Absentia review (2011, Horror/Mystery/Thriller, Mike Flanagan, Fallback Plan Productions/Blue Dot Productions)

Seventy-thousand dollars, and we get this hidden gem.

Granted, that is an estimate as far as the web (IMDB's "Box Office" section for the film notes this) is concerned, but if there's a significant grain of truth in that number, then it's quite something. But you may be wondering just why I am harping on this point instead of getting to the point?

The point is that this film is remarkable given its barebones budget. Just think about it: George Romero produced the 1968 horror classic Night of the Living Dead on a $114,000 budget. I don't know what that figure is when you adjust for inflation, but it's quite a bit more than what Mike Flanagan, the director/writer of Absentia, had to work with, and this was done in 2011.

Regardless, the film excels in so many ways in spite of that heavily-restrictive budget. For one, it's a far cry from the typical cheap scares & tricks of the genre today. Instead, the film has a slow, but deliberate pacing to it, building the tension for you to experience throughout the film. When any "in your face" horror does appear, it is appropriate and not forced just to try and get a rise out of the audience.

There's also a bit of drama to experience as well. The premise is that Tricia (Courtney Bell, also involved in the production of the film), eight months pregnant, has nearly finished grieving over the loss of her highschool sweetheart & husband seven years prior. Or so she hopes to believe. When she has to declare him legally dead (in absentia), her guilt comes to haunt her. Her guilt takes on the form of an emaciated, ghoulish-looking image of her husband. As for the reason she's seeing him, it is left up to the viewer's interpretation. As for her situation that may be causing her emotional duress, she's pending delivery of her unborn baby, and creeping unease is haunting her over the course of the film; could she feel guilty for having slept with a man while her husband was still missing? Does she feel that her husband, her teenage-sweetheart, should have been the father? Or could she truly be over the grieving process regarding her loss? That's for you to decide.

In the meantime, her younger sister Callie (Katie Parker) has returned from her status as a drifter searching for answers as to the meaning of life, among other things. Apparently recovering from drug abuse and trying to cope with her own problems through prayer, Callie nonetheless reignites the sister-sister bond with Tricia in their respective times of need. Supportive of her sister when she needs her most, Callie is an important piece of the puzzle in the plot of the film.

However, as time goes on, disappearances occur in their immediate neighborhood, and old cases open up anew, bringing tingling questions with them. To go on further, though, would be to spoil the film unjustly.

First of all, there's no elaborate special effects to be found throughout the film. If you're one of those viewers who needs spectacular visual displays to occur at one point or another, then you're going to be gravely disappointed in this one. Also, as I've mentioned, the film has a deliberate, prodding pace, and it may bore the less attentive of viewers quite a bit. Unlike most horror films ever made, Absentia presents the horror elements through tense buildup, and rather clever release (monsters showing up & other engaging scenes) sparsely.

You're also likely not going to feel like the film has been resolved. What really happened by the end of the film? Did people really disappear without a trace, or did they run away for a life anew? Is there a message, a theme overlying the plot of the film that could explain the rash of people in absentia? What about the thing in the tunnel?

Admirably, the plot is actually rather semi-linear, in that it presents alternate threads throughout the events that unfold. Some may take this as the filmmakers lacking confidence in the storyline they were writing, but I think the filmmakers were rather trying to give the audience the means to come to their own interpretation(s). It's something that is sorely lacking in this overburdened genre that lacks true tension and creativity. Remember when horror was both stunning and surprising? Yeah, it's been a long ass time.

I enjoyed the minimalistic soundtrack as well. There's a low, downbeat dark ambient tune that plays throughout most of the film, and it helps establish the mysterious mood that permeates its duration. A few scenes break what could have been a monotonous soundtrack with light rock songs, cleverly integrated into the activities the characters are actually engaging in (in one scene, Callie is jogging while listening to a track on her MP3 player; a little later, she takes off her headphones and the song dies down). 

Couple the intelligent brand of horror, the open-ended plotline, the down-to-earth characters, and the minimalistic but appropriate soundtrack, Absentia is a showcase of what to do with a horror film, no matter the budget & personnel limitations. Those latter two elements of film-making are not good excuses for churning out recycled crap that generates so much mockery of this genre that possesses enormous opportunities.

B+

The Good:

+ Down-to-earth, obscure actors present believable, at-times sympathetic performances.

+ In spite of the miniscule budget, there seemed to be a very natural, stress-free approach taken to the film. Nothing is overly forced or hammy.

+ A subtle breed of horror that builds tension, then shocks the audience without abusing such things for spectacle sake.

+ Open-ended, semi-linear plotline that is open to interpretation.

+ No overt special effects.

The Bad:

- May leave some viewers unsatisfied with the ending.

