Get an up close and gory look at nationalism gone utterly wild.
Scorsese & Lehane together as one? That's how you get a spooky, mind-bending thriller like SHUTTER ISLAND.
All Good Things. 2010. Directed by Andrew Jarecki. Screenplay by Marcus Hinchey & Marc Smerling.
Starring Ryan Gosling, Kirsten Dunst, Frank Langella, Philip Baker Hall, Lily Rabe, Michael Esper, Diane Venora, Nick Offerman, Kristen Wiig, Stephen Kunken, John Cullum, & Maggie Kiley. Magnolia Pctures/Groundswell/Alliance Films.
Rated 18A. 103 minutes.
By now, many people have seen HBO’s series The Jinx: The Life and Deaths of Robert Durst, directed by Andrew Jarecki. Before that, he did this fictional retelling of the events which frame most of the later documentary series. While the names are changed to slightly distance itself from the actual notorious missing persons case involving Robert Durst’s wife Kathleen McCormack, Jarecki sticks close to home. Above anything, All Good Things is an up close and personal adaptation of a true crime story spanning several decades.
Centering in on the fictional version of Durst – here named David Marks, played by Ryan Gosling – this film examines the life of a man whose entire identity is a construct, one that shifts and changes depending on the situation, one that it a mask and also a plea, to be like everyone else, to find unity. At the bottom of it all, Marks – Durst – whoever he wants to be in real life – that person is lonely. He is empty. But the problem with him, as Jarecki shows us through the screenplay from Marcus Hinchey and Marc Smerling, that everything seems wonderful at first because Marks plays the part he’s required to play. Then when the disguise gives way and the mask falls off a whole other terrifying reality lies directly behind it.
So the obvious origin of the title is the health food store David and Katie own together. And it was the last episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, but that’s besides the point. It also obviously refers to the common phrase “all good things must come to an end”, which holds particular significance in regards to the film’s subject and themes. In the beginning, David is all those good things. He and Katie had such a whirlwind romance. It’s really the ultimate romantic movie hookup, as they meet on a whim when David’s forced to go out and look after her leaky faucet, all the while wearing a tux on the way to a party with his father and some big shots. They seemed such kindred spirits. Then they head off out to the countryside and run a health food store together; so sweet, so American Dreamy. After the possibility of children comes up when they get married, all those good things they come to an end. Rather abruptly. From that moment on it’s a veritable free fall descent into a tortured marriage between David and Katie. One thing, then the next. David’s mask slips further with each desperate, strange act. Until it’s as if there never were any good things, and even those good things could never ever be enough to in any way erase the things which came after them.
You can see the manipulative nature of David come out most evident when Katie receives her acceptance letter to medical school. As she comes in and happily reads her (already opened) mail, David proceeds to go out, jump in a cold fall lake and swim to get a little boat he apparently doesn’t want stolen. Except it is a cry for attention, to take it off her, as he feels wounded by not knowing she’d applied in the first place. Further than that it’s his narcissistic personality emerging more than ever. His freezing cold, almost naked body now takes precedence over her big happy moment. A brief yet sad, telling scene. And things only get worse from there. The good things, they slip away further, and his dangerous side presents itself. Right out in the open, too. Right in front of her family. So the scary part is: what would he do behind closed doors? And that sets the stage for the possibilities swirling around the mystery of Katie’s disappearance later on.
More manipulation is clear in the relationship between Malvern and David. As we get the present David telling a lawyer/the court about Malvern being too clingy and awkward, we’re also intermittently shown cuts of the two of them house shopping: here we see David directly oppose what he says on the stand. So really, everybody near David is manipulated, whether friend, lawyer, courtrooms, whomever it may be; this is a true con artist.
Furthermore, if we look again at the phrase “all good things must come to an end” then there appears a tragic trend along the timeline of David Marks’ life. Because it appears good people meet their end when wrapped up with David. Not to say his possible accomplice in the disappearance of his wife was a good woman, nor was Malvern either. But there’s no telling how these people would have went through life had David not influenced them in some way, shape, or form. Anybody that walks about life leaving a trail of bodies like David is inherently suspicious as an influential figure.
