This one caught my eye when I first saw it on Prime, and it's been sitting in my watch list ever since. I rather avoided it because reviews were mixed. Despite that, it won 4 awards and had 13 nominations. Looks like I'm familiar with director Oz Perkins. He both wrote and directed I Am The Pretty Thing That Lives In The House, as well as The Blackcoat's Daughter (both of which I liked quite a lot). Not familiar with writer Rob Hayes, seems this is his first major screenplay. There's a number of "More Like This" films in the suggestions that I liked a lot, so that's a good sign.
Oz Perkins has said in an interview that the title was changed because this version focuses on Gretel.
"It's awfully faithful to the original story. It's got really only three principal characters: Hansel, Gretel, and the Witch. We tried to find a way to make it more of a coming of age story. I wanted Gretel to be somewhat older than Hansel, so it didn't feel like two 12 year olds- rather a 16 year old and an 8 year old. There was more of a feeling like Gretel having to take Hansel around everywhere she goes, and how that can impede one's own evolution, how our attachments and the things that we love can sometimes get in the way of our growth."
So, we've morphed it into a spooky coming of age tell, I'm here for that. There are some feminist aspects and an ever present rejection against patriarchal society, they're mostly undertones throughout the film and don't detract, they add to the story in my opinion.
I won't talk much about the plot proper, only in bits and pieces, as I don't like to rehash something easily found. I also won't rehash what's already in the trivia section. We're rather outside of time and place in this tale, as it should be, so it feels like a proper fairytale.
Let me just pause right here for a second and point out that everything besides the stunning prologue (which is anamorphic widescreen), is filmed in a 1.55:1 aspect ratio. It's making everything look like it's actually within a storybook. That caught my eye real quick cause it's a weird choice of aspect ratio, so I had to pause and go look this up. Apparently Oz spoke to Polygon about this:
"We started thinking of the film as having a prologue and the body of the movie, and we talked about what would be expected for the first section. Probably square formatting, not quite sepia, but some kind of Instagram discoloration that looks like it came from your phone. We wanted to avoid all this. We don't want to do something that anyone could do on an app. So we shot in widescreen, almost looking like the extreme wide shots you'd see in Westerns, and made the rest of the film - the "present" - squarer in its aspect ratio... Basically, you marry yourself to someone who you hope has a taste compatible with yours, and I got really lucky with Galo. The fact that we literally speak different languages allowed us to find a new grammar rooted in the visual. What he was thinking and what I was thinking were often the same thing, but sometimes it was a surprise to both of us what the other person meant." A Mountain Xpress review says, "Perkins makes the most of his claustrophobic 1.55:1 aspect ratio and fills the frame with disconcerting close-ups and gorgeous wide shots of malevolent silhouettes in a woods awash in a red, Argento-esque hue."
I must say, the SHOTS are amazing. Framing is just *chef's kiss* with stunning symmetry. We've got some gorgeous coloring in this, very lush and ripe but also dark and dreary in a rich way, with great saturation and color. It just screams autumn in some parts. Great costuming throughout, especially in the prologue. I'm seeing a good mix of diversity in casting, and that's refreshing.
We've got a segment, about a quarter in, of eating the wrong mushrooms in the woods. They resemble Fly Agaric. That leads to the start of some spooky visuals and begins paving the way for dream sequences later (which usually I don't like but I thought they were done well here without being overdone or trying to show us too much).
We have a bit of the Grimm's "The Juniper Tree" creeping into this one and melding together a bit with the whole, "My mother, she killed me, my father, he ate me, and my little sister, my bones she kept, what a pretty bird am I!" Highly recommend reading it if you haven't, it may be the creepiest story they ever wrote. There also seem to be some borrowed themes here that lend themselves nicely.
I love how the witch is portrayed, and the blackening of her fingers. I might add that the food in this looks great, which is something I notice a lot, and there's also a kitty! I really can't get over the symmetry of so many of these shots, and how absolutely striking it looks. I know I already said that, but man. I really want to live in this witchy cottage so bad. Though we are not told, the witch's name is Holda.
While in the cottage, Gretel begins having strange dreams, visions of children and an enchantress, and at this time, it seems, begins her menstrual cycle here in the witches house. Holda begins to show Gretel how to tap into her powers as a witch. We have some very traditional things embroiled in occult/witchcraft, such as the salve and the staff. There's also a mix of magickal symbols that many find "mushed together," but as an eclectic practitioner myself I thought they were just fine.
Further reflections:
A lot of this is going to come off pretentious of me, but... I see so many negative reviews for this- people saying they didn't understand the plot, that there was no plot, or the plot just lost people. Some people are upset that it's "artsy" and therefore apparently not a "real" film, which is both frustrating and hilarious to me. Seems to be a fair amount of people also upset that this didn't follow the story of Hansel and Gretel to a T. Apparently many people found it just boring. I feel like probably the people who hated this, are also people who couldn't get into the director's other offerings, especially I Am The Pretty Thing That Lives In The House. I wonder if people perhaps have just become jaded by what mainstream/Hollywood has decided are good movies/box office breakers, whereas I tend to balk at films of that nature, and would much rather see something like this.
I was engaged and riveted from the very beginning, and stayed that way to the end. I feel this movie makes you think, to put together some of the plot devices, which is something a lot of films I enjoy do, and something many others seem to dislike incredibly, when everything is not laid out on a silver platter and over-explained for them. I think some folks missed connecting things in the film that they should have made links between. I've seen many reviews insisting the prologue had nothing to do with the rest of the movie, but that's not the case at all, it was entwined throughout the story, with some very particular points and connections, and was spoken about later on in the movie quite pointedly and extensively.
Every shot in this is an absolute piece of art, the soundscape is stunning. I appreciated the plot wholeheartedly for what it is and enjoyed the twists and turns it offered. I thought it was incredibly well written, obviously very well filmed. A refreshing and unique take on a story we've had around since the 1300's. This is a VERY atmospheric slow burn, and while it's not going to be for everyone, I find it truly wonderful. There's definitely more emphasis on the dark fantasy side than the explicit horror side, although I personally feel this is completely still a horror film. The screenplay itself is rather sparse, but I feel here that's taken advantage of by showing rather than telling. For a PG-13 film especially, I think this hits all the marks it should have.
3 out of 5 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends