Director Report Card: Adam Wingard (2017)

10. Death Note

Anime and manga, here in America, has gone from being a niche product to being more-or-less mainstream. “My Hero Academia” outsells most American comics and you can buy “Attack on Titan” t-shirts at Walmart. Yet attempts by U.S. filmmakers to translate Japanese animation into Hollywood blockbusters have been largely unsuccessful. “Dragonball: Evolution” was instantly despised. “Speed Racer” is beloved now but was a critical and commercial flop when new. “Battle Angel” immediately developed a cult following but didn't make a lot of money. The same year “Ghost in the Shell” came out to complete indifference from everyone, Adam Wingard would adapt “Death Note” for Netflix.

Before we go any further, I should probably tell you that I have no familiarity with “Death Note.” I've never read any of the manga. I've never seen any of the anime or previous Japanese movies. The closest experience I've had with the “Death Note” brand, prior to this review, was a time a dude at my college wasted all the ink in the printer by printing out pages of the manga. The only reason I even know what the comic/show is about is through cultural osmosis and reading up on it a little when Shane Black was attached to direct this movie version. So I sat down to watch Wingard's “Death Note” being basically all-but-entirely-ignorant about the source material.  

Here is my "Death Note" novice summation of the movie's plot: Light is a smart but frequently bullied teenager. He and his cop father are still traumatized by the murder of his mother. One day, a mysterious black book falls out of the sky next to Light. Upon holding it, he sees visions of Ryuk, a demonic spectre of death. Ryuk informs Light that, if he writes a person's name in the book, they will die just as he described. He quickly uses this book to murder notorious criminals around the world, crediting the deaths to an entity named "Kira." (Sometimes at the urging of his slightly sociopathic girlfriend, Mia.) This draws the attention of a brilliant detective known as only "L." As Light and L attempt to uncover each other's identities, the boy soon learns Ryuk is not to be trusted.

The most interesting thing about Wingard's "Death Note" is how it thematically connects to his previous work. Like "Pop Skull," it's the story of a disaffected young man falling to murderous urges for somewhat understandable reasons. Like "The Guest," it's a film about wish fulfillment with a horrible price. The power of the Death Note allows Light to change the world. I think we've all had idle fantasies like that, of how things would be different if some horrible person just dropped dead. Yet Light learns that the consequences of such power might be more than he can handle. Much like how David's true murderous nature was revealed in "The Guest," it soon becomes clear that the wish fulfillment Ryuk promises comes at a terrible price. Playing with the idea of getting what you think you want might actually suck is an idea that obviously intrigues Wingard.

Unfortunately, "Death Note" has a lot of problems around that nugget of an interesting idea. Condensing a twelve-volume manga/37-episode TV show into a single movie was always going to be problematic. Wingard's film sometimes gets tangled up in attempting to summarize the series' lore. Such as when it comes to the convoluted rules of the Death Note's power or the mysterious origins of L. Mostly, the movie rushes through the development of "Kira." Over the course of a few montages, we see Light and Mia's alter ego rise to almost cult-like power. While a mysterious force bumping off criminals around the world probably would earn a religious-like following, the movie leading us to that point over the course of a few scenes is not satisfying. 

This is not the only part of the story that feels rushed-through or underdeveloped. The romance between Light and Mia never feels very convincing. The two bond immediately over Light's murderous hobby, which is hard to believe. This makes it clear that Mia is unhinged, leaving the audience waiting for the inevitable moment she turns on Light. Despite that, the script still tries to build a genuine romance around these two. They declare their love for one another and kiss in the rain. Once again, the film rushes through stuff by isolating most of their romantic moments to montages. The result is we never actually care about this relationship we are told is important. This leaves much of the second half's tension, about the two betraying each other, utterly inert. 

It doesn't help that the performances do not allow the viewer an emotional way into the story. Nat Wolff has mostly starred in Y.A. adaptations like "Fault in Our Stars" or "Paper Town." (And did a stint as a Nickelodeon sitcom star/pop idol.) Light is his darkest role yet and he seems utterly unprepared for it. He mostly plays the magical vigilante as a petulant teenager, self-assured in his morals but pissy about his emotions. Margaret Qualley – Andie McDowell's daughter – plays Mia as a psychotic Manic Pixie Dream Girl, her quirkiness manifesting ad dead-eyed sociopathy. Shea Whigham, as Light's dad, embodies both worn-out movie stereotypes about cops and dads. 

Since "Death Note" is trying to condense a nineteen-hour story into 100 minutes, the romance and intrigue between Light and Mia is not the only thing it occupies itself with. Large swathes of the story is devoted to the cat-and-mouse game between Light and L. This too is never really convincing. L never seems to do much in the way of actual detective works. He seems to deduce, with very little evidence, that Light is Kira. On Light's end, he mostly uses the mind-control properties of the Death Note – did I mention it can do that? – to manipulate L's handler into revealing his true name. That shifts the focus from the conflict between these guys to the arbitrary time limits set by the story's contrivances. It's not until the two are chasing after each other do you feel like they actually have much in the way of a conflict. 

And let's talk about L. He's a totally ridiculous character. His intelligence is shown mostly through him just knowing stuff, instead of through the applications of any skills. He's more characterized by his bizarre behavior. He constantly scarfs sweets. He covers himself with his hoodie. He's entirely dependent on his handler, Mr. Watari, even to the point where he has to sing him to sleep every night. Without Watari, L collapses into a nervous mess. LaKeith Stanfeild, obviously a very talented actor, plays him in the most over-the-top and annoying fashion possible. L gives the impression of an overgrown man-child with a knack for crime fighting. Which stems, not from actual character growth, but a conspiratorial backstory. I'm just going to say it: I think L is a really dumb character and I hate him. Everything about him, from his silly code name on down, feels like a child's idea of what a genius should be.

"Death Note" was really the first time Adam Wingard graduated from his indie movie roots to big studio productions. To give you a shift in scale here, this movie was made with eight times the amount of money "Blair Witch" was made with. (Which, itself, costed much more than any of Wingard's previous films.) Adapting his style to such a larger canvas comes with some growing pains. The use of neon color that was present in "The Guest" returns here, especially during the night time set last act. The slow motion that also cropped up in "You're Next" reappears here as well. In that film, this technique was used sparingly to punctuate a few moments. Here, it's overused to hammy effect. A cop car smashing through a glass booth in slow-mo during an already overheated chase is silly, not stylish.

Perhaps it's not surprising that "Death Note's" best moments, when it most feels abreast of the director's prior work, is when it becomes a grisly horror movie. In the manga and anime, Light's main method of murder is a simple heart attack. In the movie, he engineers elaborately gory execution. A ladder swinging off a speeding vehicle graphically cuts someone's head off. A fall from a building or a collision with an armored truck turns people into splattering giblets. Perhaps it's juvenile but it looks cool. And it's the only time the film feels really engaging. Wingard's horror roots show through in the finale, set aboard a collapsing Ferris wheel, and the treatment of Ryuk. Wingard keeps the spiny bondage demon mostly to the shadows. When combined with Willem DaFoe's ominous croak, it makes for a creepy, intimidating villain. 