Something I enjoy a lot about All Good Things is the shifting, twisty narrative. Bits of the present are weaved in through pieces of the past, and just like the life of David Marks (a.k.a Robert Durst) the past is never far behind; like William Faulkner, it isn’t even past. So part of the narrative structure overall speaks to that very theme in the life of its main character, the true life figure they’re fictionally dissecting here onscreen. Not only that there is a solid ambiguity which strings on long after the film ends. Of course in real life there have been a couple answers, or likely answers, since The Jinx aired. Yet the disappearance of Katie Marks (a.k.a Kathleen McCormack) is still draped in mystery. This movie provides some possible explanations. However, nothing is concrete, not a thing is for certain. And though this is an aspect that might divide others, causing them to label the film as unfair in its ambiguity. For me, it’s perfectly so. In real life the answers are never easy, certainly not in a case like this debacle (in every sense of the word). Therefore, Jarecki and the writers give us no definitive, final answers to the questions surrounding this true crime. Rather it’s all about the atmosphere, the emotional perspectives, the heaviness of everything.
In that way All Good Things is impressive. Jarecki is a good director, whose talents were evident before this in his (admittedly problematic) documentary Capturing the Friedmans. Here, he directs the story well and conjures up a mysterious, tense mood like something out of memories; it’s like we’re looking into the past through the lens of someone’s memory or their dreams. The look is impeccable, alongside some fascinating makeup work for the 2000s scenes. On top of that, the score from composer Rob Simonsen (Foxcatcher, 500 Days of Summer) is so god damn beautiful. The very noticeable string pieces are rich and gorgeous sounding, at the same time they’ve got an ominous sort of tone to them that resonates with the plot. Also it helps with the pacing, as these portions of the score almost make things feel like they’re clipping along solidly. The music and the visuals match up quite well to achieve this movie’s wholly engaging atmosphere.
The writing and directing, all the technical aspects line up together. Yet in addition there’s so much talent in the cast. Along the edges there’s Philip Baker Hall, always enjoyable and always interesting to see as the various characters he inhabits. His portrayal of Malvern Bump (a.k.a Morris Black) is infectious, in the sense he grows on you similar to how he does David, but all the same we’re also able to see how he is perhaps a bit too closely attached; though not always his own fault. His tragic qualities are brought out by Hall in a subtly intense performance. Also, the ever awesome Frank Langella plays Sanford Marks (a.k.a Seymour Durst). Only a supporting role, Langella makes this father figure a looming one in David’s life, and one whose identity casts too deep and long a shadow for David to want to live up to it whatsoever. He is truly menacing at times and a hateful, sad man, which Langella portrays so well.
Dunst and Gosling are the shining stars. No doubt. With Dunst we get a spectacular performance in her role as a woman that figures out all good things are coming to their end, and fast. But a woman who is nearly powerless to stop it, then winds up with a far worse fate than she’d ever imagined. Dunst’s emotional resonance is always apparent as an actor, but almost never more so than in this role. She is powerful, strong, and even as a victim does not feel utterly lacking hope. Parallel to her is Gosling, and he knocks the role of David Marks out of the park. Some say he’s the same in every movie, I don’t agree. He just isn’t a loud, brash actor. Instead he gives an understated performance. He never allows us a full view into David, similar to how the real Durst is quite the shifty, manipulative character. Gosling keeps Marks as a quiet and subdued type, whose scary personal side only erupts in the most controlled environments. And when those moments happen they are intense, sometimes horrifying. Together, Dunst and Gosling elevate this whole story with their emotional acting.
Honestly, this is a favourite of mine since the 2010s broke. Andrew Jarecki does a lot of good stuff in terms of directorial choices here, which are only further aided by the solid cast, the moving score, and the screenplay’s interesting structure. Definitely check this out, especially if you’re at all interested in The Jinx or Robert Durst in general. Absolutely worth investing the time; an atmospheric, well acted piece of true crime fictionalized.
The Bunny Game. 2010. Directed by Adam Rehmeier. Story by Rodleen Getsic & Adam Rehmeier.
