

In addition, this movie is long. Two hours and 26 minutes’ runtime, where the audience has to pay careful attention to every single detail given. Don’t get me wrong, I strongly prefer to watch complicated films than those where the viewer gets fed up and treated like a 15 years old idiot. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that A Cure for Wellness will make a lot of people really angry due to its slow pace which requires an unusual effort.

Furthermore, but here I’m probably nit-picking, a couple of scenes realised with the CGI would have been highly more effective if done with practical effects. Also, if it does make any sense, I would have preferred the ending to be less abrupt and hasty, to maintain the same tone throughout the entire film.

All in all, A Cure for Wellness exceeded my expectations by far (although it was on my most anticipated movies list) and it’s absolutely the best Verbinski’s movie so far. It’s probably not a masterpiece, nor something that will revolutionise the contemporary cinema, but I’m sure it will develop a cult and a clique of die-hard fans. And I’m already among them. Don’t miss it out, guys. Strongly recommended. Cheers!