"Hereditary" Movie Review

By: James Southworth
Rating: 3.5/5 Stars
 
Whether you like the movie studio A24 or not, you can't deny that they are on a roll. It's amazing how well known this studio has gotten in a short amount of time, having quite a few of their films be Oscar contenders. They've been behind such films as "Lady Bird", "Moonlight", "Ex Machina", and more. All those three movies I've listed are all in my top 10 movie lists for each year they were released. A24 is no stranger to the horror genre either, having released "The Witch" and "It Comes At Night" (the latter of the two being my favorite) to immense critical success. Something that I've noticed about A24's horror films is that audiences ended up very mixed on them. I think that may be because of how horribly the trailers marketed both movies. So, with this studio's newest horror venture, "Hereditary" (Ari Aster's directorial movie debut), I decided to go into the film as blind as I possibly could to the plot. I only watched a minute and a half teaser for it. I left this movie slightly dumbfounded about what to think about it; I knew I'd need a few days to come up with my full thoughts on it. As a whole, "Hereditary" shows immense potential from Aster as a horror director, and has some pretty solid acting in it. However, I also think this film is a bit rough around the edges, especially in its story-telling.

This movie, on its surface level, is about a family who experiences loss and has to go through immense grief and pain, all the while experiencing a mysterious entity in their house and main character Annie specifically begins to unravel long-hidden secrets about her family's ancestry. Like many horror movies, this is a fairly simple premise. For a big portion of the movie, I did like the thematic arcs of dealing with trauma as well as having to accept bitter truths about your family's past. I think the exploration of grief was definitely the most solidly presented arc in this film for sure. It's interesting to see Annie and the rest of the family questioning how much they should grieve over the loss of Annie's mother, because none of them were particularly close to her. In an incredible scene where Annie goes to a group of people who had lost loved ones, she unravels her tough relationship with her mother, which is clearly more saddening to her than the fact that she just passed away. I found that scene to be one of the most powerful in the whole film. We see it presented time and time again that there is no real right way to deal with grief, because it is an ugly thing to face. When Peter unintentionally kills his sister Charlie, his reaction to it is him intensely gripping on the steering wheel of the car, breathing heavily. That scene is drawn out for a good few minutes, and then we next see him simply driving up to the house and going inside, telling no one what happened. It plays into that an interesting theme that you don't want to be held accountable for loss, especially when that loss may be your own fault in some way. Grief is what drives the actions of both Annie and Peter in this film, and it is what tears them apart from each other multiple times. As far as the plot arc of dealing with your family's past goes, I found this theme to be a little confusingly presented. It didn't really make a whole lot of sense, and I just found whatever message they were trying to give to be lost in the midst of a story that is sometimes very unclear.

The delivering of scares is definitely what works best in this movie out of everything here. This movie has not a single jump scare in sight. I will always appreciate it when a film takes that route. It seems like more horror movies are doing that nowadays, and it proves to be a good technique for Aster. In fact, Aster presents scares in this movie in a way that might be more bone-chilling. Often the camera will just be moving, and then in the background there will be a figure or some sort of creature. There's no music, no jumping or sudden sounds. The scare is just there. That actually makes it more scary and made me tense up even more than the cliched buildup of a musical cue would. There were definitely some moments where I could feel myself getting some legitimate cold chills when the camera would simply show a figure behind one of the characters. You don't know when a scare will appear in this movie; there's absolutely nothing to prepare you for it. They just come when you least expect it. I think that may be why people are calling this one of the most terrifying movies they've seen. I can in some ways understand why people would give "Hereditary" that title, especially in the latter half of the film. What I think works most primarily about the horror is that the scares are not the primary focus of this movie. In fact, they almost always end up being a result of the family's grief. There is a seance ritual here, which I originally thought was cliched. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that scare, too, was a result of Annie dealing with her grief in the way that she best knew how. The connection of horror with a raw human emotion is something that I think more horror films could do, as it proves to work well in this movie.

