Archons

Bon film !

Bon film !

source: Archons

I see that a lot of people complain that actors smoke a lot. But I love it, it is so natural and I hate when directors try avoid using it in movies, trying to be politically correct. It is simply realistic. I didn't notice that costumes were "cheap" as someone said, I liked it actually. And trust me, I watched TONS of horror movies. It rarely happens that I am thinking about a horror movie for several days after it's over. Yes, the reason why they headed for that journey in the first place is a little bit naive, but it did not ruin my overall impression about the movie. I LOVE the forest, the sounds, acting - so spooky! If you are a fan of horror movies, you don't want to miss this one! It's a gem and I'm surprised that it got such a low score....

I usually rate movies worse than the IMDb rating, this is one of the more glaring exceptions. I liked Black Mountain Side from the director and this one is in the same slow building atmospheric Lovecraft subgenre. It's not perfect, actors and pacing could have been better, but Szostakiwskyj creates a one of a kind mood, I very much enjoy, especially in the later half of the movie. I really hope we get more films of this kind from him!

Nick Szostakiwskyj's previous film, "Black Mountain Side" remains one of my favorite horror movies of the past decade, it is atmospheric, scary and interesting, so I was really excited to watch "Archons" and it was a big disappointment. Compared to the previous film, it is a huge falling. I don't know what happened but the writing is bad, the script is terrible and in the end, it doesn't make any sense. Every aspect of the film looks amateurish, and this is not to blame on the low budget, because Black Mountain Side is also low budget and is professional and serious. The look of the "creatures" is laughable, but the fact that they did not use CGI is something to praise. Other than that, there are no good points to talk about, just a big disappointment.

Archons is probably to ambiguous for most. But for those that like atmospheric films you can lose yourself in, tonally appropriate music, & practical effects to satisfy the stuffiest of cinephiles. Cameron Tremblay's camera work is once again the story here. The second film from the filmmaking Canadian dynamic duo builds technically from freshman effort Black Mountainside (2016). Performances are portrayed seriously enough with arguably the strongest showing delivered by new comer, Parmiss Sehat. On paper the premise may sound silly but through the tactile hands on approach director Nick Szostakiwskyj delivers his story through our characters, you almost believe that the absurd can become reality. These filmmakers know how to execute isolation and the effects that can have on ones self and a group. Characters were a little less fleshed out than in their previous film and I found myself ultimately detached about any of them potentially meeting their fate. A group of thrown together scientists, doctors & specialists had a more cohesiveness BMS then this group of one hit wonder rockers. This is the biggest blemish and hopefully future films can get back to that masterful character development I know these creators are more than capable of. I can't say enough about how refreshing it is to watch a film filled to the brim with costumes, make-up, and actors who can convey terror rather than have it be bought and paid for on a computer. They absolutely go for it unabashedly and deftly hide any seems with flawless lighting and camera placement. If you loved Black Mountainside as I did, then this is a fantastic showing of growth and I can't wait until the next film delivered by this troupe.

I literally had no idea what I was sitting down to watch when I sat down to watch the 2018 movie "Archons" from writer and director Nick Szostakiwskyj. But I was lured in by the movie's cover, and the fact that it was a horror movie. Well, as for a horror movie, well, that might be going out on a stretch, because this movie wasn't much of a horror movie, but more of a thriller. Albeit a rather bland and boring thriller. The storyline told in "Archons" was something that had been done and seen before in other movies, and more often than not also done way better than it was done in "Archons". So you are not missing out on a particularly great moment in cinematic history with this movie. And the ending of the movie just had me dumbfounded, as it made so very little sense. The acting in the movie was actually adequate enough, taking into consideration the massive restrictions imposed on the actors and actresses by the tedious script and ultimately overall boring movie. Visually then "Archons" wasn't an impressive movie. Sure, the thing with keeping the creatures secluded from full view worked well enough, to a certain point. Then it just started to wear thin and become annoying. It worked back in the 1980s and 1990s, but when I sit down to watch a horror movie today I want to see the creature in all its gore or glory. "Archons" managed to retrieve a meager two out of ten stars from me. I was able to sit through the entire movie, hoping that it would pick up its pace and become better - it just never did. This is hardly a movie that I would recommend that you spend your time, money or effort on; some of us did, so you don't have to.

Omg what I say about this film... It wants to emulate & blend in classics like Cabin Fever, Blair witch project, almost famous, predator but it pales by comparison. It is a cohesive mess of a film. It spends a lot of its time in darkness (presumedly this helps hide the ineptitude of the director) this is an acid trip like no other & I would imagine that you may need to be high on something to enjoy this film! The big reveal at the end is a big disappointment. Stay well clear of this film.

The ending makes this movie somewhat clear, "Where are your friends?" "I'm waiting for them to catch up.", in the sense of what the writer/director was going for, but the script itself does not work, or is not as clear as they thought or think it is. It's tough for writers to imagine what they see as symbolic or metaphorical is actually perceived by their audience. Sometimes they are "too close" to the work to evaluate it properly. That is why authors let friends/family/editors read or view their works before they publish/release them. If these reviewers are sychophants, then we end up with this kind of work because no one tells the author the truth, that the symbols/ideas need some retooling. There are good ideas here, and I wish the creators had taken more time to get good feedback. It won a best movie award. Why? Because all too often when people don't understand something, they think it must be great because the creator is intelligent. There are serious problems with this film that could be fixed. Maybe those clarifying elements are lying on the cutting room floor. They certainly are not in the final product.