Luz

I see how this film could be a near perfect little film, or a complete bore, depending on the viewer, so to qualify my comments let me make two observations right up front: this is a film about the supernatural - not the ghostly or the horrifying or the bloody, but the mystery and menace of something that is beyond the natural as we know it. That moment when you realize you might be part of something you never thought was "real" as opposed to being chased by monsters (although there is some blood, and some violence to be fair). And if you are not a viewer who is attuned to the sense of disquiet, or who can find suspense in seeing something not quite right and wondering why or where it may lead, then this movie will not resonate. Do not bother. You'll get impatient or be bored. But if you find yourself intrigued and captivated when, say, someone's behavior in a bar seems weirdly unnatural, then drop everything and gives this film a chance! It is like the best of the early David Lynch before he become a terrible parody of himself; when he could imbue a doorway or a radiator with menace by the intensity of his gaze and the music and sound that accompanies it. In this film, more often then not, it is in the eyes of the characters and how long they stare before they speak. If you are attuned to such nuance this movie will creep you out from the very first shot.

A comment by another reviewer perfectly sums up the difference between potential viewers: they said that one scene was a man "pointlessly" setting up chairs; however if you are the kind of viewer who would immediately notice he is arranging the chairs like a taxi cab for some sort of re-enactment, and start wondering how any role-playing is going to tie in and where will it lead, then this is definitely your kind of movie.

I loved every minute of it and I was greatly impressed by the increasingly clever manner in which a simple set-up was being developed. I don't want to spoil any surprises by even hinting at what I mean by that statement; for the right audience the best way to experience this film is in complete ignorance of where it is going and how its going to get there. I had heard only that it was frightening, but it is more of the disturbing uneasy variety as opposed to the jump-scare traditional fashion and I, for one, found it legitimately suspenseful throughout (and that even includes the lengthy single take set-up at the very beginning). Excellent performances, assured direction, effective use of limited locations - this film has everything going for it in addition to a familiar concept developed in a completely original and stimulating fashion.

For the right audience, that is.

I give Luz a 5 out of 10. I do this because I at least owe the makers of this movie their due. I think they did what they set out to do. The problem is that they didn't include the audience. A movie can be a lot of things; smart, angry, dijointed, simplistic, action packed, erotic, whatever.... But doesn't it still have to be appealing? Otherwise what's the point?

Trust me. Whatever underlying tones or metaphors are present with this movie will not be reached by hardly anyone. And I would contest that those who claim to understand what's going on with this movie are fooling you and themselves.

These art movies can continue to be produced the way they are. That's fine and even great, but give the audience a payoff, or something. Anything at all. This movie doesn't deliver anything for the effort you will put into watching 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!

The visual look of Luz is out of this world and has a vibe all its own. If you just happened upon this film on cable one night, you could easily think someone like Dario Argento had a hand in producing this at some point in the mid or late 80's. It has a gritty, 16mm aesthetic that's hypnotizing and makes the film hard to shake once its over. I only wish I could say the same about the threadbare story that does anything but linger with the viewer.

Acting is strong across the board with everyone giving convincingly wild and bizarre performances and there are some great images that will stick with you, but Luz could have used a few more drafts of the script before it went into production. Also, at barely 70 minutes, there are moments of the film that seem endless. It's pretty lightweight in terms of story, but it's a great exercise in style and mood.

... by a self help group from a secure psychiatric asylum to replicate the images they live with when not on their prescribed medication. That, or the cast and crew had discovered and used LSD just before filming began. You may need to do the same to make rhyme or reason of any of this.