Starring Rodleen Getsic, Jeff F. Renfro, Drettie Page, Coriander Womack, Gregg Gilmore, Loki, Curtis Reynolds, and Jason Timms. Death Mountain Productions.
Unrated. 76 minutes.
Sometimes there comes along a film that is so dreary and needlessly graphic that I question why it was ever made. Now, before anyone says “Well if you can’t handle it then that’s not the film’s problem”, let me tell you this – I’ve seen plenty of disgusting, disturbing, outrageously graphic, gory, and beyond fucked up films in my time. I’ve seen a little over 4,100 movies in total. Many, many of those are horror. I’ve seen my fair share of good horror, as well as a lion’s share of terribly made, awful horror movies. I own Cannibal Holocaust, which is a nasty piece of work, and I’ve actually seen Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom one more than once occasion – don’t ask me why. Plus, I’d actually consider those good horror. Then there’s the type of stuff I’ve just about perished while trying to watch, like the absolutely terrible August Underground stuff; pure, utter tripe, does nothing for the genre except make it look awful. Realistic? Sure. Realism does equate to quality, though.
So when I say that The Bunny Game is a grim and dreary, nasty piece of work, I’m saying it in the sense that it is all that but nothing comes of it. It’s not a good film overall. Ultimately, this is one of those brutal horror films which goes nowhere with what it’s trying to accomplish, and by the end you’re just wondering: A) why didn’t I turn this off sooner?, and B) I hope nobody makes a sequel to this one.
Either way, the result of The Bunny Game is not, as some no doubt paid crew members have spouted off on IMDB and other sites, in any way the reinvention of the genre. No way, shape, or form is it anything close. I never like to rag too hard on a film, but unfortunately for this one I just cannot find the words to express anything enjoyable or positive about any aspect of this muggy turd.
Bunny (Rodleen Getsic) is an unfortunate soul, left on the streets – who knows what her sad story truly is – and resorting to prostitution.
She goes from one motel room to the next, searching for another meal, trying to stay high and alive. She squats and pees on the side of the road because she has nowhere else to go. She’s also so coked up that she passes out; one of Bunny’s customers goes ahead and has sex with her anyways, then proceeds to loot the bag she carries around constantly. After waking up to find the trust backpack empty, she loses her mind. But it’s just back out on the street once more, on to another miserable day.
Finally, she gets picked up by a trucker who wants to do some drugs with her; he needs a pick me up after a long stretch on the road. But that’s not all he wants – Bunny is taken hostage, thrown into the back of his truck, where a camera is setup, there are chains, and the trucker has plenty of sick games in mind for the poor, lonely girl.
At times we’re treated to these shots that go on for what feels like eternity, and I’m truly at a loss as to why they’re in film. I get that the trucker guy this insane dude, is supposed to be developed slightly before things get going into the brutality full-on. However, having this man just walk around a little, smoke some cigarettes, drive – I mean, what’s the purpose? Perhaps if there were some nuisance, subtlety in this character, or in the performance, there’d be a reason to focus so much on him in such a languid, boring way. The camera’s not doing anything interesting, we’re simply watching this man. There’s nothing going on much in his face, in his mannerisms, though, I suspect there should be. We’re just not seeing much.
Then he climbs into the back of the truck with Bunny, who is out completely cold, and the real misogyny and nastiness begins. I honestly loathe the stupid “torture porn” label because I think it’s stupid, although I realize what the label is meant to convey. That being said, I’d go ahead and say this is the concept of “torture porn” at its worst, at the most base and vile it can be on film. We’ve got to watch this mental trucker suck on Bunny’s nipples, play with her earlobes and other weird sexual stuff. It’s fine to have a character that deranged in the movie, but why do you have to explicitly show all this stuff? Only makes things disgusting. There’s nothing scary about what he’s doing, it’s the same as watching a badly lit, poorly shot pornographic movie that’s all about sadomasochism and extreme bondage. That’s pretty much what this whole section felt like, as he trucker revels in having Bunny captured in the back of his truck’s trailer. You don’t have to go subtle on every last creepy/scary scene. For me, though, I find there needs to be some sort of tension through not having to graphically see every last bit of the nasty business. Adam Rehmeier says fuck that. Leave nothing to the imagination.
Also, just the fact that the trucker does a bunch of nonsense supposedly “crazy” stuff, it really took me out of things. So much overacting. Awful, really. I thought it was bad, others think he’s some kind of amazing villain. Seriously? I couldn’t get into it. One bit of bad shlock after the other. Huff gas – go crazy – laugh – tell Bunny to shut up or shhhh – repeat.
The black-and-white also did nought for me. I honestly gave The Human Centipede II a star or so just because I found Tom Six’s use of black-and-white pretty interesting in some of the more tame scenes. They gave it a nice off-kilter feel that was very creepy. Here, The Bunny Game feels like it used black-and-white to try and force the idea that this is somehow an innovative or interesting film. There is nothing good about the movie and the use of black-and-white only made things more dismal; not in a good sense.
Ultimately, the whole movie is a bunch of perverse nonsense, mixed with Rodleen Getsic screaming at the top of her lungs a little, plus a ton of quiet, boring moments with the trucker doing nothing at all. Honestly, I don’t jump on a film for the sake of jumping on it. I’m actually one of the types who is often a fan of films people hate – not as a rule, there are just a handful or so of movies I love that others despise (like Exorcist II – fucking love it!). But I just simply can’t bring myself to like what Adam Rehmeier has done here. There’s nothing inspiring in terms of the horror genre, it’s a retread through territory we’ve seen before, just as nasty, but there are plenty of so-called “torture porn” films out there which aren’t this terribly made or as horrid for no purpose.
I also saw, maybe on Bloody Disgusting or a similar site, that someone said this was extremely well edited. Is that truly their opinion? My good lord Satan. If they think this is masterful editing, I don’t want to see what they find to be bad examples of editing. Because this is, at times, like a black-and-white music video on crack. There’s a frenetic quality to it that’s absolute irritating, as well as fairly useless in my opinion. I really hated the way this was edited, and to think others found that to be one of its best, probably its only, good aspect – I can’t fathom what other poor movies they think contain nice editing. There’s not a moment where I found myself impressed by any of the technical side to The Bunny Game. I’m not trying to be mean: there’s nothing here that’s any good.
In all good conscience, I cannot give this film a single star. On IMDB, you can’t give 0 ratings, so if you happen to come across my ratings page on there and see it has 1 star, versus my 0 here, just remember: they won’t let you do it.
There is not a solitary redeeming aspect of The Bunny Game. It aims to be terrifying and disturbing, and while it may come across as the later at plenty of moments there’s nothing overall scary about this film. There’s not an ounce of suspense or tension in the whole lot; that’s enough to kill any horror. The acting is bad. There’s mostly a lot of yelling and screaming and spitting and weird touching and sexualization at every near, but no good acting, the script is complete trash, and the thing is filmed poorly.
I suggest that you see this only if you’re a completist, or if you’re one of those people who gets off on terrible horror that borders on the line of being the recreation of a snuff film. Otherwise, pick up a better bit of horror and have yourself an enjoyably creepy view! This didn’t make me feel anything, not for a second, and if a horror doesn’t scare me, even in the slightest sense, I don’t see what the point of it is in the end.
Insidious. 2010. Directed by James Wan. Screenplay by Leigh Whannell. Starring Rose Byrne, Patrick Wilson, Ty Simpkins, Lin Shaye, Leigh Whannell, Angus Sampson, and Barbara Hershey. Rated 14A. 103 minutes. Drama/Horror/Mystery.
4 out of 5 stars
There aren’t many horror movies that feel like the classics these days, except for a few. Even some of those few are mainly retro, in that they try to cultivate that type of throwback atmosphere purposefully.
The reason why Insidious is one of the true classic-feeling horrors as of late is because it’s genuinely scary – between atmosphere, tone, and a few creepy jump scares this is the real deal.
All the same, there are a couple small flaws, but none so flawed that they can ultimately take away from the greatness of Insidious.