Like I mentioned earlier, the acting in this movie is solid. I left this movie thinking the performances were underwhelming, but the more I thought about it, the more I appreciated most of them. The performance that grew on me the most is certainly Toni Collette as Annie. I originally left this movie thinking she was the weakest link. Something about her performance was off-putting to me, unnatural. But now I realize that her performance is supposed to be unnatural. After all, Annie is dealing with deep grief in losing her daughter Charlie, who I think is the person she loved the most in the world. Her descent into the darkest abyss of despair can be harrowing and uncomfortable to watch. There are times when she verges on delving into utter insanity, and we as the audience often question how reliable of a protagonist she is. Collette puts her all into this performance, having many scenes where she absolutely shines (especially the scene where she is with the grief therapy group). I believed her performance throughout the whole film. Gabriel Byrne as Steve was actually my favorite performance of the movie, which seems to be a somewhat unpopular opinion. I thought Byrne anchored this movie as the rational husband/dad caught in between his wife and son both going through seemingly uncontrollable anguish. Byrne shows in powerful detail how Steve is trying his best to keep his family together and to try to stay strong, but we see that weight and responsibility breaking him more and more as the film goes on. I saw understated depth and nuance in Byrne's performance; I feel like he will be immensely underrated. Molly Shapiro as Charlie is not in the movie for too long, but she does a great job as the creepy kid. I saw critical reviews comparing her performance to Regan from "The Exorcist", and I don't think that's a bad comparison at all. Shapiro makes Charlie absolutely terrifying, especially with the constant clicking noise she makes. Ann Dowd as Joan is also a great edition to this movie, being as reliably menacing of a performer as she always is. I'm glad to see her getting more and more recognition. The one performance I have a problem with in this film is Alex Wolff as Peter. I see a lot of people commending his performance, but I just don't like it at all. He does have one good scene, which is that scene in his car where he reacts to having just unintentionally killed Charlie. But other than that, I had a hard time believing this character. Wolff's performance verges on the over-the-top silly at times, especially when he cries, as his expression of despair is just laughably over-the-top. I guess I can see where some people would like his performance, but it just wasn't for me in any way.

Now we get to what is, in my opinion, the biggest problems of this movie: the pacing and the story telling. There's no denying that I am a sucker for slow burn movies that take their time to unravel their plots. "The Witch" falls cleanly under that descriptor, and I think it did an excellent job at that. "Hereditary", unfortunately, does not. After the rather dynamic beginning of this movie, following the car crash this movie screeches to a very slow halt. There are times in the middle of this movie where it feels like it drags. I could tell Aster was doing this because he was trying to show us the mystery of the main family's inheritance/ancestry. The only problem is, I never really got what their ancestry was, or its significance. The "clues" the film puts in place only come across as confusing, and seem meaningless in the long run. What the family turns out to be made no sense to me. It came out of nowhere. After watching this movie, I was trying to rack my brain and figure out where, exactly, any indication of this was revealed. I could only think of one singular moment, and it this moment was only shown for a couple of seconds. There are a couple other things incorporated into this movie that I felt had no payoff. For example, Annie makes miniature models of homes, as well as of her family. I was thinking that there might be some symbolism to this, or that maybe the model homes would play to a bigger purpose in the film, but they really don't. I think I might have a theory for what the miniatures could symbolize, but they don't seem to matter to the movie, so why would my interpretation, or any interpretation, lend to any deeper meaning? I get that movies are supposed to show, not tell. But, I think there is a time when you need to tell. A lot of people are comparing this to "The Sixth Sense". Alright, I'll bite. I won't deny that movie does a lot of showing, and the twist initially seems to come out of nowhere. But the thing is, when the twist does come, Shamalyan shows us the many moments where the twist was indicated so that the audience can connect the puzzle pieces when they watch the film again. No part of the film was random or unexplained; every part contributed to the ultimate reveal. I'm not sure if Aster could say the same. The ending of this movie comes absolutely out of nowhere, and nearly made me hate this film as a whole. In fact, just a few days ago I was considering being much more negative in my review of this film just because of that. Even thought that obviously isn't the case now, that ending will continue to bother me.

Overall, I think "Hereditary" is a solid enough horror movie. I am going to emphasize that there was a decent amount of it I liked, especially its way of naturally bringing the scares, its meditations on grief, and two really good lead performances. There are still plenty of problems with the film, though. I am not head over heels about this movie like many other critics are. Many people are saying this movie is just as good as other horror greats like "The Sixth Sense", "The Exorcist", "The Shining", and "The Babadook". I don't think this movie compares to any of those four at all. For me, it's more along the lines of a horror movie I can appreciate despite the problems I have with it, like "Insidious: Chapter 3" or "Annabelle: Creation" (although that might not be an apt comparison either, because I would say I like those two movies better than it). This movie doesn't really do horror any better than other horror movies I've seen, even if I like how it does its scares. I'm still glad that this movie is getting a lot of buzz, as I can see Aster making something even better than this in the future. For a directorial debut, this film is impressive and admirable, even if the way Aster does his story telling is not my cup of tea. I would recommend seeing "Hereditary", as it is a movie that a majority of audience members can enjoy if they're looking for something that will terrify them and make them think.