Hereditary

Hereditary is a better marketed film than some of A24's previous "HFS scariest movie ever!" attempts. 

*cough It Comes at Night cough cough*

That said, it also continues an odd trend of extreme separation between critics and fans as to the quality of the film. 

Remember mother!? A film that was marketed mostly as a horror film but instead turned out to be one long, extensive metaphor. Critics loved it, fans hated it and awarded it with an F Cinemascore (for whatever that's worth) and this particular critic hated that he loved it because of how pretentious it came off. 

I've started to prepare myself a little more for these so-called "horror" films that claim they're the scariest thing ever because I've found that I can really end up going either way. It Follows is another great example of an A24 horror film that I heard many call "absolutely stupid" but critics loved it. In particular, I really enjoyed it and it was in my Top 10 of that year. 

Hereditary faced a similar dilemma as its Cinemascore began to roll out on opening night to a meager D+. Again, take all that with a grain of salt but it basically means that mainstream audiences didn't get what they came for. Having seen the film I suppose I can see why they'd be disappointed. For starters, this isn't your typical horror film for most of its runtime. It focuses more on dread than jump-scare tactics (which are my weak spot, admittedly). It also begs the question if we should stop using this language around "It'll destroy you because it's the scariest movie ever", particularly for films that aren't your typical brand of horror. Setting expectations like those, and then leaving audiences feeling underwhelmed as they leave the theater aren't exactly the best ways to make a killing on opening weekend. But hey, maybe that's not their goal?

So who did I side with this time? The critics or the mainstream audiences? 

Hereditary is a superbly made film from a technical perspective and earns a lot of points there. As a horror film I wouldn't need to see it again but that's less because it's not worth it and more because it's highly unnerving. This isn't horror that gets to you in the moment. It seeps its way into your psyche a bit and will gnaw at you throughout the film and for a few days after. I imagine that's the intent of the film as it truly is a little different than people might expect and no, it's not the "scariest movie ever" even as subjective as that phrase may be.

When you find out you got an F on the exam

*CLUCK!* ... *CLUCK!*

Hereditary is best classified as a "slow burn" with the emphasis on slow. It never felt like it was lagging to me, but it had many scenes that felt like they were needlessly extended. Usually with shorter films (around 90 minutes) this works fine, but with Hereditary sitting at nearly 130 minutes (and feeling much longer), it starts to become a weakness of the film. Too many times do we see scenes that echo previous ones without much difference happening between the two. Doubly frustrating about this is that we sit through the slow burn only to get half answers and a pretty large heaping of confusion by the end. It's not a completely ambiguous ending, but there's enough "WTF" moments in the last 10 minutes -- both a good and bad thing -- that you'll be left wondering how to piece everything together. For me personally, had Hereditary been about 15-20 minutes shorter with a slightly more definitive ending and we could have been looking at a near classic.

That's because it does everything else so well. And it really is scary, just in different ways. As mentioned, Hereditary is a technically marvelous film with some of the best cinematography, editing, and original score of the year. It reminded me a lot of It Follows in these ways which is a very high compliment. Many of the film's most horrific scenes will stick with you because...well...they're pretty intense...but also because the frame itself is well thought out. Unlike some more hectic horror films, this is one where you can tell who/what is in each frame at all times and it helps elevate the film in the genre. Additionally, its performances are top notch, particularly Toni Collette's turn as the mom, Annie. There's already awards buzz for her and I think it's deserved. Annie is a highly troubled character and becomes more and more unhinged throughout the film, sometimes in dramatic fashion. The rest of the cast does well, but are mainly overshadowed by the core of the film in Annie.

When you find out your son got an F on the exam

I don't want to give away much/any of Hereditary's horror other than to say it went a slightly different direction than I thought it would. Many of the film's most provocative scenes are also its worst in the sense that they stick with you afterwards. A few are hard to stomach, but nothing that horror fans likely won't be able to handle. I don't think the implications of much of the original hype are all that magnificent (thinking about how us normal people relate to the film's title and the horror that stems from it), but it definitely is a disturbing, slightly upsetting film. 

Just not "the scariest movie of all time ZOMG!" 

CONS

• Significantly longer than it needs to be. When you have a slow-burn film, this usually becomes an issue past the 105 minute mark
• Confusing ending which could have used a little but more clarity. Viewers deserved it for getting there

PROS

• Technically fantastic
• Gorgeous cinematography
• Crisp editing
• Memorable original score that adds a lot to the film
• Strong core performance from Toni Collette
• Has its fair share of disturbing imagery and scenes. A different kind of cerebral horror that burrows a little deeper than some of its more surface-level brethren

Rath's Review Score | 8/10