The film tells us the story of Josh and Renai Lambert (Patrick Wilson & Rose Byrne) who, along with their new baby, their two sons Dalton (Ty Simpkins) and Foster (Andrew Astory), move into a new house. It seems like a dream at first, as they begin to unpack and settle into this beautiful, picturesque type home. Shortly after the move, young Dalton is in the attic and falls off a ladder, hitting his head; though he doesn’t tell his parents about the last part. The next day, Josh goes up to wake his still sleeping son, except Dalton won’t wake up. He goes into a fugue, unconscious state, which the doctors refuse to call a coma, and can’t actually describe. Renai then begins to experience strange things – first there are unsettling noises, voices speaking in whispers over the baby monitor, then later she actually witnesses sinister apparitions in the night throughout the house. Josh doesn’t necessarily understand what his wife is going through, however, he gladly believes her; even so far as moving to a new house once the terror becomes too much for Renai.
Only after the second move, in a completely different house, Renai once again experiences the strange apparitions – a little boy appears in the house, changes a vinyl on the record player, and the runs away. She follows him, but then he disappears. Josh tries to help Renai, but doesn’t know how. In comes Lorraine Lambert (Barbara Hershey), Josh’s mother, who describes a frightening dream she had about Dalton involving a creepy dark demon. She also suggests there is someone she knows who can help. Lorraine brings Elisa Rainier (Lin Shaye) over, along with her sidekicks Specs (Leigh Whannell) and Tucker (Angus Sampson) – these three claim to be able to determine if spiritual/supernatural/otherwise-inclined entities are in the house.
Needless to say, things get… different.
I’m going to start with the, very few, things I found flawed about Insidious.
Though some of the jump scares were actually awesome, I think James Wan relied too heavily on the concept to push the scary factor of this film. Insidious does not need that jumpy aspect to scare anyone. Sure, there are the tough guys who always say they’re desensitized – and that’s fine – but I’ve seen over 4,000 films, a good chunk of those being horror, and I still get creeped out. I don’t mean that I’m crying or that I can’t sleep later that night or I have to keep the lights on and my teeth are chattering and I can’t handle it – I just mean that certain imagery, ideas, dialogue, whatever it might be, still creeps me out. And the fact is Insidious has enough of that without needing to make me jump with quick cuts, people behind others suddenly.
I really liked the score, and at times it was perfect, but often it played into that jump scare tactic. The title card at the beginning and end of the movie is awesome with the sudden strings, I love that. I don’t think some of the loud and startling string/instrumental stuff throughout the score served it well. Again, the movie has atmosphere and tone enough to creep us out. If Wan kept a couple jumps, cut a good few out, the movie would be even better for me; a couple of those jump scares only worked on my fat heart, jumpstarting it, and not on my fears, my emotions.
What really bothered me about Insidious are the duo of Specs and Tucker. Funny enough, as most know, Leigh Whannell who plays Specs is the writer of the film, and usually I find he’s a pretty good writer at that. However, I feel like the comedic bits in Insidious – the banter between Specs and Tucker as the Odd Couple Ghost Hunters, back and forth vying to be the top investigator in their field, the techie versus the artist/writer – really did no justice to the otherwise dark, ominous atmosphere and tone Wan cultivated throughout the rest of the film. Sure, there were funny parts between Specs and Tucker; Whannell and Sampson work well together as a little team. I just don’t think the comedy, dry though it is, fits in with the rest of the movie. I mean, there are plenty horrors that are either horror-comedies or they have that dark comedy aspect which compliments the horror, and some of those work great. I’m not against horror and comedy mixing. My problem is that the rest of the movie is so dark and high on the creepscale, I just think it would’ve been best to keep the small bits between Specs and Tucker even smaller; they were already only sparse, but there could’ve easily been less. The characters work well in the context if they were simply just playing two dudes into the paranormal, helping Elise (Lin Shaye). I really loved how Specs would draw things for Elise, it added an extra creepy quality to their whole process. I feel Whannell did not do the script justice by including them in the way that he did, though, it didn’t detract enough to ruin anything.