Another way you can tell this is an Adam Wingard movie is how it sounds. Superstar composer Atticus Ross was recruited to provide Wingard with another John Carpenter-inspired electronic score. And it's pretty cool, as far as these go. The pulsating synth provides most of the tension during the film's various foot chase. Yet the director's other musical trademark – contrasting emotion-heavy pop music with scenes of mayhem – really fails him here. The most dramatic moment of the Ferris wheel set piece is scored to Air Supply's "The Power of Love." Considering how the melodramatic emotions of the scene, and how unconvincing the love story was up to this point, a sappy song choice like that feels like a joke.

Unsurprisingly, "Death Note" would receive vitriolic reactions from fans of the anime. Before it even came out, the movie was wrapped up in the same whitewashing controversy that derailed "Ghost in the Shell." (A better movie than this one, for whatever that's worth.) Hardcore fans were appalled by the changes made to the source material, to the point that "the Netflix version" has since become shorthand among anime fans for a half-assed live action adaptation. I wish I could say the fans were just being prickly about this one but, speaking as someone who has zero attachment to "Death Note," I have to say this is a subpar movie. Netflix claims it was a success and a sequel is supposedly in development. It looks like Wingard is opting out of that, which is probably a good idea. [Grade: C]

Despite his two studio efforts thus far paling in comparison to his indie work, Adam Wingard continues to get high-profile gigs. Of course, his next movie – and biggest budget yet – is the long-delayed "Godzilla Vs. Kong." Obviously, I'm very excited for that one and was going to review it anyway, which is part of why I decided to go ahead and do this retrospective. Early buzz on the kaiju tussle has been positive, so I'm cautiously optimistic that Wingard will finally make a good big budget movie. He already has his next projects lined-up after that: a sequel/reboot of "Face/Off" and a feature adaptation of “ThunderCats.”

It is interesting that Wingard is the only "munblegore" director to really make the leap to big budget filmmaking. His work was always a lot more commercial than some of his compatriots. That back-and-forth between that sensibility and his grittier roots have led to an inconsistent filmography but I'm intrigued to see him continue to grow. Hopefully, his upcoming studio movies are better than "Death Note." 

Director Report Card: Adam Wingard (2016)

9. Blair Witch

In 2015, it was announced that Adam Wingard and Simon Barrett were collaborating on a new project, entitled “The Woods.” The film was very mysterious, with only a vague synopsis released beforehand. Based solely on my love for “The Guest,” I put the new film on my list of most anticipated projects for the year, even if I knew nothing about it. At the 2016 San Diego Comic Con, we learned why info on this new project was being so closely guarded. “The Woods” was actually “Blair Witch,” a brand new sequel to the original “Blair Witch Project.” It was a great surprise, a genius marketing move that counteracted the natural skepticism that greets the announcement of any new reboot. The surprise announcement actually raised a considerable amount of hype, which might've worked against “Blair Witch” in the long run.

Ignoring the meta narrative of “Book of Shadows,” this “Blair Witch” is a direct sequel to the original. When Heather Donahue disappeared in 1994, she left behind a little brother named James. Twenty years later, he's now an aspiring filmmaker himself. When mysterious footage, found in the Burkittsville woods, is posted to Youtube – seemingly showing a female figure – he becomes inspired to investigate. Along with a pack of friends – best friend Peter, his girlfriend Ashley, and mutual friend Lisa – they drive up to meet two local Blair Witch fanatics, Talia and Lane. They soon hide into the same forest Heather disappeared in. Soon enough, James and his friends begin to experience the same bizarre phenomenon, capturing it all on their cameras. 

The scariest thing about the original “Blair Witch Project” wasn’t the disorienting camera work, the lore built up around the titular entity, or the suggestion that the whole thing was real. It was the way the film emphasized a simple fear: Getting lost in the woods. Wingard’s “Blair Witch” definitely understands this, to a degree. The forest location - looking very lush and green in color, in contrast to the original’s stark black-and-white - is large and imposing. Once the characters are adrift in the trees, it becomes very easy to believe they won't be coming back out again. They feel alone out there and, in its best moments, "Blair Witch" understands that sense of forested isolation. 

The problem with Wingard's "Blair Witch" is, for every smart move it makes, it makes a misstep. The original "Blair Witch Project" was one camera, one camera person, the entire time. This further built up the illusion that the movie was genuine found footage, creating full immersion in the story. This "Blair Witch," however, cuts constantly between multiple cameras. I hate it when found footage do this. It's cheating. How are we supposed to believe the footage is "found" if someone's clearly edited it together from different sources? Does the Witch have a copy of Adobe Premiere out there in the woods?

Of course, the real reason "Blair Witch" utilizes multiple cameras is it was a 5-million-dollar studio production, not a 20,000-dollar underground film made by college students. It was shot in British Columbia, not in the actual hills of Maryland. (Something anybody who's ever actually been to Burkittsville will notice.) This allows the movie to explore some of the bigger concepts the original could only hint at. Such as the sense of temporal displacement the characters experience in the woods. That plays a big role here. Hours pass quickly and nights stretch on forever. People disappear for an hour but it's felt like days to them. Honestly, it's a cool idea the sequel hammers a little too hard. Despite the constant discussion of time being disturbed, the viewer never actually feels out-of-sorts. 

The bigger budget also allows for far more elaborate special effects. A moment much touted in the trailers has the campers' tents being snapped off the ground and pulled into the air. The horrors only suggested by the original are depicted here in full CGI. The makers of this "Blair Witch" could afford to fill an entire forest clearing with stick men of varying sizes. (Which, perhaps, lacks the subtly the original execution had.) They could also show what happens when one of those stick men is broken, a person snapped in half at the same time the twigs are. 

One could argue that, perhaps, bodily dismemberment and computer generated monsters doesn't have much to do with what made the original "Blair Witch." And they'd be right. But, occasionally, Wingard and his team do engineer a scary moment. A hiker injuring their foot early on becomes a reoccurring concern, resulting in some cringe-inducing scenes involving infections and pus. "Blair Witch" has excellent sound design and this is important. The scariest scenes, the ones that most invoke the original, involve isolated characters beset by unsettling sounds. A chase through the dark woods, a noisy interruption in a tent, or a shaky climb of a tree manage to generate some suspense. Largely thanks to the shrieking sounds of the unknown just off-screen.  

Yet Wingard's "Blair Witch" faces a problem that also plagued the original. How do you make people wandering around, lost in the woods, cinematic? Wingard and Barrett up the cast from three principal characters to six. As in the original, inevitably conflicts emerge among the cast during such a stressful scenario. Yes, there are scenes devoted to assholes arguing in the woods. The reveal that Blair Witch fanboy Lane faked at least some of the spooky shit that happens early on further pushes a wedge between the team. Unlike the original, where these interactions felt like genuine panic, these moments feel like totally deliberate attempts to escalate circumstances. 

The truth is I never care about any of these characters. The movie tries. Josh is haunted by the disappearance of his sister and this drives him further into the woods. In the end, it's what convinces him to go into the Witch's lair. Yet the other characters are cyphers at best. The pre-camping trip scenes, of the gang hanging out in a bar or goofing off in their hotel room, do not invoke much empathy. These scenes exist more to establish bear minimum relationships - Peter and Ashley are boyfriend/girlfriend, Josh and Lisa have UST - and introduce gimmicks like the camera drone. All of this stuff will be important later but it never gets us emotionally involved in the story. 

