There is an outstanding idea at the heart of this film, and somebody gave it considerable thought. The creature itself is well realised and makes more sense than most, although the human characters less so. Supposed scientists undertake an experiment in the least appropriate place possible, with far too many variables - human and rat subjects simultaneously, inconsistent dosage, possible magnetic forces giving false results.
The characters themselves are stereotypes: the head scientist with a tragic past; the hipster female assistant with flawed beliefs (Norse mythology as from an 'isolated culture', when Norse travellers had found Canada half a millennium before anyone else, so knew more of the planet than anybody else); the beautiful but otherworldly spiritualist; the chalk and cheese brothers. I only knew three of the actors. Two were in Hostel 3, the other I recognised but had to look him up - he was the guy from The Collector / Collection.
The story is largely told through dream logic, a mixture of reality and fantasy. There are distorted perspectives, warped timescales, paranoia, shadows and light. The director of photography deserves a paragraph of their own, so here goes.
The camerawork is outstanding for a film with this budget. Terrific use of backlighting to place characters in silhouette, a superb use of colour in various scenes, and believable nighttime activity. Many scenes are almost monochrome but far from black and white. I vividly recall a scene all in brown but for the blue shirt of a character, another vista in a blue wash but for the blood on a victims face. I watched the film at night and was impressed at how much I could see in the darker episodes, but even rewatching by day with the curtains open it was clear the lighting picked out everything relevant but added deep shadows to blur the irrelevant backgrounds and create menace. I have not researched it but I imagine the cinematographer grew up in music videos or making commercials. In one scene close to the end, backlighting makes a male character seem perhaps more excited than he should be, but overall the lighting and camerawork is outstanding, far better than the film deserves.
The makers credit the viewer with intelligence. Hitchcock' definition of suspense was when the audience knows things they desperately want the characters to realise, and this is brave enough to show us the history of the house from the opening scene, although the researchers do not find out until very late. Echoes of The Thing when everyone knows they are dealing with a creature that can appear as one of them; the paranoia is palpable.
The flaws are in the lack of a coherent plot. One brother looks for another, questioning why he would go into a greenhouse when there is absolutely nothing to indicate he has. The other brother then looks for the first brother in the same outbuilding. The ridiculous lack of science shown by scientists is an almost insurmountable disappointment but don't let that put you off. There is so much to praise about this film, right up to the credits rolling, that it would be a shame to dismiss it. Done right, this could easily have been an all-time great.
The characters themselves are stereotypes: the head scientist with a tragic past; the hipster female assistant with flawed beliefs (Norse mythology as from an 'isolated culture', when Norse travellers had found Canada half a millennium before anyone else, so knew more of the planet than anybody else); the beautiful but otherworldly spiritualist; the chalk and cheese brothers. I only knew three of the actors. Two were in Hostel 3, the other I recognised but had to look him up - he was the guy from The Collector / Collection.
The story is largely told through dream logic, a mixture of reality and fantasy. There are distorted perspectives, warped timescales, paranoia, shadows and light. The director of photography deserves a paragraph of their own, so here goes.
The camerawork is outstanding for a film with this budget. Terrific use of backlighting to place characters in silhouette, a superb use of colour in various scenes, and believable nighttime activity. Many scenes are almost monochrome but far from black and white. I vividly recall a scene all in brown but for the blue shirt of a character, another vista in a blue wash but for the blood on a victims face. I watched the film at night and was impressed at how much I could see in the darker episodes, but even rewatching by day with the curtains open it was clear the lighting picked out everything relevant but added deep shadows to blur the irrelevant backgrounds and create menace. I have not researched it but I imagine the cinematographer grew up in music videos or making commercials. In one scene close to the end, backlighting makes a male character seem perhaps more excited than he should be, but overall the lighting and camerawork is outstanding, far better than the film deserves.
The makers credit the viewer with intelligence. Hitchcock' definition of suspense was when the audience knows things they desperately want the characters to realise, and this is brave enough to show us the history of the house from the opening scene, although the researchers do not find out until very late. Echoes of The Thing when everyone knows they are dealing with a creature that can appear as one of them; the paranoia is palpable.
The flaws are in the lack of a coherent plot. One brother looks for another, questioning why he would go into a greenhouse when there is absolutely nothing to indicate he has. The other brother then looks for the first brother in the same outbuilding. The ridiculous lack of science shown by scientists is an almost insurmountable disappointment but don't let that put you off. There is so much to praise about this film, right up to the credits rolling, that it would be a shame to dismiss it. Done right, this could easily have been an all-time great.