The script, other than what I mentioned, is solid.
What makes the script even better are the actors playing it out, along with Wan’s excellent direction.
I think having Patrick Wilson play the part of Josh Lambert adds a lot of charisma and charm to the role, which needs it, because the character is a complex one at times. Especially nearing the end, and leading into the film’s sequel. But here, he does a great job of being that sort of skeptical father at first when his wife is claiming the strange happenings are going on, and then coming around to see the truth: a scene where Josh is in Dalton’s room after Elise has explained where the boy is, out in The Further, capable of astral projection, and he discovers drawings Dalton did which all but confirm Elise’s “diagnosis, Wilson does some incredible acting and it isn’t often you see that calibre performance when it comes to haunted house movies.
Rose Byrne is great as Renai Lambert. I felt truly bad for her right from the get-go, even worse once that one creepy ghost-like presence appeared in her bedroom, and the way she sort of unravelled at times was spot on. It was a great performance. Particularly I loved the last scene, as she goes towards Elise in the chair, and as Josh, unseen, approaches behind Renai, she turns, gasping. It put the nail in the coffin. Excellent actress.
Of course you can’t have Insidious without Lin Shaye. She is tremendous here as Elise Rainier. The facial expressions, her quaint charm and friendly manner, the emotion and energy she brings – all perfect. One of my favourite moments, still, is early when she goes into Dalton’s room and sees the demon up at the corner of the ceiling, and Specs draws out what Elise sees – the way she whispers to him, you can just hear what she says, and then coupled with the actual drawing, all made me shiver.
I can’t not mention Barbara Hershey. She isn’t in this a great deal, only a handful of scenes, but she is solid as Josh’s mother, and I’ve always loved her acting. I bring her up specifically because I love her film The Entity, and I find that Whannell most certainly was influenced by it in his writing the script. Particularly it’s the technology and the presence of the team of “experts” which reminds me of The Entity. Not like it’s ripping anything off, but I definitely think casting Hershey had something to do with that film’s influence on Whannell and perhaps Wan as well. I’m glad, regardless, because I dig Hershey, everything from the aforementioned supernatural horror to The Stranger Beside Me to The Last Temptation of Christ and certainly Martin Scorsese’s Boxcar Bertha. I only hope her involvement has something to do with The Entity because it means Whannell, or Wan, whoever, is even more awesome than I already thought.
Easily this is a 4 out of 5 star film. Insidious could’ve been near perfect, if only James Wan hadn’t opted to use jump scares so often, along with a healthy dose of high and heavy strings, and the Specs-Tucker duo wasn’t so comedically prominent. There are great, scary moments here without those bells and whistles. The atmosphere is dark and deep, I really found it involving and tense. A good horror has tension and suspense in spades, and Insidious has got that, if anything. You can argue against that, but I won’t believe it. The tone is set with the great atmosphere Wan sets up, from the actual camerawork to the colours of the film. It all works together.
If you’ve yet to see it, do it now. The sequel is also great, and I love it just as much as this one, maybe even a little more.
The debut feature film of Panos Cosmatos, BEYOND THE BLACK RAINBOW, is modern psychedelia at its finest.
Fritt Vilt III (English title: Cold Prey 3). 2010. Dir. Mikkel Braenne Sandemose. Screenplay by Peder Fuglerud & Lars Gudmestad; story by Martin Sundland.
Starring Ida Marie Bakkerud, Kim S. Falck-Jørgensen, Pål Stokka, Arthur Berning, Sturla Rui, Terje Ranes, and Nils Johnson. T2 Entertainment.
Not Rated. 95 minutes.
I’m in the the tiny little column of people who loved all three of these Fritt Vilt films. One of the best slasher trilogies out there, and it’s certainly one of the best slashers in modern horror. While a lot of horror fans seem to have dismissed these movies, I champion them. If you’ve yet to read my reviews, here are Fritt Vilt and Fritt Vilt II – and certainly if you haven’t watched those yet don’t go into this one. I’m sure most people sensibly would watch the trilogy in order, but just in case, turn back, and make sure you get a look at the lead up. Though this is a prequel film, Fritt Vilt III does rely on some of our knowledge of what came before cinematically in order for us to fully realize the chronology. Even further, it cements these three movies as a really great series with a memorable killer at the center.