When you read the behind-the-scenes story behind "Blair Witch," you see that Wingard and Barrett were preoccupied with making the sequel as scary as possible. Ignoring that the original functioned more on atmosphere than scares, they pack "Blair Witch" with a lot of jump scares. And as his segment in "V/H/S/2" proved, Wingard is not very good at jump scares. Repeatedly, he has people leap out of the shadows at someone, accompanied by a loud noise on the soundtrack. The sequel does this so much that one of the characters even asks someone that they stop doing that. It's a cheap way to constantly make the viewer jump and quickly grows annoying. 

Worst yet, "Blair Witch" indulged in a cliche of the found footage genre that the "V/H/S" films pointedly avoided. While running through the woods, on several occasions, the cinematography lapses into incoherent shaky-cam. Why would a (comparatively) big budget sequel that breaks the one-camera rule of found footage so much delve into motion-sickness-inducing shaky vision? One can only assume it was a deliberate move, another way to induce confusion and hopefully panic in the viewer. It doesn't work and, instead, sticks out badly. 

Yet even this is not the worst mistake "Blair Witch" makes. As Josh and Lisa return to the house glimpsed in the original's conclusion, "Blair Witch" started to suck me in. There's some claustrophobic thrills in a scene where Lisa is trapped in an underground tunnel. The film smartly brings things around, to the found footage discovered in the sequel's first scene. Just as things are ramping up and I was thinking maybe this would work, "Blair Witch" does the unthinkable: It actually shows the Witch. Completely violating the "fear of the unseen" principle that the original was built on, we get a look at a blurry and long-limbed entity. This is even after a character says you'll drop dead if you look directly at the Witch. I get wanting to satisfy that curiosity but actually revealing the Witch, the definition of a villain never meant to be seen, so completely misunderstands everything that made the original effective. (Barrett would later try to claim this entity wasn't the Witch but come on. An early scene even references Elly Kedward having her limbs stretched.) 

In the run-up to the "Blair Witch's" release, Wingard and Barrett would talk about how they got many reboot offers after "You're Next." (He was within inches of directing the "Halloween" reboot, for one example.) It's easy to see why they would choose to helm "Blair Witch," considering the obvious influence it had on their "V/H/S" contributions. Despite both clearly being big fans, it's surprising that their "Blair Witch" seems to miss some the point of the original. The sequel still more than made back its budget at theaters but proved a disappointment to Liongates. Perhaps the Blair Witch wasn't as relevant in 2014, after twenty years of rip-offs and would-be successors. Maybe the public was still burned by "Book of Shadows." I think there's a way to successfully reinvent the iconic brand but it should involve returning to the zero budget, guerrilla production roots. Trying to retrofit "Blair Witch" into a traditional studio found footage flick, instead of remembering what made the original special, is why this "Blair Witch" is ultimately a failure. [Grade: C+]

RECENT WATCHES: V/H/S: Viral (2014)

The first two “V/H/S” movies garnered a lot of attention among the horror movie press. The praise was not universal but both movies certainly had a fan following. Off the back of the especially critically acclaimed “V/H/S/2,” it only made sense for Bloody Disgusting Productions to move forward with a third installment. “V/H/S: Viral” would ostensibly operate under the same premise as the previous two entries. Up-and-coming genre directors would each make found footage horror stories, caught on tape. Yet the third installment would loose the thread a little by focusing on cellphones and viral videos over VHS tapes. The resulting film would receive largely negative reviews. 

The framing device is called “Vicious Circle,” It follows a man chasing a sinister ice cream truck through L.A. after it grabs his girlfriend. Along the way, disturbing videos are distributed among people's cellphones and cause further violence. “Dante the Great” is a mockumentary about a stage magician whose cloak gives him actual magic in exchange for human flesh. “Parallel Monsters” concerns a man who builds a portal to a parallel universe in his basement and discovers the terrifying differences for himself. “Bonestorm” has kids making a skateboarding video heading to Mexico and stumbling upon the undying worshipers of Santa Muerte. 

The framing devices are usually the weak links in the “V/H/S” movies but “Vicious Circle” is especially worthless. The story is incoherent. How or why the ice cream truck is spreading the violent videos and making people go crazy is never answered. Another unanswered question is why the protagonist is recording anything that's happening. Director Marcel Sarmiento, previously of “Deadgirl,” cheats by cutting between multiple cameras. This results in bizarre digressions. Like a backyard barbecue that features a dog with a fork in its head and ends in an explosion. Or a deeply sleazy moment about a pornographer shooting a video in a taxi cab, which becomes violent. None of these incidents link to the main story.  The segment ends with a pathetic attempt to link this framing device with the first two films. Sarmiento's direction is largely sloppy and only a segment where someone gets dragged behind a car, tearing his feet off, makes much of an impression. 

“Dante the Great,” from Gregg Bishop of “Dance of the Dead” fame, also doesn't commit much to the found footage premise. It plays out more like a television true crime documentary. Except when it cuts to the secret tapes Dante made, of his cape – or the monster that lives inside – killing various people. It has a very silly premise to overcome, of a malevolent piece of clothing that eats people. It's also hard to imagine a stage magician being as hugely popular as Dante is here. The acting is quite exaggerated from everyone involved, with Justin Welborne being especially annoying as Dante. About the only thing the film has going for it is some clever special effects. Dante shattering people's limbs or teleporting individuals are conveyed on-screen in a seamless way. That's kind of cool.

“Parallel Monsters,” at the very least, is better than the first segment and the framing device. Director Nacho Vigalondo – best known for “Timecrimes,” though he's done a number of interesting films – usually brings an interesting layer of perversity to his films. That's definitely on display here, as the dimensional traveler stumbles upon some sort of bizarre sex ritual. The best part of the segment is how it slowly reveals just how disturbing this universe is. The reveal of the residents of the alternate universe's exotic genitalia is sickly funny and mildly shocking. However, the story is tricky to follow, the viewer clearly only getting a brief glimpse at something bigger and weirder. It's also slowly paced, making it seem twice as long as it is. At least Vigalondo sticks with the found footage premise, even if he can barely justify why it's there. (The scientist is documenting his discovery, though he still should've dropped the camera a lot sooner.)

“Bonestorm,” if nothing else, has a decent justification for its found footage status. The skateboarding teens having cameras strapped to their helmets as they stumble into danger. “Bonestorm” is also easily the highlight of the sequel. Directors Aaron Morehead and Justin Benson, the guys behind “Resolution” and “Spring,” have some good ideas. The modern urban legend of Santa Muerte is a good basis for a horror story. The skull-faced cultists' blood catches fire as it leaves their body. No matter how much they're cut apart, they always rise again. The robed undead also sing creepy noises, providing a spooky atmosphere to the chaos. The gore effects are creepy and varied. The boys are largely obnoxious but “Bonestorm” is still the most energetic and thrilling of the film's segments.

