Don't...just don't!
Some of my readers may be under the impression that I dislike bleak stories. This could not be farther from the truth. While they are not my preferred kinds of stories, I appreciate some of the darker observations on humanity, provided they have a good reason to be so. Rather we choose to accept it or not, some aspects of human existence are too difficult to accept and cannot be ignored. Sometimes, it falls upon cinema to remind us of the sadder parts of life and inform us how we may find something better down the line and how there is still a chance at hope, both for society and humanity—case in point; Schindler's List.
On the other hand, I cannot stand stories that are bleak for no discernable reason outside of lazy shock value and pale imitations of better movies-case in point; Joker. Today, I add a new movie to the list of films that have shocked me for all the wrong reasons and with no justifiable cause. Hunter Hunter may be the most insulting and disgusting film I have seen this year so far!
Spoilers from here on out.
The story follows a family of three living in the woods and off the grid. They survive by hunting and scavaging, selling animal pelts to the local general store. No, the movie does not take place in the wild west, but it clearly wants to. Anyway, the family is set upon by a rogue Wolf who keeps eating their catches, threatening their survival. The father wants to hunt it down, while the mother just wants to move back to the city and give their thirteen-year-old daughter a chance at real life.
As the father goes out to hunt down the wolf, he discovers something more dangerous. A psychopathic rapist/killer has been committing his murders at a remote spot in the woods close to his home. The father, being the uber macho idiotic embodiment of toxic masculinity that he is, decides to hunt down the killer himself rather than, you know, call the authorities. This results in his wife and daughter left alone to fend for themselves on the brink of starvation.
Things take a turn for the worst when the mother discovers an injured stranger in the woods close to their cabin. Instinctually, the mother brings the stranger into their home and nurses him back to health. After a few unsuccessful efforts to carry the injured stranger to their truck down the path, the mother and daughter stay at the cabin and try to formulate a different plan.
Sometime later, the mother is out hunting and finds her husband dead. She then realizes that he was murdered, and the only likely suspect is the stranger she brought into their home. Upon returning to the cabin, she is assaulted by the stranger who, shocker, turns out to be the killer. After a quick scuffle, the mother discovers that the killer murdered her daughter (at least it's heavily implied he killed her) and, in a fit of motherly rage, exacts her bloody revenge on the killer.
CAUTION: Trigger Warning for bodily mutilation and gore. Please skip sections written in RED if you do not wish to learn further details.
The mother takes the killer to the shed, where they skin the animals for their hides and proceeds to skin the killer alive. Slowly removing the skin from his arms and torso before violently and deliberately ripping off the guy's face while he's still conscious. Afterward, not only does the camera linger on the mother carrying the guy's severed face in her hand as she exits the shed, but we are also treated to not one but two shots of the very-much-still-alive faceless killer, all in explicit gory detail.
As I said before, a film can be bleak so long as there is a good justification for said bleakness and it provides something more outside of general shock value. Hunter Hunter is deliberately and unjustifiably bleak. Why? Because it had the opportunity for a more appropriate ending which might have better suited the narrative.
From the beginning, the film utilizes the Wolf as the likely antagonist to the family. Throughout the whole runtime, the story implies that the Wolf will play a significant role in the conclusion of the narrative and provide a more satisfying ending. Halfway through the film, the mother encounters the Wolf and instinctually protects her daughter. The Wolf seemed to pick up on the motherly instincts and backs off.
By the time the third act started, I was waiting for the Wolf to come busting into the cabin and attack the killer, thereby saving the mother and daughter. Not only would this have made sense within the narrative as presented, but it also would have tied perfectly into the general idea of nature's power and response to acceptance rather than forced control. Which is something that the film spent the better part of an hour building up to.
Instead, the writer/director of the film chose to ignore the fantastic opportunity he had right at his fingertips in favor of a cheap and inhumane crybaby hissy fit about how much he thinks people suck! And, to add insult to injury, the Wolf is never seen again.
Now, I will admit that the mother's punishment performed on the rapist/murderer was understandable and justifiable in its own right. Personally, I think all rapists deserve to be punished in the most extreme manner possible. Maybe not to the extremes presented in this film, but still. However, when you intentionally choose that route over the more sensible and narratively satisfying option, you are deliberately and unjustifiably manipulating your audience into watching what amounts to a snuff film. That is the most egregious and insulting thing that any filmmaker could ever do to an audience.
This movie is a horrendous steaming pile of garbage, and I regret giving it money for a rental. Please, do not make my mistake. Avoid this movie entirely!
Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment