Movie Appraisal: Hidden (Skjult) (2009)

Well, here's a movie that had a lot of promise, but ultimately gave up very little. Movies like this suck to review mostly because they have the POTENTIAL to be very fun rides, but end up being less than they should be. And it's not like they're terrible either. They're just okay. Mediocre. In some crazy middle ground between amazing and awful. Sometimes it's a bad script, sometimes it's a bad plot, a bad actor, a poorly thought-out character, a director who has no idea what they're doing, and sometimes it's simply how things work out. Hidden (or Skjult for Norwegian readers) is exactly a movie that should be more. It has so much going for it: a very well-done premise, good actors, a compelling story, and a plot heavily hovering in the realm of psychological horror. It's a movie I should LOVE, but instead I find it incredibly mediocre. Maybe it's simply that I've seen this all before and have become cynical. The movie feels lazy. And that's the problem.

Hidden begins with a car accident. A boy's parents are killed in the cold open. The boy survives (maybe), but the reason for the deaths of his parents is another boy running across the road and causing a semi truck to crash into the parents' car. You get the feeling that the first boy (who seems to be Peter) is going to be our lead character, but that turns out to not be the case (I think). The protagonist of our story is KK (Kai Koss), the boy who had run across the road and caused the accident. Apparently Peter disappeared after the accident and was called dead after shoes were found near the scene and underneath a waterfall long after.

The problem is that KK looks EXACTLY like what Peter would look like when he grew up. The boy has long blond locks. KK has the same. While the young KK has a shaved head. The older Peter (if he is Peter at all) has a shaved head as well. It's weird. I feel like it was probably done on purpose, but I can't say for sure it was. It's a movie that explains very little, which I like a lot, but the things it does explain turn out to have really idiotic explanations (I think). And that's the problem. The movie did do a lot very good, but other parts were baffling. I personally think that the original KK was killed by the abusive and disturbed mother after he escaped. Eventually Peter, who later became KK, in this case the second KK, after the mother caught him, came back to the town after his "mother" died. I mean, that's what I think, but I can't say anything for sure. The movie doesn't hit you over the head with it, so it's really up to what you want to think.

You can see my confusion here. I'm sorry. Parts of this movie made little sense. There is a dark-haired woman who I'm pretty sure isn't real. I don't know if she's a random singer or something? I'm told she speaks in Swedish, but I have no idea what that means. Maybe she was the original mother of Peter? Or just an actress? Or maybe she was just an imaginary friend he made up for company in the darkened hole he lived in for years. Again, I don't know.

The funny thing is, while I wasn't happy with the ending of the movie when I first saw it, it's something I'm liking more and more as time goes by. I actually like the movie more now (a few days later) than when I had originally watched it. Maybe I'm the crazy one. I still don't like how KK and Peter are somehow the same person and the murderer, but I'll probably get over it someday. (Read: I will never get over it. It's really dumb. I disliked it, and it should have been better.)

I found parts of the movie interesting. Why was KK looked at with such scorn by basically everybody? Only Sara seemed to like him and give him any benefit of the doubt. And she seemed to like him a lot. All of the men in town hated his guts. Why? Did I miss something? Was there some kind of history there? I have no idea. It was weird. I have no reference for anything and have no idea how to interpret it.

I mean, KK is the killer. It's obvious. Maybe that's why nobody likes him.

Sorry, did I say that too abruptly? It was abrupt in the movie too. KK is said to be the killer. Some kind of weird fugue state probably. Maybe he dissociates? Maybe he knows he's doing it? I have no idea. It's probably brought on by his old house. But man, it makes no sense. Maybe it's not supposed to make any sense. I would've preferred if he weren't the killer... but maybe it makes the movie better if he's both Peter and the killer. I don't know. I just don't know. I don't so, but maybe I'm not who this movie was made for.

The best part of the movie are the psychological scenes though. They're not scary, but their simple weirdness is enough to enjoy by themselves. The phone calls, the odd scenes of KK just by himself and thinking or whatever, and the weird interactions between characters- these are all reasons to see the movie. Just expect to find yourself baffled if you do watch it. I mean, I put a halfhearted recommendation out there. If you REALLY live for psychological horror/thriller, then watch this. Otherwise... it's not required watching, but it's not bad either. I enjoyed most of it. Just remember, it's not scary. There's very little gore. In general, I would think of this flick as much more of a suspense or thriller with psychological elements than anything else. And those always seem a little "eh," I guess.