The overall quality of “V/H/S: Viral” was so underwhelming that the producers even decided to remove a segment. “Gorgeous Vortex” from Todd Lincoln – director of the thoroughly mediocre “The Apparition” – was cut from the initial release, though it would surface on the DVD. Whether “Gorgeous Vortex” was axed because it sucks or because it fully abandons the found footage premise is unknown. It's dialogue free and near plotless. It's seemingly about a female serial killer being stalked by Slender Man-like entities, glimpsed in the sole found footage-like parts of the segment. Lincoln directs it like a lingerie commercial, as it features countless glamorous shots of tall, skinny women always in their underwear. (They are always eroticized, even in death.) Some of the visuals – like a vending machine full of high heels that are then burned – are especially baffling. The hard-to-follow story descends totally into incoherence at the end, with the appearance of a random monster. Anyway, it's bad.

“V/H/S: Viral” was so bad, I seem to recall the producer claimed it wasn't the real third “V/H/S” but merely an unsuccessful spin-off. Why it turned out this way is easy to determine. Stepping back from found footage horror in 2014 was understandable, since the subgenre was undeniably burnt out by then. Yet this was not the series to do that with, since the entire premise is built around old video tapes. When this is combined with a mediocre slate of directors, no wonder you got an underwhelming sequel. Only the Moorehead/Benson installment and about half of the Vigalondo segment managed to be any good. 

“V/H/S: Viral's” reception would largely kill the series' momentum. A short-lived series adaptation, which premiered on Snapchat of all platforms, received exactly zero attention. The producers have seemingly learned from “Viral's” failure. The upcoming “V/H/S 94” will re-instate the original's retro aesthetic. Simon Barrett, David Bruckner, Radio Silence, and Timo Tjahjanto are all returning in various capacities. That sounds a lot more promising than this whimper of a conclusion. [5/10]

Director Report Card: Adam Wingard (2014)

8. The Guest

When I first saw it, I really liked “You're Next” but it took me a couple of re-watches to really learn to love it. Either way, the film absolutely put Adam Wingard and Simon Barrett on my radar. (And the “V/H/S” films made me pay even more attention to them.) Still, I went into “The Guest” with few expectations. Which was, perhaps, the best way to meet the movie. I found an even more pleasantly surprising genre experiment than I did with their previous movies. This was, in fact, the overwhelming reaction to “The Guest,” which ended up being a big hit with longtime fans of cult cinema in 2014. 

Caleb Peterson died while overseas in the Middle East. The death has left his mom Laura traumatized, with his younger siblings Luke and Anna trying to move on the best they can. Out of the blue one day, David stops by the home. He claims to be a recently discharged war buddy of Caleb's. He has arrived to bring a message of dying love from Caleb to his family. David immediately ingratiates himself to the Peterson family, impressing Laura and protecting Luke from bullies at school. Anna is skeptical at first but is slowly won over... That's when the dead bodies start to pile up. Anna thinks something isn't right about “David's” story and she's correct. He has a horrible secret and, soon, men from the government arrive to investigate. 

“The Guest,” at first, operates under a powerful notion of wish fulfillment. What if someone came into your life and they had all the answers to all your problems? David shows up out of the blue and immediately sees the solutions to whatever vexes the Peterson family. He beats up the jocks that torment Luke at school. When Luke fights back and almost gets a suspension, David effortlessly intimidates the principal into changing his mind. When an old boyfriend harasses Anna's friend at a party, he immediately gets the guy to back off. He even finds a way to get Spencer, the dad, a promotion at work. He also gives Anna a look at his perfectly sculpted abs, temporarily firing her lust. 

Of course, it all comes at a horrible price. By rooting its story in a fantasy anyone can relate too – and the easily understood reversal of “be careful what you wish for” –  “The Guest” sets up a universal scenario to pervert. David's uncompromising sociopathy is revealed exactly at the twenty minute mark, when he blows a weapon dealer's brains out. From there, the script gives us more and more of a peek at how dangerous this seemingly perfect guy is. The film brilliantly escalates from there, blowing up a small scenario focused on a nuclear family into an action movie shoot-out. It's a fantastically paced movie that moves at the exact correct pace.

That David is a military vet, that he appears to disrupt the equilibrium of the nuclear family unit along side news of their son's death, is important. As the story reveals more of its layer, we learn that “David” is some sort of experimental soldier, programmed to clean up all loose ends and ruthlessly exterminate anyone who gets in his way. He was created by the government, to kill efficiently and without mercy. Coming back home, and living again in normal society, is not something he was programmed for. That he fills the void left by Caleb's death, filling the role of a surrogate son for Laura, is fitting. Caleb didn't come home but he was made into a killing machine by the U.S. military industrial complex too. David is a literalization of how normal boys are turned into murderers. 

“The Guest” represents a big leap forward for Adam Wingard in another way. The director had mostly worked in the realm of low-stakes horror and independent movies. “You're Next” was a bigger and more stunt-heavy movie, an instinct that “The Guest” takes even further. A full-blown action sequence breaks out in the middle of the movie, when the government kill squad descends on the Peterson home. And, pleasant surprise, but Adam Wingard directs the fuck out of these shoot-outs. Slow-mo, crash-zooms, and bursts of splattering blood punctuate several movements. The editing is incredibly smooth, as David leaps through the air or slides out from under a bed. It's distinct but not showy, stylized but not distracting, direct and brutal but imaginative too. 

Of course, “The Guest” doesn't have Adam Wingard stepping entirely out of his comfort zone either. It's sort of a horror movie too. We don't know if “David” is just a result of psychological conditioning or some sort of genetically engineered super soldier. Either way, he's not exactly human. He exterminates his targets with the grim determination of Michael Myers, even wielding a similarly oversized butcher knife in a few scenes. (Though with more apologies and smirks.) In the last act, when Anna and Luke are chased through a Halloween tunnel while David wields a box cutter, “The Guest” fully embraces the slasher movie genes hidden inside its DNA. 

And I can't help but adore “The Guest's” fucking gorgeous October atmosphere. The film is set around Halloween. The Peterson house is decorated for the holiday, with a spooky scarecrow out front. A pumpkin carving scene takes place, as does the consumption of pumpkin pie. Paper skeletons and black cats put in appearance. The finale of the movie, set in a high school auditorium converted into a haunted attraction, is bathed in neon lights and a layer of smoke-machine fog. Styrofoam tombstones and rubber body parts decorate the area. Obviously, for a Halloween devotee and horror nerd like myself, such brilliant scenery is enough to make me love the movie even more. 

Ultimately, like “You're Next” before it, “The Guest” balances out its grim thrills and intense violence with sick humor. The early scenes, of David perfectly dismantling assholes with both his fists and cunning, obviously have a degree of humor to them. Especially when Luke takes David's encouragement to fight back to its natural inclusion. Yet, once David's truly homicidal side shows, “The Guest's” jokes gets darker and blacker. When forced to murder random bystanders, David almost seems annoyed and resigned to it. Scoring rolling grenades and an exploding diner to the sappy swell of Stevie B's “Because I Love You (The Postman Song)” is the ultimate black punchline to the movie's sense of humor.

“The Guest” wouldn't have worked nearly as well as it does if the perfect actor was not found for David. Luckily, Dan Stevens came along. Best known a the time for a supporting part on “Downton Abbey,” Stevens is completely controlled as David. This perfectly handsome man turns up the charm to its maximum level in all the early scenes. Of course a guy who looks this good and acts this kind is virtuous. Yet Stevens always hints at the hollowness inside David, the hidden truth that slowly comes out as the film goes on. His ability to turn on a dime from charming to murderous is impressive. Stevens even finds the room to suggest that David isn't even in control of his murderous impulses. It's a star-making performance. (And, God and the Queen willing, will insure that Stevens is our next James Bond.)

