Skip to main content

At least I have the Spider to keep me company?


(SPOILERS) Maybe I’m just weary of this kind of movie, however proficiently put together and performed. That would be my explanation for a very mild acknowledgement of Watcher’s merits. It generally seems to have garnered plaudits as a smart, intelligent entry in the horror genre. Chloe Okuno’s feature debut is well done for what it is, but immerses itself so heavily in genre tropes that it struggles to emerge with its own distinct identity.

It’s also a problem that the clash of intents rather draws attention to itself. On the one hand, we’re presented with a spartan, lo-fi setting, the faux-realism of Julia (Maika Monroe) moving to Bucharest with her husband Francis (Karl Glusman) and, not being a native language speaker, finding herself cut off and isolated in an unwelcoming urban environment. The situation beckons authenticity, far from the lush stylistic furnishings of, say, a De Palma picture.

Consequently, it isn’t intended as the kind of exercise where we, the audience are in on the joke when the familiar devices and sleights begin to pile up; we’re supposed to take them seriously, be it the first-act Chekov’s Gun – well, of course, where else would it be? And it’s actually a gun this time, so unadorned is the construction – or Julia’s decision to follow the man who watches her from across the street, whom she thinks may be a serial killer, around the streets and subways of the city.

And naturally, no one believes her or credits her concerns about the creepy guy staring into her window. Well, maybe neighbour Irina (Mãdãlina Anea), she of the Chekovian plot device. But not the police, and not Julia’s hubby, with whom relations become increasingly fraught, as he thinks she’s a fantasising loon, confabulating due to there being serial killer the Spider on the prowl. Yes, you heard that right, there’s an actual serial killer about, a further dent for the picture being taken in a serious frame of mind.

Because, in the current social-media environment, a horror movie of this ilk – and one directed by a woman – lends itself to associations it would hitherto have escaped. You know, that a woman not being believed is the very definition of #MeToo. Obviously, that bumps heads with this very set up being an unadulterated genre staple; you SHOULD believe the woman, especially when she’s proposing victimisation by the CIA-sponsored MKUltra serial-killer paradigm, horror’s laziest but most prosperous crutch.

Watcher’s simultaneously well shot and staged, with potent sound design, and replete with the requisite bland, digital dourness that drains all lustre from the proceedings; you aren’t going to want to visit Bucharest in a hurry, irrespective of the prospect of being stalked by a serial killer. This is not a poster movie for the Romanian Tourist Board, since it pretty much exemplifies the drab, grey mind’s eye image of Eastern Europe.

Ironically for a movie so infused with genre form, it has been spurned by many of those who might be expected to respond. It’s thus your classic critic’s darling that fails to elicit a similar audience response. Watcher doesn’t provide the requisite shock tactics that, say, have made The Black Phone a box-office success. It has been labelled pretentious and slow, and while the latter – it’s the very definition of slow-burn – is more than fair comment, I fail to see how the former applies. I mean, there isn’t much to it.

Admittedly, the picture’s last fifteen minutes – the point where it tips from the psychological to the tangible – are the ones that had me responding in a fashion beyond the respectful but slightly listless. There’s a particularly effective “What’s in the bag?” exchange on the subway, preceding Okuno’s concluding sequence (she adapted a story by Zack Ford). This finds Monroe taking unlikely but suitably rousing action against her stalker (none other than Burn Gorman – Slow-Burn Gorman? – who has an unfortunate face for such roles). It seems particularly unlikely, because I’m unsure how much blood she can have left in her body by this point, but there you go; Watcher wants to have its verisimilitudinous cake and eat it. To be taken seriously, until it wants you to just go with the flow.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.