IT COMES AT NIGHT review


IT COMES AT NIGHT
starring Joel Edgerton, Kelvin Harrison Jr. and Christopher Abbott

directed by Trey Edward Shults

A review by Helen J. Reynolds



Modern-day horrors tend to be more psychological, see recent years The Badadook, Get Out etc. Taking it a step further, It Comes At Night focuses on the moral dilemmas an apocalyptic world brings rather than the danger itself.

Not that there isn’t any danger. An unknown disease has taken over, wiping out (we can assume) much of humanity. Isolated in the woods, a family take every precaution necessary to protect from infection. This leads to a creppy opening with Sarah (Carmen Ejogo) breathing through a gas mask as she tells her dying father to ‘let go’.

The setting is very atmospheric and a real strength of the movie. Long shadows are cast by gas lights, tree branches grow Tim Burton-style and a big, bold red door is the single way in or out of their old, creaking house. Paul (Joel Edgerton) has the only key but this plot point is fairly redundant by the end - why set limitations when there is no reveal, no explanation?

That’s right. Unlike The Village or The Others, this film sets up plenty of mystery but leaves those plot points hanging, giving us no answers to what you might mistake are the Big Questions. Instead, the real question is: how far would you go to protect your family and survive?

Paul and Sarah have a teenage son, Travis (Kelvin Harrison Jr.) who is arguably the main character. Barring one or two scenes, we follow Travis - even into his nightmares. It’s a great multifaceted performance by Harrison (Birth of a Nation), he provides a narrator who is as engaging as he is unreliable. 

The movie is slow, quiet and very restricted in what we’re allowed to see. The significant event comes in a new family entering the fold: Will (Christopher Abbott) and his young wife and four-year-old son. The interaction between the two families (or rather, the two fathers) is very reminiscent of The Walking Dead. Mistrust, intrigue and instinct fuel the dynamic and keep the viewer guessing. However, it becomes clear that the filmaker is less interested in giving context to the epidemic or of building a larger world, but is really aiming to make the audience question the characters: would I do the same? Look to humanity for the monsters and even then, you wonder if there are any.

It's not a masterpiece and would have little value in a re-watch, but it is a beautiful, atmospheric film with strong performances. Some imagery is possibly over-used, especially when it becomes evident it isn't there to connect the dots, but the interest this movie holds makes it worthwhile viewing. Any fan of The Walking Dead would surely enjoy the ride, even if they aren't ultimately satisfied by the ending.

A combination of:
Get Out (2017)
The Walking Dead (2010-present)
The Village (2004)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

THE HITMAN'S BODYGUARD review

FREE FIRE review

Christmas Movies