A boncolás

Egész idő alatt vártam a végső ultrasokkot, mint például a spanyol [Rec] filmben, de nem jött. Vártam, mert a rendezőnek itt sikerült a horror feszültséget a néző maximális pontjára felcsavarni. Az A-kategóriás színészpáros rangot ad neki, minden képkockán érezni lehet a hullaház holttesteinek szagát, és Olwen Catherine Kelly színésznő mozdulatlan arca szellemes tekintetével még órákkal a film megtekintése után is kísérteni fogja a gondolataidat. Csak a béna logikáért kár. Egy csiszoltabb forgatókönyvvel ez lett volna 2016 horrorfilmje. (2017.01.10)

I hope André Øvredal will start working at a faster pace, because I don’t want to wait another six years for his next genre piece. Both of his films so far, Troll Hunter and now The Autopsy of Jane Doe, are great examples of how to bring something original to the horror genre. They aren’t revolutionary game-changers, rather, they slightly alter and playfully appropriate templates, which is more than enough. On top of that, this film is directed with a firm hand, the camera navigates the interiors of the morgue with grace, and some sequences are text-book examples of how to create tension and horror scenes. The characters are likeable and don’t behave too stupidly, and the core mystery manages to reliably arouse and maintain the curiosity. I won’t pretend the film doesn’t have any weak elements (for me, it was the reveal, when the characters suddenly unravel the mystery and everything is explained to the viewer – IMHO, it would have been better to just tap on the details and let the viewers figure things out for themselves), but overall I’m very satisfied. (2016.12.21)

For a long time when watching a horror movie, it didn’t happen to me that I would be so terrible shocked by its atmosphere, which kept me at the edge of my seat, from the very beginning of the movie. This tension stayed with me for almost an hour. Not only was the atmosphere bombastic, but the disgusting premise of the film was also set in motion – an autopsy which didn’t really add to the impression of a nice and friendly horror movie. But maybe it was the fear of the unknown that made me scared out of my wits. Exactly an hour later, the point of all the events began to be explained and the whole atmosphere went to hell. There was just so much bullshit happening in the movie that I felt like going to the bathroom to think about what the creator meant by it. Quality actors, interesting premise, perfect adaptation, those were all positive. And in the end, the positives won despite the joke that was the last half hour. (2017.06.28)

This is a filmed handbook for aspiring horror filmmakers. Øvredal sticks to tradition like a pathologist to a scalpel. He knows where the line between light and shadow lies, and at the same time he has a clear idea that even if you routinely cut into corpses for a couple of decades, you're still a person with a distinctive character at your core. We get all this for at least the first hour. The final twenty minutes are very clumsy, both in the denouement and in the presentation, where I would have cut down on the literalness of the images and the biblical quotations. It was still fairly decent, though. (2017.01.15)

The first "forensic" half in the style of "conversations at the autopsy table" is very fresh and exciting, the second begins to use on more familiar genre tropes and uses shabby jump scares. Exchanges of views between father and son are sometimes engulfed by rigor mortis, and the final revelation is not exactly from the "what you don't hear about every Halloween" category, but the rather skillful directing and good atmosphere push it through the kiln door with triumph. André Øvredal did not disappoint, just another crunchy story, this time sprinkled with formaldehyde and conducted in a sharp sagittal spirit. By the way, it's a movie that awakens the necrophile in someone. A little bit. (2016.12.27)