The Thing Review (2011)(SPOILERS)

There's little imagination to be found here. While it didn't have the huge shoes to fill that a sequel would, it didn't serve much justice as a prequel, either. The audience of the Carpenter original didn't need to be brought up to speed as to the creature's origins; it was established right at the beginning sequence. This review is only intended for others who have watched the film, because it has spoilers.

I had a problem with the in-your-face nature of how the Thing went about its practices. Most daunting was how it was so illogical; it attacked people often when they were surrounded by others, even when armed with weapons it must have realized at a point could kill it in a painful, hot way. It wasn't subtle, it didn't 'scan' the area for vantage points or hiding spots in case it screws up its assimilation attempts (in Carpenter's film, the dog thing goes about the camp, finding out the layout of the place, and listens in on the crew members and finds out how it can go about its activities).

The beginning of the film was better than the ending, even though the ending is
spot-on, faithful to how the canonical sequel began (the man with the slit throat, the split-face corpse, the bloodied axe embedded into the wall, and the block of ice with a large opening are all present). Indeed, the beginning of the film, all 20 or so minutes of it, gives a feeling of some mystery, like, "what is this thing? Where is it from?" However, that is thrown out the window the moment it literally leaps into action and begins its assault on the crew members without a care in the world what happens. Surely the creature would be as weary of foreign lifeforms as the humans are (except for the Sanders character, who was unbelievably naive and should I say, stupid); why would it choose to throw itself into possible danger like that? Oh, that's right, the writers of the film wouldn't have a movie if they gave it more of a dimension than what it ended up having, because they had little imagination.

The characters were virtually card-board cutouts, most of them soulless or lacking of any depth to make them interesting. There was some paranoia development between the characters, I'll give the film this merit, but it didn't have the same feel as the sequel. Plus, why bother being paranoid about people when for little reason, the Thing assimilates someone completely random with no indication as to why, where, or how the person became a victim. I did like this film's own take on the identity test, which relied on, get this, tooth fillings. There actually was some logic to be found in this little plot device, as when it tried to assimilate a person (unsuccessfully I might add), it rejected a metal leg plate during the process because it was inorganic. That's a simple AND clever plot device and it is a plus for the film. However, this is one of the elements of the film that gives it the classification of "remake", seeing as it borrowed many elements from Carpenter's film, as if the design team of the film had nothing else to go on.

Atmosphere is a helpful way to give a film identity, and this film doesn't disappoint, for the most part. It doesn't help that the creature takes no liberties, doesn't seem to hatch any effective plan to take people over, and that even when it goes about its business, there's always people right there to burn it to death. There is a lot of tension during these moments, but the film is chock full of them that it doesn't allow for much ambiance, any breaks from action, which in Carpenter's film were used to great effect thanks to Morricone's stunning soundtrack. While I forgot the name of the person responsible for this film's soundtrack, it was rather forgettable other than the remix of "Humanity" heard at the end sequence, which sounded too much like the original anyway.

CGI was heavily used in this film. It didn't bother me, though, because I've come to accept this method of film effects (except for some cases. 'Deep Blue Sea', I'm looking at you!). Frankly, they were well done, but they didn't have the visceral feel that Rob Bottin's creations from the Carpenter film had. Indeed, many of the mutations were unoriginal or uninspired; Bottin had things like flesh flowers, a huge set of dinosaur-like teeth inside of one's chest, massive deformed-looking claws, a huge skull of what looked like a huge and mean looking dog, and many other things. This Thing almost always had a set of octopus jaws in the chest of the host, and crab-like claws. That's about all that I could say of it because the creature design was decent at best.

In closing, this is a decent film, but it doesn't add anything new to The Thing canon. There was little imagination, it made way too many nods to the Carpenter original, and character development and interaction was, in most cases, nonexistent. And the creature, while still as scary as ever because of its shape-shifting abilities and the way it mutates, is made one-dimensional and somewhat boring. Paranoia is still there, but there's nothing else to speak of. I guess the only real upside to this film is that it'll expose this canon to more people, and might invigorate some interest in it to generate a possible sequel. However, because of the ambiguous nature of the ending of Carpenter's film, it'll be hard to fill such shoes.

C+

+ Does have some faith to the Carpenter film

+ Retains some of the paranoia you'd think people would feel in such a situation

+ CGI is not bad, but it isn't spectacular, either

+ The beginning gives some sense of wonderment 

- Doesn't try anything really new, but does have some twists

- Too many nods to the original

- Monster behavior, and the situations where it attacks, are illogical

- Forgettable soundtrack and the atmosphere is almost nullified by the constant action

- Not as scary as it is gory and intense. In that case, it is more of a sci-fi thriller than a sci-fi horror film.

Additional note: Congrats on the clever identity test method, guys.