Stevens leads an accomplished cast. Maika Monroe has a unique energy as Anna, equally beguiled and suspicious of this visitor to her home. As displayed in “It Follows,” Monroe also makes the character a believable survivor too, as she fights back in the final act. Brendan Meyer has an amusing sad sack and awkward quality to Luke, an endearingly nerdy kid. Shelia Kelley definitely makes it clear that she is a mother broken by the lost of her child. Indie horror mainstay Joel David Moore, who somehow had never appeared in a Wingard movie before, also pops in as one of David's earlier victims. 

During that wonderfully Halloween atmosphere filled last third, one image on the school wall is of a distinctive skull, pumpkin, and witch mask. Any genre nerd will recognize these from “Halloween III.” This is just the most blatant John Carpenter shout-out in the movie. The score, composed entirely of pulsating synth, is obviously indebted to Carpenter. To further form the eighties atmosphere the movie is obviously striving for, “The Guest's” soundtrack is also filled top-to-bottom with classic goth and dark wave music. “A Day” by Clan of Xymox and “Anthonio” by Annie (which is not an eighties song but certainly sounds like one) are especially well-used.

“The Guest” received praise from critics and fans. It immediately became a beloved favorite among a certain breed of Carpenter-worshiping genre fan boy. This did not exactly mean box office success. The film failed to out-gross its budget in theaters. However, it's obvious the reception to “The Guest” considerably raised Wingard's profile, who started to receive far more high-profile projects after this. It might still be the director's best movie, a fantastically entertaining genre fusion that still rocks from beginning to end with an absolutely perfect lead performance. [Grade: A]

Director Report Card: Adam Wingard (2013)

7. V/H/S/2

In the world of independent horror films, it can be tricky to figure out what qualifies as a success. Movies of this type rarely receive much in the way of a wide theatrical release. If they do make a profit, it usually comes in the forms of DVD sales and digital rentals. Usually, success can be more easily measured in terms of buzz. Regardless of what you thought of the film, the first “V/H/S” absolutely generate plenty of buzz in the horror and film press. The production companies behind the film clearly saw “V/H/S” as a potential franchise. (And, to horror nerds, few things are more exciting than a long-running franchise.) A sequel was fast-tracked. “V/H/S/2 – which originally had the amusingly referential title of “S-VHS” – was in theaters a year later. Adam Wingard and Simon Barrett would return, along with several other up-and-coming genre filmmakers, for another round of found footage mayhem. 

“V/H/S/2's” framing device revolves around a sketchy private detective hired to locate a missing college student. They locate the guy's home but only find his extensive VHS collection, which they watch for clues. “Phase I Clinical Trials” follows a man who has an experimental ocular implant installed, everything he sees being recorded. And what he sees are ghosts. “A Ride in the Park” concerns a mountain biker who has a camera atop his helmet. He stumbles upon a zombie outbreak and is infected himself, his camera recording his undead experience. “Safe Haven” follows a news crew investigating a religious cult, who soon uncover disturbing phenomenon. “Slumber Party Alien Abduction” is about exactly that: Kids goofing around with a video camera at a party end up capturing extreme evidence of alien life.

By 2013, found footage was just about played out. Horror fans had seen almost every variant on the concept imaginable. The filmmakers behind “V/H/S/2” were obviously struggling with how to distinguish their film from the hundred other found footage movies that were out by that point. (The lo-fi, video aesthetic did that for the original but much less attention is paid to that here.) The solutions range from the novel to the absurd. Bike ride videos are a genre onto their own on Youtube. Combining that with the found footage premise, in “A Ride in the Park,” was extremely clever. “Slumber Party Alien Abduction” straps the camera to a dog for part of its run time. “Phase I Clinical Trials,” meanwhile, takes the glasses gimmick from the first movie's “Amateur Night” segment too far, sticking the camera inside the human eye. If you have to invent new technology to justify your found footage story, maybe just don't tell that story. 

The last two segments of “V/H/S/2” are less concerned with finding new ways to justify why the cameras have to keep running. That's because “V/H/S/2” is much more focused on just telling good stories than fulfilling the anthology's gimmicks. This means approaching the first film's defining tactic – tales of violence, horror, and sex on VHS – in a different way. Yes, there's quite a lot of horror and violence in the film. A bit of nudity and sex too. Yet the in-your-face “extreme horror” style that made the first “V/H/S” sometimes abrasive is not so much a priority this time. This results in a less distinctive movie but probably a better one too.

As with the first “V/H/S,” the framing device is the weakest of the movie's segments. Screenwriter Simon Barrett steps behind the camera, making his directorial debut. There's some interesting ideas contained within “Tape 49.” The recorded monologues of the tape collector suggest a subculture of people who collect freaky found footage exists in the “V/H/S” universe. (The guy casually laughs off finding “CP” in the tapes, proving how extreme this subculture is.) That probably should've been the focus of the framing device, as it's more intriguing than the private detective angle. The detective tries to blackmail the cheating husband he finds in the first scene, suggesting the E.C. Comics style sense of justice that informed the first movie. 

Yet most of these angles are abandoned in favor of the idea that watching evil tapes destroys the mind. We see this in the way the detective's female accomplice slowly develops strange symptoms while watching through the evidence. This is a premise thoroughly explored in “The Ring,” “Videodrome,” and other movies before. ”V/H/S/2” doesn't really engage with the potential deeper meanings of that idea, like those other films did. “Tape 49's” best idea is the reveal at the end, that the tapes within-the-film end directly where the framing device starts. That, admittedly, caught me off-guard and sets up a pretty decent series of scares.

If the framing device underwhelms, that feeling continues with the first proper segment. Adam Wingard directs and stars in “Phase I Clinical Trials.” (Wingard stepped into the starring role after the original choice, James Rolfe of “Angry Video Game Nerd” fame, had to pass.) If the shaky premise Wingard cooked up for the segment suggests a lack-of-interest, so does the episode's content. “Phase I Clinical Trials” is largely devoted to underwhelming jump scares. Multiple times, pale ghostly figures with big bags under their eyes leap at the camera. Loud noise shrieks on the soundtrack every time this happens. The primary ghost is even a spooky little child, one of the most badly abused clichés in the horror genre. Considering the quick turn-around between this sequel and the first one, perhaps Wingard was a little crunched for times and ideas. “Phase I Clinical Trials” is truly uninspired. 

Luckily things start to improve with the next segment. Eduardo Sanchez and Gregg Hale pioneered the found footage genre with “The Blair Witch Project,” so it was fitting that they were invited to work on “V/H/S/2.” The two managed to cook up a novel approach to the zombie premise, the only horror idea more played out than found footage was in 2012. While movies before had purported to tell the zombie apocalypse scenario from the zombie's point of view, “A Ride in the Park” commits to that rather literally. It straps a camera to the zombie's head, giving us a first-person perspective as they shamble along, attack people, and consume human flesh. It's an almost fresh perspective on the genre, at least adding a novel angle to this often-told tale.