This movie opens in 1976 at the mountain hotel where the original Fritt Vilt was set – we get slightly expository scenes filling in the killer’s background. His mother Sigrid and stepfather Gunnar claim he went missing, which takes us back to the very first film. It’s clear now that when we originally saw the boy running through the snow in Fritt Vilt, he may have been running from someone close to him. Gunnar does not like his wife’s son. He keeps the boy locked away in the basement. Sigrid tries her best to let the boy stay upstairs, claiming he barely gets any sunlight, but Gunnar thinks he is a freak (remember the boy’s significant birthmark across his face – of course that’s no reason to treat anyone, let alone a child, terribly like this..) and wants him kept hidden. Afterwards, we see Gunnar treating the boy worse than a dog. It’s obvious the boy was either trying to run away from home, or Gunnar might’ve been trying to kill him – we never get a full answer, which is better that way, but the strings are there to lead us on. Then, one night after a few days of the boy being missing, he returns to see his mother. The boy proceeds to kill her, as well as Gunnar. He disappears into thin air, it seems, and nobody sees any of them again.
We also see a subplot concerning a local Sheriff named Einar, involved in the investigation into the disappearance of Sigrid, Gunnar, and the boy. Einar goes to see his brother Jon, who is clearly an outcast and living in a cabin somewhere near the national park around Jotunheimen. There is some sort of rift between them. Einar comes to question Jon about whether or not he’s seen the boy from the hotel; apparently Jon’s cabin is one of the only places between the hotel and civilization. Jon declines to say much, leading his brother to believe he’s not seen the boy. However, once Einar leaves, Jon can be seen holding up a picture of the boy with his mother and stepfather; around the edges are bloody, smudged fingerprints.
Cut to 12 years later. 1988. A group of friends are heading into the national park near Jotunheimen in search of the area, which has apparently been taken off the map, where the hotel lies abandoned in the mountains. Einar is dropping the group off and returning the next afternoon to bring them back out from the park..
On the way, Einar runs across his brother Jon; they have an awkward, one-way conversation, and the sheriff warns his brother, who has a rifle in the back of his truck, there is no hunting within the national park. They head off on their way, and Einar drops the friends in the park. They set out and eventually find the hotel, but it’s filthy and worn down, so a few of the group would rather not stay, and instead opt to find somewhere better to camp. After this decision, they fall prey to the boy, now 12 years older and closer to being a man, who has been roaming the woods for over a decade and honing his dangerous, brutal skills.
One of the defining things about the entire trilogy is the brutality of the kills. It doesn’t stop at the first sequel – Fritt Vilt III really keeps up the pace in terms of savagery in the slasher’s kills. The very first death in the movie is really great because it sets up part of the themes throughout the whole thing.
For instance, the first death comes as a result of a situation that could easily be an accident anyone might come across in the deep woods where people hunt and poach, if they aren’t careful anyways. Two of the characters slip into a pitfall, most likely created by the sheriff’s brother Jon; one is skewered by a pointed stick in the pit, the other gets out to try and locate help. After she leaves, the other character is left to be found by the killer – as if the fall into the pit wasn’t bad enough, the killer then viciously finishes him off. From there, we see how the killer has grown, gotten very angry, and learned a lot about hunting – mostly just the killing part. This then leads to proof Jon has been helping and sheltering the killer. When the big slasher hauls his prey back to the cabin, Jon also finds the escaped girl and brings her back – he scolds the now grown boy saying these people are “humans… not animals”. It now becomes very clear the killer’s earlier abuse took the heaviest toll possible; his humanity, any empathy or sympathy possible inside him, was taken away from him completely. He can’t distinguish man from all the other animals, or worse, he was abused into believing/knowing man to be the most dangerous animal of all. So, just like Michael Myers’ famous head-tilt in Halloween (when he pins the one teenager up against the wall dead & stands back with his head tilted to the side just like a dog while admiring his work), this scene truly cements the Fritt Vilt killer as an animal of a man.
