Backrooms was… ok?
!!WARNING!!
!!SPOILERS!!
So… I watched Backrooms in theaters this Monday.
It was… Ok?
It is a short movie, just 1h 45m, and you notice because it leaves you with the feeling something is missing. I think some things were not properly developed. I wanted more screen time of the guy with the camera, they should have explored more together, it would have made things more interesting by the end. We should have had more time with Clark, exploring his character and his connection with the backrooms.
I think the thing I disliked the most was the “monster”. The parallels between isolation/losing touch with reality and the Backrooms were good. The concept of getting stuck in a cycle: every path you take, even if different, is slightly familiar; You have been here before, you have done it before, but things don’t get better, they get worse and worse; The more you walk, the more the path swallows you. I really like this concept.
But then the monster…
The place being a parallel, a metaphor or whatever, was good, but I think the monster appearing so visibly was unnecessary. I liked when it couldn't see it. A danger hides just out of your vision. Almost as if not a entity but an integral part of the place. When it showed itself, it looked… funny? Out of place?
Maybe because it is CGI in a scenario created mostly with practical effects. Everything looks very grounded, but the CGI breaks it.
If it kept itself obscured, difficult to see and discern, it would have been better and scarier. In the Christmas tree scene, the Still Lifes could not be seen clearly, and this was one of the scarier moments of the movie. However, later, when we could see them in the dinner scene, they also looked out of place.
I understand the monster represents the worst part of Clark or something like that, but that is probably a better way to execute it.
Another thing, I know Clark was already spiraling in the beginning of the story, but I think we should have seen more of him losing his mind. His initial scene of him exploring was really good, I would love to have seen more of it. Scenes of him using his architectural knowledge to map would also have been good. In the movie, we only see glimpses of his maps.
I like Clark, he could have been better used. The beginning, where he is shown as someone flawed but trying to get better, makes you sympathize with him. To, in the end, we see there were a lot of dark things we couldn’t see because he was always portraying himself as the victim. The problem was the middle, it lacked content. He went from 8 to 80 too quickly, the could have made this movie 2h just to develop him better.
I liked the “vibe” though. It captures the unsettling nature of the “not-place”, it is scary, off-putting, and familiar. The entire scenario being practical makes everything better. It’s a breath of fresh air in an era where most movies are completely recorded in front of green screens.
Also, I saw a lot of people saying they didn’t understand the end. But if you paid attention, it’s clear the Still Life in the end is the backrooms remembering Mary. What happened to her is unclear, but I don’t think that organization let her leave, she knew too much. That “memory” is very possibly the only thing left from her.
I was going to give this movie something like 6/10, but considering it was the director's first feature film, and he's only 20 years old, I'll go easy on him. So I give it a solid 7/10, a ⭐⭐⭐ ½ if you will.
Apparently they are already working on a sequel, I hope the director takes the criticism and changes his screenwriter.
Thanks for reading!
٠ ✤ ٠ • ·· • —– ٠ ✤ ٠ —– • ·· • ٠ ✤ ٠