By telling a zombie story directly from the point-of-view of the zombie, “A Ride in the Park” manages to find some humor and even pathos in the idea. Zombies, being mindless corpse, respond to everything in the most dead-pan of fashions. Whether it be a poke in the eye with a barbecue fork or a torn-off limb, they groan quizzically and continue wandering around. Yet there is something sad about the lifeless zombie too, crawling around as a rotten reminder of the lives they had. When our main zombies picks up a teddy bear, it seemingly stirs something in his dead brain. The film emphasizes this by having the zombie cluelessly answer a phone call from his still-living girlfriend, who has no idea about what happened. In just a few minutes, “A Ride in the Park” manages to find a lot of depth to these undead archetypes. 

If “V/H/S/2” downplays the in-your-face style of the first, it's only in attitude, not content. “Safe Haven,” the third segment, features the most intense gore in the entire series. This is not surprising, considering the film comes from Gareth Evans and Timo Tjahjanto of the famously bone-crushing “The Raid” duo. The story of a demonic religious sect collapsing in on itself, and a camera crew caught in the middle. We have a first-person perspective of a throat being slashed, blood spurting everywhere. A circle of men blow their brains out in a synchronized motion. A man explodes directly into the camera lens, reduced to a slurry of blood and guts. An enormous demon crawls its way out of a woman's body. Shotgun blasts reduce heads to pulp right in front of us.

The film doesn't just throw this gore around for its own sake. Evans and Tjahjanto know exactly how to make this violence hit with maximum impact. The found footage angle – which definitely doesn't address the “why doesn't he put the camera down?” question – is mostly used to put the audience right in the middle of this madness. And it's so effective that we don't ask that question. “Safe Haven” accurately captures a sense of panic and chaos. As the characters grapple with zombies, or have a crowd of cultist close in on them, the intensity definitely keeps rising and rising. The stakes are continuously upped, especially once that goat-headed monster appears. “Safe Haven” keeps rocketing along, with grotesque and disturbing imagery, until its final and intentionally sarcastic image. It's a hell of a ride.

“Slumber Party Alien Abduction” attempts to keep that tension going and somewhat succeeds. Director Jason Eisner, of “Hobo with a Shotgun” fame, has some pretty smart tricks to visually and aurally overwhelm the audience.  The alien invaders are often accompanied by blasting lights and rumbling noises on the soundtrack. The creatures are classical greys, a simple special effect that is further exaggerated with smartly utilized CGI to make them more inhuman. The segment – which resembles forgotten found footage classic “Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County” in a few ways – is largely a series of attack scenes once the chaos starts. Yet Eisner largely keeps the sense of panic going, making “Slumber Party Alien Abduction” a pretty intense episode to close on. 

Now, Eisner has a style that is distinct from the other directors. “Hobo with a Shotgun” was closer in spirit to Troma than John Carpenter. (This was even evident in his “ABCs of Death” segment, a ditty about neon-drenched pedophilia.) Eisner makes sure to include a little bit of that neon color and lots of profanity-laced scenes of teen boys screaming, drooling over girls, and playing pranks. It's borderline obnoxious but, I don't know, it kind of works for me. Dialogue this extreme can be excused when writing teenage boys. Teenage boys actually talk that way after all. If nothing else, it's nice to see Eisner can maintain his personal style while still delivering an effective horror short.

While the first “V/H/S” was somewhat divisively received, the sequel earned much better reviews from fans and critics. “Safe Haven” was especially singled out, with some even listing it among the best horror films of the year. While that is probably the stand-out segment, I think pretty much everything in “V/H/S/2” after Wingard's installment is pretty damn good. It's a little more accessible than the first and perhaps more strongly assembled in general, even if some of the attitude and aesthetic that really distinguished the first movie are reeled in some. Either way, the two films together stand out as some of the best later entries into the found footage horror trend. [Grade: A-]

Director Report Card: Adam Wingard (2012)

6. V/H/S

By 2011, “mumblegore” – the indie horror genre that sort-of, kind-of evolved out of the mumblecore movement – was defined enough to compile several notable filmmakers. Found footage had also grown to be the defining horror fad of the previous decade. Around that time, the production arm of website Bloody Disgusting had the idea of combine the two movements. Six filmmakers would be invited to participate: Adam Wingard, thoroughly established now because of “You're Next;” David Bruckner, one of the men behind “The Signal;” Ti West, of “House of the Devil” and “The Innkeepers” fame; Glen McQuaid from “I Sell the Dead;” Joe Swanberg who had moved into horror himself with “Silver Bullets;” and collective Radio Silence, who had made several clever Youtube videos. The gimmick of the project, utilizing a lo-fi VHS aesthetic, would lend the movie its title. “V/H/S” would open in October of 2012. 

The framing device, “Tape 56,” involves found footage collectors breaking into a home to locate a valuable tape. Instead, they discover a library of strange recordings: “Amateur Night” concerns frat boys who buy glasses with a built-in camera. They hope to make some clandestine pornography but instead encounter an unusual, and deadly, woman. “Second Honeymoon” concerns a couple on a romantic road trip, pursued by an intruder. “Tuesday the 17th” documents young people traveling into the woods. Only one of them is aware of the invisible killer that roams the area. “The Sick Thing that Happened to Emily When She was Younger” is a recording of video calls between two lovers, the girl soon relating her history of unusual phenomenon. “10/31/98” follows some guys looking for a Halloween haunted house that stumble into a real supernatural ritual. 

By 2012, there had been a lot of found footage movies. “Paranormal Activity” opened the flood gates. The best of these films subtly commented on the presence of cameras in every part of our lives. The worst of them simply used the format to disguise their meager budgets and lack of creativity. “V/H/S” smartly exploits the technical side of the found footage genre for as many scares as possible. Each segment capitalizes on the immediacy of the format, crazy things happening in real time to our characters. Each segment is intimate, putting us right behind the camera with the terrified protagonists. 

Best yet, the retro VHS aesthetic is played with in innovative ways. “Tuesday the 17th” has the typical slasher killer only being visible through the camera lens, where he appears as a blur of pixels. Pixilation is used throughout as a clever way to distort audience's view of events, leaving us in suspense of new scares. Previous murders committed in the same locations flash on-screen in split-second glimpses. Bruckner's, Swanberg's, and Radio Silence's segments all seamlessly incorporate elaborate special effect shots into their film, making them seem more real. (And scarier.) Best yet, the film rarely degrades into incoherent shaky-cam like so many inferior found footage films. Not to mention the VHS angle adds a retro touch to the film that's irresistible to terminal nostaglist like myself.

Frequent Wingard collaborator Simon Barrett wrote several of the segments, as well as producing the film. I'm betting Adam Wingard was brought onto the project very early. If you look at “V/H/S” as a part of his overall filmography, it can be seen as a return to his “Home Sick” days of extreme horror. The letters of the title stand, not for Video Home System, but Violence, Horror, and Sex. Most of the segments deliver on that promise. Nudity is prolific. Gore is common, including several scenes that toss bloody bits right into the camera lens. In the opening minutes of the framing device, the protagonist scream and assault a woman, flashing her breasts for the camera. It's loud, aggressive, juvenile, and in-your-face. 

