Best Snyder movie so far. Sadly it is deeply misunderstood. Movie is way more deeper and complex than it looks like on first glance.
People don't realize Sweet Pea is the protagonist, Babydoll is a figment of Sweet Pea’s imagination. Babydoll does not exist. Babydoll's story is Sweet Pea’s story. Sweet Pea was sexually abused, killed her sister and is in psychiatric hospital in therapy. Babydoll is Sweet Pea's avatar. Way of dealing with grief, with guilt, and way to manage her current situation and overcome it. Babydoll is also Sweet Pea's guardian angel.
Sweet Pea is the only fully rounded character, other girls represent aspects of her psyche. Babydoll represents strength and courage, Amber loyalty, Blondie fear, and Rocket represents guilt. In the third level reality her psyche fights for the things to get her free from her current state. Second guardian angel (the Wise Man) guides her through. To fully recover she needs to get over her guilt (Rocket dies as a symbol), also other girls represent things which she needs to leave behind to fully recover .
Babydoll is one of those things. She is the fifth thing (“The fifth is a mystery. It is the reason. It is the goal. It will be a deep sacrifice and a perfect victory.”). Lobotomy of Babydoll represents Sweet Pea’s mind of taking control. Sweet Pea needs to sacrifice Babydoll to be “cured”. Escape at the end is a symbol of that process of being cured. That’s why the driver is the Wise Man, he guides her further.
Sucker Punch is Sweet Pea’s journey from “madness” to “sanity”. Movie is philosophical / psychological investigation wrapped in a special effects action-fantasy. As the movie changes realities (mostly in the third reality), Snyder uses more fetishized image of the girls. He uses clichés and cluttered iconography (nazi zombies, sexy schoolgirls). It is a way to detached and disconnected characters from second reality. Second reality, the brothel, is the “main” reality. In which everything happens.
[7.6/10] One of the best tacks a horror film can take is rooting its supernatural or outsized sense of terror in something real. That grain of truth at the core of a movie’s scares makes them more vivid and gripping than bare, spooky scenes or the usual collection of ghoulies.
It certainly works to the benefit of The Visit. The film tells the story of two young children, Becca and Tyler, visiting their estranged grandparents for the first time. “Pop Pop” and “Nana” behave strangely, rumbling and being ill in the middle of the night or sneaking out to a mysterious shed, in a way that unnerves their grandchildren.
The smartest choice the film makes is to walk the line between whether this is the sign of something sinister or wrong, or whether it’s simply a combination of dementia and unfamiliarity that’s disturbing the kids. It’s a horror movie, so it’s not hard to guess how things play out, but the film gains strength by playing with that ambiguity. Outside the confines of a Hollywood picture, kids can have trouble relating to their grandparents, understanding the physical and mental challenges their elders are going through. Using that natural anxiety, that natural misunderstanding, both serves as a means to muddy the waters of What’s Really Going On, and to elevate the frightening qualities of when Nana and Pop Pop are acting out.
If there’s a smarter choice, however, it’s in the casting of the two young leads who carry the film. Olivia DeJonge plays Becca, the older sibling who is a budding director, out to document this momentous and fraught family occasion, with a combination of precociousness and vulnerability. Ed Oxenbould plays Tyler, Becca’s colorful, freestyle-rapping little brother, who makes for an amusingly free-wheeling yin to Becca’s very deliberate yang.
Centering a movie around kids is hard, as the challenges of finding the core of a character and maintaining it from beginning to end can be difficult for young actors. But DeJonge and Oxenbould both give their characters a sense of realness in their childlike reactions to the world around them, but also deliver the emotional layers to that experience to make them compelling figures and not just props in this drama.
Much of that comes from the script penned by the famed/notorious M. Night Shyamalan, who also directs the film. He too captures the inquisitive, precious spirit of childhood, while making Becca and Tyler easy characters to become endeared to and fear for. The film also features one of Shyamalan’s tightest scripts. As much as Shyamalan takes time out to be a little loose and show the kids being kids, helping to establish character and tone, he also dots every “i” and crosses every “t” in terms of setting up the mystery and providing plausible hints, convincing red herrings, and a solid build to the truth about what’s happening with their grandparents.