The kills follow a pattern in that they reflect the killer’s life out in the woods, fending for himself and trying to stay alive. Obviously Jon taught him to hunt in order to survive, eat, et cetera, but because of the boy’s awful home life in his very formative years this training and experience lead to his being a serial killer, and not just an avid, experienced hunter. Instead of all knife-slashings and the like, we’re treated to bow and arrows, rifles, and just downright savagery at times. It’s pretty incredible. We go into slashers looking for this sort of thing – don’t be surprised when you’ve found it.
Another thing I really love about this entry is the fact it takes most of the action from out of the shadowy corridors of the abandoned mountain hotel and the second entry’s dark hospital hallways, and it puts a lot of the scenes in a brighter, more visible landscape. This works well because the first kill itself [the pitfall scene] is shrouded in a lot of darkness. From this scene, things move outwards into the light. There’s something scarier about a slasher film when it can work in the light of day versus needing the shadows to make things tense. When a slasher has many scenes shot in the daytime, it subverts our normal image of the slasher movies we know best, and also catches us off guard – in a good way.
A couple great moments in this regards:
– I really like a few moments where we’re seeing shots of a character intercut with looks through the sight of his rifle. This provides some nice suspense; things become full of tension, as we literally look down the barrel of his gun. What makes these bits really scary is the killer lurks in the forest. Yet it’s completely light out. While the character is holding a gun, waiting for the moment to fire, we still believe the killer will get him – he doesn’t need to the darkness, he can hide in plain sight. It’s unsettling.
– My favourite scene is actually later in the film when Anders and Hedda are near a sort of cave, which sits next to a pool of water. Anders has been shot through the shoulder (when the bow and arrows make an appearance). They’re trying to rest, but the killer can be heard coming in the trees. Instead of running, Hedda hides. When the killer comes and circles Anders, just like an animal would its prey, Hedda comes out and stabs the killer – this doesn’t phase him and he keeps coming. Then Anders smashes his head with a rock. They leave the killer floating face down in the pool of water. This leads to one of my top creepy shots in the whole trilogy – the killer raises up from the water, his head down, his hood up and covering his face – he gasps hard for air making a terrible noise. It really is a great scene, which gives the characters a little win while also showing us just how much longevity the killer has, and how he is damn tough.
I also can’t forget to the mention the cinematography here is absolutely incredible. The locations here were very well chosen. There are some abnormally beautiful shots in the film, which is very atypical of a slasher (for the most part – there are definitely some great looking visuals in slashers out there). One of my favourite parts about this final installment in the trilogy.
I can’t help but give this third film in the series a 4 out of 5 rating. There were issues with pacing in the beginning, but about halfway through the movie’s running time things pick up, and it really starts to cook with gas going forward.
A lot of people say the prequel by nature has a tough time keeping suspense up in terms of us wondering who will live or die because we already know, going in, the killer clearly will be around for years and years – the first
Fritt Vilt is set probably almost two decades after the events of this film. So we know at the start the killer won’t be stopped. However, the movie gives us a lot of interesting insight into the killer. It helps us fill out the back story instead of leaving him as a masked and nameless slasher. This may work for a lot of movies out there – or maybe it doesn’t work, they just keep getting people to fund their useless sequels. On the other hand, Fritt Vilt creates a really excellent story, and the icing on the big cake that is that story comes with this third installment in the series. Giving us a fuller background on the killer makes the whole trilogy better, in my opinion. Not only that, Fritt Vilt III on its own really has a lot of great themes in it – man as animal, man as hunter, et cetera. The deaths are nasty, the plot is grim, and it really shows us how the killer of the series became what he was in the first Fritt Vilt. This was a great slasher and really did justice to the other films. Sadly, not many appear to agree. I couldn’t care less.
I love this, I watch it often, and I’m confident in putting the whole trilogy up as one of the best horror series’ out there while being at the top of my list when it comes to the greatest slasher trilogies ever made.
Check out the whole trilogy – have some fun!