Skip to main content

They Will Kill You Doesn’t Execute Well Enough

Satanism is having a great time at the movies this March. Or rather it would be, if the movies were very good.
They Will Kill You is the second film in as many weeks to feature that theme, after Ready or Not 2, and that is not where the similarities end with this movie that also features a horde rich people trying to kill one young woman who’s estranged sister is also a significant part of the story. It’s an unusual but not unheard of situation and They Will Kill You benefits from being an original piece not having to stack up against a well-liked predecessor. It is ultimately the better of the two movies, though it is not without significant narrative shortcomings or severe stylistic fumblings of its own. It is written and directed by one Kirill Solokov, who is clearly indebted to the grindhouse tradition of cartoonishly violent action-horror,  with which he has a sturdy grasp and valiant conceptual creativity. Yet his technique in both craft and storytelling is much more haphazard.
For example, he opens the story on two sisters fleeing their abusive father and the elder one shooting him and attempting to run away on her own before being arrested. The film then turns on a dime from visual grittiness to flamboyance as it transitions to this same woman who we eventually learn is called Asia, played by Zazie Beetz, arriving at an old and elite New York hotel called The Virgil at an unclear point in time in relation to the earlier scene, where she is seeking a job as a maid -establishing a creepy hypnotic atmosphere to the place and mystique in her situation up through an attack by robed assailants in her room at night, whom she fends off and kills with violence and stunning competence. Only here are the threads linked -that she has after serving a ten year prison sentence, come for her sister Maria (Myha’la) whom she believes is a captive in this place. Following this twist for her attackers is another one for her: that most of the staff and residents of this hotel are immortal and capable of resurrection no matter the wound, making her avenging mission that much more difficult.
You’ll forgive me, the film cannot be discussed with any meaningful accuracy without revealing that facet of its make-up, which the movie exploits for its novelty quite a lot. It allows for a great deal of enthusiasm in the violence, Asia mowing down these cultists, dismembering -often decapitating them in brutal ways- only for them to rise up a few moments later, sometimes without a head, to keep pursuing her; all while she herself is a mere mortal, susceptible to wounds and beatings they might inflict. It makes for some decent, visceral tension -especially after the subversion of her own ability to defend herself from these goons, having come to the hotel prepared for violence with a sawed-off shotgun and a machete. Though both of these at various points, in either shock or temporary uselessness, she idiotically abandons for her enemies to use against her in a very contrived way of giving them an even-hand. Apart from this, the action scenes are fairly fun, outside of the occasional stylistic clichés Solokov employs -such as random moments of slow-mo, bizarre body-cam shots, or rapid push-ins- and some jarring editing that make a beat feel like a video game.
Certainly these sequences work better than the exposition, which is derivative and obnoxiously expressed. We need a moratorium on movies using title cards as empty transition devices towards backstories. It clearly is reaching for a sense of prestige that the movie thoroughly does not earn, and in this movie specifically it is entirely arbitrary. A flashback to Asia’s story perhaps makes a little bit of sense, but it is certainly not needed for the five-minute explanation given by Ray (Paterson Joseph) on the history of the Virgil or even the background to Maria’s life once she is found -her flashbacks are painfully awkward and could easily just be spoken. It is not a very interesting story anyways in terms of how this cult came to be and how they lure in either new members or sacrifices over the decades. I’ll give it this, the personal stakes and relationship between Asia and Maria is stronger than in the Ready or Not sequel. Beetz and Myha’la have better chemistry and the backstory and motivation for Asia is fleshed out enough, if it is punctuated awkwardly by flashes to prison fights. But overall this stuff doesn’t matter. Solokov isn’t very concerned by these aspects of the film as much as by surprising his audience with a plot beat or just engaging more in the big fight scenes. Even performances have to fall by the wayside. Though Beetz is pretty good and Myha’la decent enough (and Joseph gets a nice showcase for an actor who rarely gets them in Hollywood), Heather Graham and Tom Felton as two of the cult members are rather dull -Graham’s decapitation for a portion of the film making for a curious if shallow visual effect- and Patricia Arquette as the hotel’s manager struggles palpably against a bad Irish accent.
It's a significant part of her character though, as is her marriage to Ray in their status as early converts to the cult at the Virgil in the early years of the twentieth century. They were of denigrated, disenfranchised ethnic groups, and we see that that has remained a theme at the Virgil. Most of the maids are black women, it is the primary demographic that inductees into the Virgil are prompted to lure in. And yet those who have risen to clientele status are almost uniformly white. It might make for a solid metaphor on the struggle of minorities to attain status in a systematically racist social and economic framework, and how black women are preyed upon with disproportionate regularity. But the story here is pretty dim, any socio-political commentary would naturally be even dimmer. As is, Solokov alludes to a subtext of racism fueling this institution (and then also in the abusive upbringing of Asia and Maria) but has no interest in saying or doing anything meaningful with it.
It is again the action-horror aesthetics that are the most important element of They Will Kill You, and while they are periodically enjoyable, they are not as consistently interesting or coherent as Solokov intends. The mixture of techniques doesn't always gel -one action scene will be cut together fast with a haphazard rhythm while another will use ample slow-motion, and in either they will be buffeted by an abundance of crash zooms. The climax attaches a fair degree of ugly CGI to these as well, and is rather predictable in its critical contrivance. The tone of the film is very exuberant in this, as though it thinks it is particularly cool. Unfortunately, for what bona fides it does boast, such as an action showcase for Beetz and some creatively fun violence, it is not cool ...and not very good at hiding that fact.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more