Luz

If anyone is like me, you do a small amount of research before going into a film. Check how well received it was by our peers both numerically, and of course, by comments.

I know taste is subjective, you can't make all people happy all the time. If you don't have the proper expectations going into a film, it will not end well. People think horror, and sadly, the western stylized formula is what a lot of loud and unhappy reviewers will show up. They go in with the wrong ideas and end up hating a film.

I look at movies like anything else in my life, what am I in the mood for? Going into new films I keep all plot related stuff a mystery, I just try to grab a feel for how people received it.

I grew up in the 80s. I've seen a stupid amount of data. After you have seen enough movies, you end up back to where all these other highbrow reviewers like Siskel and Ebert talk about hating. They can get quite passionate. That's a good thing.

Incase most haven't really paid attention, new movie ideas are like kidney stones, so imagine. You can have a really good one, it's rattling around just causes lots of fuss. You keep trying to get it out; but sadly, it will arrive in its own time. So that means there is a lot of wasted, uneventful happenings before you can take notice.

Everything is a re-make, re-imagining, re-monetizing of a property until its been worn out. Wait a few years, then it's re-boot baby. That's why films like this need to be appreciated. To go back to my stone analogy, when you get a great film, it changes you. Now, I'm not talking evangelical hand to head, 'ya-healed!' style of change. No. The change I mean is, it effected you in a very real way. It caused you to feel. Sure, you don't always end up feeling like you wanted, but that's the joy of movies!

If you go in with expectations for whatever braindead Rock and Hart (I love them both, but let's be real. They ain't brought in to reinvent the wheel. They are purely there to show they change ish up.) project we get every couple months. Studios are the devil. They want more and more, so they will George Lucas/Disney the ish out of an idea. Then when it's dead, they go and play around in their toy box of "safe bet" movies, change the lead to a POC or someone that is supposed to embody a minority group, add more females, and strain their o-ring until it gives up.

That's not change. That's not paying attention to the real problems. Yes there are groups under-represented; but that doesn't mean you just take a classic, paste different faces, and expect big box office numbers. Then you're angering the group being used as a prop to show how "woke" they aren't, and then you have the people who don't like all that change and come from a different time, being angry because it just looks like appropriation.

Yes we all have things to learn from one a other, period. Unfortunately you can't force it, because somehow a closed mind gets even more closed than their wallets.

You're wondering what that has to do with this movie, and I get it. It's not just about this movie tho. It's a trend in reviews period. We have a vocal group of people that are very closed minded and don't like different. They think the anonymity of the internet means their "expert" opinion needs heard.

Yes this is a unique movie. No, most won't like it. You have to understand and appreciate films. Yes, films always comes off pretentious, but it is an art form. Not everyone gets it. I'm hoping maybe someone will see this review and give something a real chance, or actually reevaluate their life choices.

If you always do what is safe, you get SW Ep 7. It takes all the cool things we loved growing up with, and tries to copy that. A copy of a copy, isn't as sharp. Multiplicity taught me that long ago. If you just copy, you are doing no effort. You're a lazy c unit that just wants money.

The 80s were the best time for movies because people did coke, and they tried crazy stuff! Sure, they kept trying to bleed the stone in some cases, but they tried different things that worked. It was big, loud, and unapologetic. We have lost that loving feeling.

This film is a movie, told like a play. Chances are, if you got this far, you're the type to watch this film. If you bounced pages back, you are happy in your bubble, so kudos.

It is a small budget independent film, and indi is movie for heart. They are projects someone cares about so deeply, they have to get it out there. Look at vintage Kevin Smith, or Sam "The Man" Raimi. They had a dream. They saw it clearly and they went for it. Sure it could look a bit Velveeta; but they become classics because true believers can always see the heart. Rocky Horror, Marvel and Stan. These dynasties that were a project of love that came from humble beginnings.

So this film is about possession, and they take the most unique way of telling a story. It doesn't hold your hand, as all good movies should not. It's not like next level Nolan mind bending, but it is still out there deep in right field. It is an experience. If you are sitting there going, "wtf?" that is a feeling. That's the movie speaking to you. I look at it like, the more violated and emotionally charged I am coming out, the more successful that story was at being told.

Sure this film feels slow, meandering. Much like my reviews... But it's a crazy ride. It has you off balance the whole time. It is an atmospheric piece. It reminds me of late 70s horror. The music, the way the set pieces made you feel. It was all part of the story, and built that level of suspension of disbelief.

How you tell stories involves how you set the parameters. There has to be rules. Like back in the day sunlight, garlic, stake to the heart. Don't fall asleep. Don't have premarital relations, especially in groups, in school, or out camping.

When we have the rules, we have the parameters to let us get in the headspace needed to fully appreciate and be in the film. Movies like this, or Mr. Weird & son, Cronenberg. The movie plays out in all of like, one location, but the way its framed, it's constantly changing and feels exactly like where you should feel. It plays on the theatrics that made Shakespeare so popular.

To tell a story you have to connect with the audience. By making the movie play out like theater, it grounds it in a reality that's perfectly normal, and yet very odd.

Not a large ensemble, a handful of characters. The story is the one trying to be a star, and it uses whoevers body to tell it.

If you go in looking for Exorcist, you'll be disappointed. If you are a student of story; and/or appreciate set pieces instead of flashy effects, you should come away appreciating what they did. It's not some game changer, but there aren't that many of those that happen often. It's that rarity that makes it such a winning high. It still takes a story we've all seen and heard before, and it owns it. It grabs the idea and makes it manifest.