Something this knowingly obnoxious might have a limited appeal but there's a logic behind “V/H/S'” madness. Combined with the retro style, it's meant to invoke shot-on-video gore-fests made by young horror fans. The framing device, “Amateur Night,” and “Tuesday the 17th” also operate under “Tales from the Crypt” logic. By which I mean they are stories about bad people doing bad things and inevitably receiving supernatural comeuppance for their crimes. It's a classic narrative style that allows authors to revel in amoral behavior while ultimately re-enforcing a moral universe. And it's a fitting homage to make, since the horror anthology genre has its roots in those E.C. comic books. 

Admittedly, a set-up like that sometimes makes it hard for you to care about the main characters. Most of the lads in “Amateur Night” are obnoxious, would-be date-rapists who see nothing wrong with recording a sexual encounter without the girl's permission. Bruckner smartly makes the story's protagonist the one guy in the group who objects to this plan. The framing device has no such center. The characters are all objectively terrible people. Wingard has a good idea behind the segment, putting the scares in plain sight as it were. A corpse is in the background of most of the framing device, the viewer left in suspense over when it'll spring to life. Yet it's hard to care too much when the boys are so rotten.

“Amateur Night” also works extremely well, possibly being the best segment in the film, because it's expertly executed. Putting the camera in the glasses lens brilliantly makes the separation between the audience and the characters in the movie even smaller. It's a first person movie. Bruckner utilizes this smartly, setting most of the story in a small hotel room. That leaves little room for our protagonist to run from a crazy monster, leading to a panicked sense of tension. Bruckner also fills that limited space with simply freaky imagery. Like it's femme fatale contorting in the shadows of the hotel room, lit only by a flickering TV screen. Once again, the lo-fi visuals cleverly disguises the seams in the special effects making them – like a body sailing across a room or the slow transformation of the attacker – seem far more uncanny.

Another reason I really like “Amateur Night” is it's one of the few horror films that utilizes a succubus as its monster. The dream-invading sex demons are as old as vampires but they really show up on film. (And when they do, it's usually as objects of lust, not fear.) Lily – an obvious allusion to Lilith – is played by the spectacularly wide-eyed Hannah Fierman. Her behavior is fittingly alien. Despite her predatory nature, there's something almost innocent about her behavior. She repeatedly tells Clint, the only decent guy in the group, she “likes him” in a childish fashion. As Lily's demonic side is revealed, the eccentricity of Fierman's face are exaggerated by wonderfully freaky make-up effects. Yet she maintains that undeniably sensual, weirdly innocent demeanor even then. And the segment has a wonderfully clever ending. "Amateur Night" was good enough to be spun-off into its own film.

The second segment, “Second Honeymoon,” is among the film's weaker. (Which was a bit of a surprise upon release, considering Ti West was the most critically acclaimed of these filmmakers at the time.) It's basically a modernized riff on an old urban legend. The one about a honeymooning couple who develop the film in their camera, just to discover pictures of their toothbrushes up some nasty customers' asses. Since everyone uses digital cameras now, this idea is replaced with an intruder entering their hotel room and recording themselves swishing a toothbrush in the toilet bowl. This plays even more into the legend's roots, that fear of your privacy being violated when you're on the road.

“Second Honeymoon” is also unnecessarily long, as there's several meandering scenes devoted to the couple roaming around. Yet devoting so much time to the couple's interactions does add more verisimilitude to the segment. It really feels like a random vacation tape. Joe Swanberg and Sophia Takal, both filmmakers, have a warm rapport as the couple. Swanberg comes off as slightly meat-headed but lovable while Takal seems like a sweet girl. All that warmth is sacrificed for a shock ending that comes out of nowhere, is anticipated by nothing in the story, and is seriously abrupt.

“Tuesday the 17th” is definitely my second favorite segment in the film, as it manages to find a new variation on the much-abused slasher formula. The characters fit into the archetypes of the genre: The nerd, the jock, the slutty girl. Except this time, the final girl is intentionally leading her friends into a trap. The gory flashback footage appearing on-screen sets up an unsettling atmosphere. This is further emphasized by the cast's increasingly strange behavior as they get get deeper into the woods. The gore is brutal. Once again, I have to laud the creativity behind the killer's appearance, which further gives a camera a reason to be in the story. In about twenty minutes, it manages to pack in almost everything I want from a slasher movie.

“The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She was Younger” has its ups-and-downs. For an anthology about stories on VHS tapes, it's weird that this is told through video chat. Yet the segment still manages to be effectively unnerving. The stationary camera of the video chat leaves the viewer constantly checking over the characters' shoulders, for sight of any of the strange spectres. The ghostly figures that appear are creepy. They are barely glimpsed, child-sized entities that wander on-screen in a flurry of pixels. Emily assumes they are ghosts... Yet she also finds strange objects under her skin. Anyone familiar with alien abduction lore will make the connection quickly. 

Yet something even darker emerges from this. When Emily cuts open her arm to try and squeeze the object out, parallels are drawn to various mental illnesses. A final twist reveals that Emily's boyfriend is not only aware of what's happening but complacent in it. He's essentially gaslighting her about the terrifying truth. Considering Swanberg specializes in stories about dysfunctional relationships, it's not surprising he'd take the story in that direction. It's admittedly a new angle, even if it does lead to an exposition heavy ending. 

Radio Silence's “10/31/98” is essentially an extended effects reel. Most of its run time is devoted to its trio of characters screwing around an empty house. When the supernatural shit finally hits the demonic fan, cleverly utilized effects puts all sorts of nightmarish images on-screen. Ghostly hands reach through walls. People are snatched up by invisible forces and disappear into shadows. There's really nothing else compelling about this segment but these moments, with their groaning sound design and frenzied direction, are so damn scary. This is not too surprising once you realize the episode is basically an expansion of a terrifying viral video the same team created.  That Youtube clip was also scary as hell and it didn't have a story or any characters either. 

Like most of Adam Wingard and Ti West's films, “V/H/S” had a divisive reception. Critics tended to like it but horror fans were more split. The found footage style being extremely overexposed at the time might've been a factor. Nevertheless, “V/H/S” was a commercial success and quickly found a following. I was a fan from day one and it's notable as one of the few films to really scare the crap out of my buddy and old podcast co-host, JD. “V/H/S” isn't quite as fresh now as it was in 2012 yet I mostly still find plenty to enjoy about it. [Grade: A-]

Director Report Card: Adam Wingard (2011) - Part Two

5. You're Next

By 2011, Adam Wingard was certainly a well-known name in the somewhat inclusive world of indie horror. I don't know if the mainstream Hollywood establishment had taken notice yet or not. Either way, excluding the mumblecore grotesqueness of “Autoerotic,” Wingard's films had slowly been getting slicker. When “You're Next” premiered at the 2011 Toronto Film Festival, it caused an immediate bidding war. Liongates would buy the movie for two million dollars – double its budget – and drop it into multiplexes everywhere. This would bring the “mumblegore” aesthetic, which was only just then beginning to solidify, to the masses. Moreover, it would mark Adam Wingard as one of the genre's best and brightest new voices.

