"Midsommar" Movie Review

By: James Southworth
Rating: 4/5 Stars

A lot of people have been dubbing the past five years or so as the "Golden Age" of horror films. In many ways, I absolutely agree. Horror was in a place for a time where there only seemed to be disastrous sequels to what used to be great horror icons. Then their legacies were tarnished by these other films. There were still some good horror films during those times, but they didn't seem to get quite the recognition that many indie horror films do these days. "Hereditary" is one of many modern-day horror films that holds pretty wide-spread recognition. I remember all the conversation this controversial film sparked, with critics and general audiences being on the exact opposite ends of the spectrum. I myself was rather conflicted coming out of the movie, but I've grown on it over time. One things I was sure of even coming out of the movie was this: Ari Aster was a director to be watched. He had a distinctive stylistic eye, and intriguing ideas. I was hoping with "Midsommar" that he'd be able to flesh his vision out in an even more coherent way. While I'm not quite sure if it's as good as "Hereditary", "Midsommar" is still an excellent movie; it may even be the best horror film I've seen so far this year.

The plot of this film will sound absolutely bizarre, and that's because it is weird in many ways: Dani, reeling from an awful tragedy, decides to try and ignore it by going on a trip with her boyfriend, Christian, and his friends- much to their collective chagrin. Only one friend seems enthusiastic about her going: that's Pelle, the one who has arranged the trip. What is this outing, you might be asking? Well, it's to a rural, secluded area in Sweden, where the individuals residing there practice this bizarre midsummer festival. As time goes on, weirder and weirder occurrences keep happening, until one cataclysmic event sets off a series of terrifying events that there might be no escape from. Let's go ahead and get this out of the way: the horror aspects of this movie work incredibly well and are also very unique. I remember part of the promotion for this movie being from Jordan Peele, who said that this was unlike any other horror film he'd seen before. I think I mainly agree with this sentiment. What's most interesting about the horrifying aspects of this film is most of them don't take place in the dark. In fact, they occur in broad, blinding daylight. I think horror fans have been trained to believe that the most terrifying things happen when we can't see, but Aster begs us to think differently. What if the most horrific things can happen right in front of our eyes, and the blinding light makes it impossible to run away? There's something poignantly terrifying about that. There are moments here that scared me in a way that I haven't been in quite some time. There were so many scares here that chilled me to my bone. I don't think I've felt actually scared by a movie in quite some time the way this movie scared me. It deserves quite a commendation for that, as I have watched quite a few horror movies. Though most of the scares happen in broad daylight, there are some that happen in the dark, and those scenes are just as effective. I will continue to remember the cold open of this movie, as things about this traumatizing event Dani experienced keep on unfolding right in front of our eyes. As more information is revealed to us visually, the more foreboding and heart wrenching it becomes. The ending of this film also leaves quite an impact on the viewer. I remember actually feeling a cold chill going from the top of my head to my feet. I knew then that this movie had quite the effect on me in its scares. The way the horror alone functions in this movie accounts for my desire to give it a high recommendation to anyone.

The style of this movie shouldn't go without being recognized, either. This movie is undeniably scary, but it's also incredibly beautiful in many ways. The way the rural community is filmed is quite gorgeous. There's a lot of flowery aesthetics here that have the ability to feel simultaneously chilling and beautiful. The way some scenes are shot just makes them feel satisfying to look at, such as the many eating scenes or a dance segment that occurs in the film. And yes, there is a dance segment, believe it or not, and it works quite well. What might make this movie just a little bit more intriguing is that it has a surprisingly hefty amount of off-kilter humor. While we are supposed to be scared of these rural Swedes, Aster also makes us able to laugh at them. This can be based off of the way the main characters react to them, or sometimes by how laughably uncomfortable a scene is. I appreciate that this movie isn't entirely self-serious. The comedic aspects of the movie help lift it up a bit, and it makes the audience all the more tensed up, wondering when the comedy will stop and the next inevitable scare will come. I appreciate how different this film is from "Hereditary": whereas that movie thrived on dark imagery and demonic presences, this movie thrives on bright and beautiful imagery contrasting with the unsettling behavior of many of the characters. 

The performances in this movie are almost all great. I've known ever since seeing "Lady Macbeth" that Florence Pugh would be an actress I should keep my eye on. And I was absolutely right. I've seen here in a couple more films, and in every one she has been an instant highlight of it. This movie is perhaps her best performance yet. While it's hard to say if it's as great as Toni Collette's, she is at least very close to what Collette does. What I appreciate the most about Pugh's performance is how nuanced and complex she makes it throughout the film. The character development she goes through in this film never feels out of place or nonsensical. That is due to the great writing the film consistently has, as well as Pugh's wholly committed performance. I can't go without mentioning how wonderful she is in the cold open and the end of the film. The way she uses facial expressions in both of those moments speaks volumes about how her character has changed. It's incredible how well she was able to contrast her emotions in both of those moments. I thought another highlight of hers was in the dance scene; what she was doing there really had me hooked. Jack Reynor's performance as Dani's boyfriend Christian was pretty interesting. I think he had some of the toughest material to deal with, as he's not a very likeable character, yet there are moments when we feel bad for him. I like how he traverses this complicated individual, making him an intriguing and fitting counterpart to Dani. Will Poulter is, as always, commanding the viewer's attention any time he's on screen. He seems to really relish the role he's playing here, and I appreciated how he went all in with whatever he was doing. If anything, I wish he was given even more to do in the film. Isabelle Grill was a big highlight here as well, being appropriately unsettling and chilling anytime she was on screen. The only main performances I didn't care for as much in this film were William Jackson Harper and Vilhelm Blomgren. They weren't awful performances by any means, but they felt a little underwhelming.

There are a couple issues with this movie that I have to talk about. Many of them are actually similar to some of the problems I had with "Hereditary". Probably the biggest is that I feel this movie's thematic arc can be a little confusing. I understood wholly Dani's character arc, but I feel like Aster was also trying to get a message across about toxic relationships and what exactly constitutes a "family". I could see threads of these themes coming to fruition in the film, but it felt like they were left mostly unanswered. There was also this odd thematic arc that kept popping up: communication, or lack thereof, can be a way to destroy relationships. I don't think this was somethings super compelling to explore. However, I could be totally wrong about that theme being part of Aster's intended writing. Another sort of problem with this film is that it's a little slow. This film is two and a half hours long. I appreciate the fact that the movie takes time to establish its characters; in fact scenes where that is happening is completely fine. But, for as much as a like the way some of the ritual and dinner scenes are filmed, it feels like a lot of them were heavily padded out. It can make one start to lose interest in the film until the next big thing inevitably happens. I think if some scenes were shortened down, then the film could've felt a little more concise and purposeful. Finally, the usage of symbols in this film can make it a little hard to follow along. Some symbols I did remember, but others that came back in the film didn't seem to hold much weight or significance. I had this same issue with "Hereditary". I appreciate that Aster likes to use visual cues instead of telling his audience everything, but this might be one of the rare moments where I would say a little spoken exposition could help.

Despite the problems I have with "Midsommar", I still think I can confidently say I'll remember this movie for a good long while. I haven't forgotten "Hereditary" either really. I still think about that film often. Aster has a unique voice in the horror landscape, one that I could see becoming marked in infamy later on down the line. I wouldn't complain about that at all. There's a lot to like about this film in my opinion, although I can see how it would be polarizing, much like its predecessor. Go into this film with an open mind. It's bizarre, uncanny, and off-kilter, and I love this movie for all those reasons. It will definitely have a place in my top 10 of this year!