Just because it isn't something I'll be thinking about long after, like It Follows, Antlers, Hereditary, Serbian Film, or Human Centipede, but it was more than adequate as an adventurous watch to be enjoyed.

I was in the mood for a heavy art flick, so I was already bracing myself for a lot of languid pacing and droning shots. Luz definitely scratched the itch and aesthetically I really enjoyed it. It feels very much like vintage Cronenberg, using 16mm film and a lot of well framed slow pans as well as a wonderfully moody synth score.

The way the narrative is expressed is vague and nonlinear. I realize this is part of the overall style, but can't help but feel it was taken a step too far. I'll admit I lost track of what was going on at points, and it was only through digging online and re-watching scenes afterwards that I was able to piece it all together. It's aim isn't for "anything goes" surrealism, there's actually a cohesive plot that's steeped in horror/sci-fi tradition, you just gotta do some work to put it together. If you enjoy unravelling riddles, this might be up your alley, but I personally prefer films you can decipher on the first watch. At only 70 minutes, there certainly was room to spell things out a little bit without fully loosing the abstract edge.

I've heard this was a student film, if so, great work, keep it up! I love your vibe, but can you help me out and explain things a little more next time?

An impressive little artsy film. Some really haunting imagery. I personally just needed a little more story. I mean, it's there. There is a narrative thread in there, but I personally would have enjoyed a more flushed out story. Nevertheless, it's a intriguing watch. Definitely some things in here I've never seen before. Enjoyed it.

I adore Simon Waskow's score - persistent, tense, and slowly building in the background. I love the performances, all filled with a quiet, nuanced intensity. And I greatly appreciate the way that these words also describe 'Luz' as a whole. This is very low budget, very low key, and very out of the ordinary - and brilliant in the way it organically integrates into the narrative the sidestep of its limitations. Built on extremely subtle implementation of supernatural horror, the feature relies on the power of suggestion - in the story, but also in how the story is told.

This is absolutely extraordinary - taking place mostly within the setting of a single room, yet through its incredible, underhanded approach, nonetheless taking us to many different places. The film is short in duration, yet huge in scope. It's deeply minimal in appearance - and at first blush, seemingly disordered - yet nonetheless crafts an astounding, unsettling atmosphere, and conveys a complete, coherent, cohesive, and masterfully compelling tale that far exceeds its basic construction. Why, given the nature of the production, in some ways this feels like an experimental stage play, executed with utmost refinement. Major feature films with substantial financial backing have achieved much less with far more, and have been far less successful in communicating a very real and awe-inspiring sense of horror.

It's hardly possible to single out just one person in the cast, because everyone gives a phenomenal performance well beyond what their few collective credits would portend. The effects in the movie are bare-bones, but the blood, fog, and a few other minor visuals look great, more than what one may expect of such a picture of such humble origins. This is accordingly the first feature of writer-director Tilman Singer, and moreover it apparently began as a student film. Especially with that in mind, I very much look forward to seeing what Singer makes in the future; this is an exemplary debut of exquisite, delicate film-making and storytelling. The screenplay is outstanding in all ways, and as a director Singer likewise shows a capability transcending his inexperience, arranging scenes of far greater sophistication than what they appear on the surface.

It's difficult to write further without broaching plot points, and I would soon begin to repeat myself. I can certainly appreciate that this isn't necessarily the sort of movie for a wide general audience - it's pointedly understated in its approach to both craft and narrative, and delightfully, deviously sneaky and cryptic in exploring that approach to its fullest. Yet the great joy the movie represents is in its defiance of the superficially uneventful, disjointed presentation to weave a tale of supernatural horror that stands tall with the best known and most well acclaimed features of the genre. Ultimately, no matter how I try to explain, this is a picture you just need to see for yourself. As far as I'm concerned, 'Luz' is one of the most remarkable horror films I've seen - absorbing, captivating, satisfying, and rewarding, and deserving of significantly more attention and praise than I alone can provide. Wherever you can watch it, this earns my highest recommendation!

Not the easiest film to find, I'd wanted to watch this for a while after the trailer did what all good trailers should do. I'm hooked to start, with a opening shot that's held uncomfortably long, ambitious considering the overall thrifty run time. It's stark with a retro grade and worn VHS look. The minimal aesthetic really appeals, but there's something missing, there's very little warmth or investment in the characters, with a palatable dirt on screen that permeates everything. For all the tension being ramped, the grime, the editing, the hyper scripted dialogue, it all slowly pulls apart. Despite it's stunted plot of a devilish nature and generally undesirable characters, there are some pluses. The score being one, reminiscent of an 80s slasher flick, it's definitely the films strongest asset. The European art house feel makes it feel cinematic, intentionally confusing in nature. Scenes built around slow creeping shots, almost entirely on one set, with often inactive people, waiting. Director Tillman Singer clearly has a thing for Lynch. As things progress it does manage to find its feet, with a second act reminiscent of a small theatre play, time frames overlapping, lines twisting through their own narrative into others, it's wonderfully bonkers, albeit a tad overplayed. It's all precursor to a truly off the wall finale, that although ambitious, really just doesn't work and ends in a bit of a disjointed mess. It really doesn't live up to its trailer, but I'm still pleased I gave it a go.