Erin really likes her new boyfriend Crispin, who used to be her professor. She likes him enough to accompany him to a dinner with his (very rich) family at their secluded mansion. Mom Audrey is already feeling unsettled, as the weekend begins, convinced intruders are in the house. As the family sits down to eat, and the bickering starts, she learns that this instinct was correct. Assassins in animal masks begin to enter the home and kill the family members one-by-one. Erin, however, proves much harder to kill than expected. As she fights back against the intruders, she discovers that Crispin's family has some secrets of their own.

“You're Next” was born out of Adam Wingard suggesting frequent collaborator Simon Barrett write a home invasion movie, as he found them especially scary. By the time the film was released, films like “Funny Games,” “The Strangers,” and “The Purge” made the home invasion premise pretty played out. This is probably why “You're Next” spins in a truly unexpected direction. Yet before that reveal, it's still a pretty good home invasion movie. The creaking noise of a large house is played up to disquieting effect. We hear weird noises, sensing that something is wrong. The isolation of the location is emphasized from the first scene. This comfortable mansion is too isolated, too sprawling, to feel truly comfortable. The filmmakers uses these elements to generate unease from the get-go. 

This is not the only type of tension “You're Next” utilizes in its first half. Large family gatherings, especially for estranged families, are always wrought with enmity. After sitting down for dinner, it's only a matter of time before the siblings start sniping at each other. Soon enough, the judging and in-fighting begins. Even before the siblings inevitably start backbiting, there's tension in the air. Some of the family members, like Crispin, are totally fed-up and burned out by the years of arguing. Mom Audrey is so nervous that it's totally plausible that she's imagining all the strange sounds she's hearing at first. It's a fertile ground to plant horror in, as it's a very realistic sort of unease many people are already familiar with.

When the violence bursts into the film, it feels like a culmination of all those years of resentment and in-fighting. The initial attack of the first home invasion feels brutal and swift. A boyfriend gets an arrow right between the eyes. Glass shatters. People panic. More arrows rain down on the interior of the home. In one of the film's nastiest surprises, someone attempting to flee runs throat-first into a taunt garrote wire stringed in front of the door. Wingard has obviously learned some things about how to present violence cinematically. The shaky-cam we saw in “A Horrible Way to Die” is still present but it's used in a more controlled, deliberate way. It successfully conveys the panic the characters are feeling in that moment. He also appreciates the strength of slowing down, utilizing still far-off shots and the occasional burst of slow-motion. 

Those home invasion scenes are intense and thrilling, as you'd expect from an experienced and skilled genre filmmaker like Wingard. Yet that is not what makes “You're Next” so fantastically entertaining. Erin slowly reveals that she is not your typical slasher movie final girl. She immediately takes control of the situation, dictating the best way to survive circumstances like this. She sets traps for the masked intruders. A key moment has her successfully taking down an attacker with several swift blows to the back of the head with a hammer. We soon learn that Erin was raised by survivalists. Upon first viewing, this was the most pleasant surprise. “You're Next” isn't just a well-made genre exercise. It's knowingly playing with audience expectations in an exciting and refreshing way. 

In fact, this moment represents a very clear tonal shift inside “You're Next.” There are still tense scenes after this. A sequence where Erin is pursued by a masked intruder, who she distracted with a repeating camera flash, is quite taut. However, a sense of humor sneaks more and more into the story after that. The characters reveal pettier, more absurd sides to themselves. A conversation about having sex next to a corpse is especially comical. Mostly, the humor manifest in the increasingly over-the-top violence. As Erin cleaves through the attackers in increasingly brutal ways, her vengeance becomes more righteous. By the time a blender is weaponized, or the sick joke final kill that closes the movie, “You're Next” totally won me over with its unexpected slide into subversive horror/comedy.

The twist in the story also reveals the not-so-subtle social commentary inherent in “You're Next's” set-up. The biggest swerve reveals that Cripsin's brother, Felix, has hired the killers to bump off his family, so he won't have to share the inheritance. Later, it's revealed that Crispin is in on this too. The home invasion isn't a random attack, with the title-lending opening murder scene simply being a way to make it look like a random attack. Erin is an outsider in Crispin's family. His world is one of extensive family estates, where relatives squabble among themselves. She doesn't belong here. When it's revealed that she's a born survivor, that marks her even more as a target by the rich. It's rich people shit, petty in-fighting between millionaires that ends up trying to kill a normal person. (The later, inferior “Ready or Not” would do something extremely similar.)

Some visual symbolism further illustrates this point. Two of the killers that stalk Erin wear the masks of predatory animals, a tiger and a fox. (The remaining one wears a lamb mask and he isn't the first to die, presumably because that would've been too on-the-nose.) On a more basic level, these masks are an inspired choice. When making a slasher movie, you can't undersell the value of a good mask. They are cheap, plastic animal masks that look like they could've been bought from the dollar store. Yet they obscure the faces and eyes of their wearer, making them appear inhuman and hard-to-read. They are simple and immediately recognizable but distinct from any prior horror movie masks I've seen. No wonder they quickly became iconic, being referenced in video games and pro-wrestling.

“You're Next” also includes one of my favorite performances in a horror movie from last decade. Sharni Vinson plays Erin. From her first scene, her Australian accent makes an impression. She has an instantly relatable charm. This is important, since she goes through some pretty unexpected changes later in the film. By hooking us early on, we are ready to believe it when Erin reveals her amazing ability to fight back and survive. Vinson is totally capable as a determined survivor and fighter. Honestly, I don't know how she didn't become a big movie star after this. She's only done a few movies since this one and hasn't appeared in a feature film since 2016.

The film belongs to Vinson but the supporting cast is filled with familiar faces, from both Wingard's movies and other's. This was Barbara Crampton's big return to horror. While her role was small, it sure was nice to see her again and she panics extremely well. (It's been wonderful to see Crampton become a regular in the indie horror scene after this.) A.J. Bowen is perfectly condescending as Crispin. Nicholas Tucci shows an amusingly hammy side as Felix, the most duplicitous family member. “Pop Skull's” Lane Hughes is among the most prominently featured masked killers. Amy Seimetz and Joe Swanberg reappear as two of the other siblings. Wingard also shows his indie horror cred by casting Ti West and Larry Fessenden as special guest victims. 

Wingard has always worn his influences on his sleeve and, in “You're Next,” that's especially apparent. Obviously, the films of John Carpenter was on his mind here. You can see it in the siege film premise. And you can hear in the electronic pulses of the deliberate score, which marches through several sequences and retches up the tension. (When the score isn't deploying shrieking strings.) This is not the only inspired musical choice. The film plucked “Looking for the Magic,” an album cut from the critically acclaimed but largely overlooked Dwight Twiley Band, out of obscurity. The driving melody repeats all throughout the film and was a dreamy, inspired counterpoint to the carnage on-screen. 

When Liongates dropped “You're Next” into theaters in 2011, they sold it as just another home invasion movie. This might have been why the initial audience reaction was somewhat divisive. Not everyone enjoys having their expectations so expertly subverted. Yet, ultimately, this was the best way to sell the movie as to spoil the twist would've ruined the movie's best moments. For genre fans who do enjoy surprises and twists on formula, “You're Next” quickly became a cult classic. It certainly made me an Adam Wingard fan. I'm happy to say, even if you know the twist, the movie still holds up as fabulously entertaining and expertly assembled. [Grade: A-]