If anything, the film’s narrative is a little too neat. Emotional beats or noted characteristics come back into play at just the right moment, to the point that the viewer can see the strings of why some detail or story was told in the prelude. The plot never feels too convenient, but at times it moves like it’s on rails.
The same cannot be said, however, for the cinematography. Shyamalan employs the “found footage” conceit here, and it gives him a chance to use perspective and the verisimilitude of that choice to accentuate his scares. More than anything, it allows us to better know Becca and Tyler. If we’re not literally seeing their perspective, hearing their voice and seeing their point-of-view from behind the camera, then we see them in confessionals, opening up in the piercing way only a camera lens can admit.
Shyamalan uses that choice -- having the kids “filming” almost all of the movie, for both terror and fun. The hand-held conceit turns a simple game of hide and seek, or a chance encounter with a bystander on a visit to an old high school, into terrifying episodes, filled with crawling figures or troubling confrontations. But it also gives Tyler the chance to goof off in front of the camera in the way a ten year old would, or for Becca to amusingly wax rhapsodic over not wanting to be too intentional in her zooms and cuts, with Shyamalan clearly having a good time poking fun at his profession through the eyes of the child.
The only problem, then, is that once Shyamalan has laid down that initial layer of humor and creepiness, the inevitable reveal leads to a bit of the air coming out of the picture rather than the terror being heightened. Once the scales fall and the ambiguity is no longer there to goose the scares, the film becomes more stock in its horror, and the emotional climaxes coincide with the horror climaxes a little too easily.
Still, The Visit isn’t content to merely offer a snootful of well-crafted horror and an endearing, if frightening kid adventure. There’s a heavily-underlined but potent theme about acceptance and processing anger for those who’ve hurt us, particularly family members. The film isn’t shy in the way it connects the feelings of Becca and Tyler’s mom (Kathryn Hahn, who makes a strong impression in just a little bit of screentime) toward the parents she hasn’t spoken to in a decade and a half, with Becca and Tyler’s own feelings about their absentee dad. As with the scary side of the movie, The Visit pays both of these internal challenges a little too easily, but still convincingly.
It’s hard not to draw comparisons with Shyamalan’s breakthrough film, The Sixth Sense, give both movies’ use of talented child actors and themes of making peace with difficult parts of our lives, but The Visit stands on its own. It’s a tidier film, more self-contained, more human and unvarnished, with its single-location focus and more conventional scares. And it finds the sweet spot between the real things that unnerve us, and the grander horrors of the screen, to make an effective vignette about two kids finding their way through one uncertain situation and resolving another.
Ouch, that average rating! I'm not going to lie though, I genuinely had a fun time watching 'Madame Web'... perhaps I should be keeping that fact quiet?
I don't know what to say, I found it to be suitably entertaining. I'm sure there are plot holes aplenty (I noticed a few) and it probably makes zero sense/isn't a good adaptation compared to its source material or whatever but honesty... I don't care, it gave me enough enjoyment that I wasn't questioning anything about what I was watching.
The cast are probably the key factors as to why I did enjoy this. I previously knew of Dakota Johnson but hadn't actually seen her in anything properly, I found her performance to be more than noteworthy and she spearheads the film strongly. The trio of Sydney Sweeney, Isabela Merced and Celeste O'Connor are positives too.
Tahar Rahim's antagonist, meanwhile, is poorly written and portrayed, though I personally thought the actor did a good job. I have no complaints with anyone who appears onscreen to be honest. Away from them, the pacing and score are also standouts.
In my recollection of viewing this, I truthfully haven't got any issues with it. If it wasn't for the slight bad murmurs that I did hear about pre-watch (though not much of it as I avoid as much as I can with movies) and the reaction on sites like this post-watch, I'd not be questioning my thoughts about this whatsoever.
As I always say, to each their own. For me, gimme a sequel (as long as the cast remain, mind). Not even sorry.
