I might not be able to catch Sinister this weekend. This is because two dear friends have had the nerve to schedule their wedding at a time that was convenient for them instead of checking with my filmgoing schedule.
This is not, however, going to stop me from passing around a few recommendations. My horror fan friends have all seen this movie since they’re all obsessive preview hunters or caught a midnight showing last night and have given it their seal of approval.
Critics seem to be back and forth on it: It’s got a 50 at Rotten Tomatoes. But I honestly don’t trust mainstream critics when it comes to horror movies. Here are a few reviews I’ve found that seem to encapsulate what pretty much everybody who’s seen it is telling me about the movie.
Gary Thompson, Philadelphia Daily News:
… an unusual and effective score and solid performances from an upscale cast. Hawke’s portrait of mental deterioration is convincing, Fred Thompson is a quietly contemptuous local sheriff, and James Ransone’s bumbling deputy adds comic relief with welcome dimension.
“Sinister” also borrows shrewdly, expanding on the found-footage gimmick in a way that manages to invoke both “Manhunter” and “The Ring.”
Capone, Aint It Cool News, who as a side note is the guy on that site I agree with the most often and is the most… restrained of the critical crew over there:
So is the film scary? I certainly thought so. But what’s most interesting is that the scares are spread apart more than I would have suspected, and what’s put in between is a strong drama that involves Oswalt’s family and his stifled creative process.
If you haven’t figured it out already, SINISTER is simply owned by Hawke’s solid work as a not-always-likable guy who is both trying to protect his family and his career, but the more he fuels his creative juices with these films, the greater the danger becomes. But this is the type of Hawke character that I love–squirrelly, guilty, so sure of his own self-worth that everyone else can go to hell.
Mark Olsen, Los Angeles Times, and a guy who can be hard on horror movies he doesn’t like:
Rather than another drearily workaday horror picture, “Sinister” uses the supernatural to underline its examination of the all-too-human foibles of insecurity and myopic self-centeredness. As the best horror stories so often do, “Sinister” makes clear that we are our own boogeymen, the worst monsters of all.
Surprisingly, the horror press is back and forth as well. Bloody Disgusting hated it, for example. I think a line I found in another review sums up what I’ve been hearing pretty well:
SINISTER isn’t a horror film that happens to be good. It’s a good film that just so happens to be horror.
Hey, once I can get to a theater, sold.




It looks sufficiently creepy for this type of movie but I have no intention of seeing it. It’s “Argo” for me this weekend. I did, however, discover this hilarious review of “Sinister” by a Finnish film critic. Really funny…
[mankabros.com]
So, its going to be super-overrated ala the Ring, Blair Witch, Paranormal Activity???
Eh, I wouldn’t argue Paranormal Activity was overrated. If you can get into what’s a fairly old-fashioned ghost story it’s a fun time. Blair Witch I always enjoyed, but having grown up in the woods, I didn’t find the woods at night very scary.
I think it was the build up, hearing about people leaving in the middle of PA because they were terrified etc…. I wasnt scared. It wasn’t a scary movie…. creepy at times… needed more Katie half naked though
I saw it last night. It’s not terrible, but it’s not great either. It has a few decent scares and there is a certain level of suspense throughout. However, the storyline and “fresh, diabolical twists” that are referenced in the consensus review on Rotten Tomatoes are telegraphed a mile away. So, instead of having that shocking “A-Ha!” or “WTF?!” climactic moment at the end, it’s more of a “Yeah, okay..that’s what happened”. Overall, I’d probably give it a C+.
Thanks for weighing in. I’m hoping to catch it sometime next week and see how it works out.