Pål Øie directs, and does a pretty decent job. I think the long periods without dialogue are some of the best pieces of the film. They work incredibly well. They add to the confusion, but those long moments of suspense and confusion could be small beautiful movies on their own. The dialogue and the writing are mostly not as good. And this being an indie horror film from the After Dark Horrorfest 2010, I was expecting good things. I usually enjoy them, although they usually have some issues. See my review of Autopsy for details. 

Honestly, I liked the film, didn't love it. Kristoffer Joner as KK, Karin Park as Miriaim, and Cecilie A. Mosli as Sara are the breakouts here. I tend to like these Eurpoean horror movies. They do a good job at hitting what I like. This one wasn't quite as great as some, but I was okay with it. I wish I could say more, but I don't really have anything else to say.

Movie Appraisal: Autopsy (2008)

Generic horror movie, how many ways can you be seen? Set in a remote place, having bland character archetypes, inane and insufferable dialogue, and flashy moving pictures full of blood, blood, and more blood how can you be anything but a generic horror movie? Yes, you have a set-piece in a creepy hospital, but how many other, better, movies, can say the same?

This... this is the kind of movie I abhor. One with gimmicky visuals and not much else. The plot is... uh... plot? It seems to be set in a fantasy world wholly unlike our own, where things like hitting a dude with a car doesn't matter and entities like the police do not work like the police should. How does an ambulance respond within moments of an accident? And how do these people not notice they've hit a dude? That's nonsensical, weird, and not true to life.

This movie also shows me that the character archetype that I most like is the douchebag stoner type. That should not be the case. I am not a stoner and my douchebag qualities are debatable. So, there's that. What? What is this movie supposed to be telling me? What is it supposed to be saying? Why did I watch this? Why? Why? Why?

I guess I'm not quite sure why this movie was made. It's derivative at absolute best. It's not scary, not really well-paced or plotted. It seems to actively make fun of itself at points which is absolutely freaking hilarious... not. There were WAAAAAAAY too many moments of me going "What. What? WHAT? WHAT!?" I don't think I'm ever supposed to say that many "whats" in a single thought-process. Science does not work the way this movie presents science as working.

I need a break. I need to stop ranting. This movie is so... so... so... full of nothing. Why would anybody like it? Who's the audience of a movie like this? Hardcore horror fans? Gore-fest freaks? I guess. I can't imagine anybody else being fond of it. The plot is too convoluted. the characters are too one-dimensional. Nobody is real here. Now, I know, I'm not asking for Hamlet here or even The Lord of the Rings. I'm simply asking for good science and character's that seem like they could be real and not just convenient for a slasher film. I only want a horror movie to have horror in it. That's seriously all I really want. I want to be scared of a film that calls itself a horror film. If it isn't going to scare me or at the very least unnerve me, it can't be a horror film.

This is a gore-fest and it's kind of dumb. Yes, this movie is stupid. But I will admit it does have its moments of sheer ballsy entertainment. As hard as it was to suspend my disbelief, I found some of the dialogue sort of witty in a way at times and Robert Patrick was pretty freaking awesome. The guy can certainly act I'll give him that much. Some of my reactions to the actual movie amused me so much more than the actual movie. This is basically the perfect movie to watch with a bunch of friends and make fun of the whole damn thing.

I will admit that it does have two of the best "Oh crap..." moments I have ever seen though, which I think is worth something even though both seemed more deus ex machina moments that were convenient to the plot rather than intelligent and well-construed occurrences.

I have learned from this movie to never mess with a 100 pound woman who has no formal training in anything. 'Cause according to this movie they will ruin everything in search of bland boyfriends and revenge. I guess what I have an issue with here is that 100 pound women are not scary. They do not bring the deepest of all dreads out of my heart. They do not make me scream in terror when they approach. And I think that's an issue when the single most terrifying character in this film is not the ex-cons, the insane doctor, or the creepy nurse, but rather a 100 pound young woman who seems to single-handedly ruin everybody.

The visuals are all right, I guess, but they seem to rely way to much on the dusky corridors and red lighting, or dim lighting at times. Makes me think they were trying a little too hard to show, "Oh, look, we're in Hell!" I wasn't fond of it.

The movie as a whole was mediocre, but not terrible. I could complain all day and all night and nitpick and everything else. The movie was mostly bad, but it did have its moments and they actually did seem to work kind of decently at points. The problem was the problem in so much horror today. All of the focus was on getting out of the hospital or getting away from the situation or trying to find a person and all it really seemed like to me was two hours of corridor wandering and getting caught a bunch of times by the same four evil characters. It became boring half-way through and a horror movie should be many things, but it should never be boring.