Maybe I’m just like my father: He’s never satisfied. And neither am I, especially when it comes to time periods. We’re hoppin’ back in the ol’ time machine and boltin’ to anno domini 2013 to take in some home invasion madness. No, not The Purge, we’ve been there, done that, didn’t enjoy much of it. Nah, this time we’re taking in director Adam Wingard’s You’re Next.
The story finds us in the fancier portion of rural Missouri (I know, I’m as surprised as yinz), where a family is gathering together to celebrate a wedding anniversary. We’ve got the parents presiding over the proceedings, and a few adult children and their significant others (I think they’re mostly married, but I can’t fully remember at the moment) are joining them, complete with plenty of inter-sibling bickering, as is to be expected. Unbeknownst to the family, their neighbors were killed the night before. Just an appetizer, it appears, as a trio of animal-masked dudes descends upon the house, picking off the guests one by one. Thus begins a fight for survival as the decreasing family population mounts attempts to either escape or fight back.
Right off the bat, this film rubbed me the wrong way. The camera work and cinematography are pretty good, and Sharni Vinson is a solid badass, but just about everything else feels off. Nearly every line of dialogue, regardless of who delivers it, sounds clunky, stodgy, inept, or just plain wrong, usually a combination of those adjectives. Not a single conversation (many of which were apparently improvised, how nice) sounds like it’s being spoken by a human being, much less one that’s pursued acting as a profession. Not that it matters all that much, ‘cause the script is a tired, well-worn joke of a rag, with nary a unique or clever bone in its figurative body. It doesn’t help that The Purge came out relatively close to this, as even that bore-fest looks almost great in comparison. Genre legend Barbara Crampton, playing the matriarch of this star-crossed clan, is not only wasted in her limited screen time, but she’s forced to perform so broadly, so pathetically, that people who didn’t know her ahead of time would wonder how she ever got an acting gig.
Then there’s the thing about the humor. Now, I’ve had to rely on outside sources for this information, but the filmmakers and just about every critic mention a heavy dose of dark comedy when discussing this film. In fact, this seems to be the buoy that helps keep the film from suffering in many critics’ eyes. Gotta say, I have no idea what the hell they’re talking about. I don’t mean that I didn’t find the film funny (which, for the record, is exactly how I felt, just saying), but rather I couldn’t and still can’t figure out where this alleged humor is supposed to have existed in the film. Was it the fact that one could laugh at one of the women getting garroted whilst trying to flee? Like, was that just black slapstick? I don’t see it. In fact, if they were trying for comedy, they failed even worse than if they were just going for straight horror schlock. I think the only way one could find humor in this mess would be in the same way one enjoys The Room or any Neil Breen movie, replete with “irony” and cynicism.
I know this film’s got plenty of defenders, including several people whose opinion’s I respect, but I can’t in good conscience recommend this to anyone, even for “ironic” entertainment (I don’t wanna risk anyone being exposed to garbage of this magnitude). I need to grab a stiff drink (perhaps my new concoction comprising two parts peanut butter bourbon and one part Godiva chocolate liqueur, the title of which is still being developed as I type this, but it’s damn tasty regardless) and find better fare right quick!
Allusions of Grandeur 