A Cura

I'll never understand why some movies end up rated the way they are. This is one of those movies. It's not groundbreaking. It's not mind blowing. But it is a great example of what a quality movie is. The acting is good to excellent. The cinematography and visuals are exceptional. The story is a little odd, but so what? Since when does a movie plot have to be within the realm of "Normal"? It is what it is, and this one actually all comes together relatively well. The pacing, although a long movie, is actually pretty good. You'd think 2-1/2 hours is too long. After watching this movie, I'd have to disagree considering the fact that everything that happened contributes to the story and slowly builds suspense. I can see why some people don't like that, but it's unfair to rate a movie poorly simply because you don't like the style. It's not a frantic seat-of-your-pants thriller horror movie. Why do people insist on rating movies how they think they ought to be, or how they thought it was going to be, and not simply how it is?

I sit here and can't help but think I might be completely crazy. I just finished watching "Transformers: The Last Knight" before this movie. That movie was incredibly bad. I mean, literally the only thing going for it was special effects and, a few of dozens of attempts at humor that were actually funny. How on Earth is the aggregate user score only 1 point lower than this movie? That blows my mind. Or how about "Get Out"? I liked that one too, but I cannot fathom how it's better than this movie in any way! They are both "it's not what it seems" type thrillers. Is it because of the racial element or something? I'm sorry folks, but "A Cure for Wellness" is a far better movie in every way.

I implore you to watch this one if you enjoy "it's not what it seems" type movies. I can't remember enjoying one like this since "shutter Island" with Leonardo DiCaprio. Don't believe the 1/10 reviews on this. It's a shame people have to be so shallow and misuse the rating system. If people rate this movie anything less than 6/10, it's because they have no idea how to judge elements of a film. The only legitimate gripes about this one are the length and the slightly bizarre plot. But those are elements that worked for it IMO.

After using IMDb for years to get my reviews, I just now decided to make an account. Because I can't stand seeing a very good movie like this rated so low. It's a 8.5/10 movie and nothing about it is bad at all. You may not like it, but you can at least try to be objective about it and give it a rating it deserves... I mean, come on people. Captain America is 8/10 and this is 6/10!? Give me a break...

This film feels like a Black Mirror episode - but one that treads water for almost two and a half hours without ever reaching its main idea. 250% longer, but only a fraction of the satisfaction.

I really wanted to immerse myself in its atmosphere and ideas, the idea of a David Lynch/Cronenberg style Shining/Shutter Island film seems great. But the film really tests your patience. The main character is icy and unlikable, the other characters are similarly distant. Stuff happens, a lot of stuff, some of it great looking, but with nothing to tie it together or the any character depth to engage with, it ends up feeling like you're being taken through a film students visual exhibition that doesn't end soon enough.

It really doesn't live up to the amazing film that the trailer suggests, a pattern that seems to be more and more common with films these days. Similar to Passengers, I wonder if moments were shot just to make the trailer more powerful in selling the film.

"A Cure for Wellness" follows an ambitious, young New York financial executive who is sent to Switzerland to retrieve a colleague who has indefinitely extended his stay at a mountaintop sanitorium known for its therapeutic mineral waters. Hiding behind the veneer of medicine, however, is something far darker.

Though it's taken a critical beating, "A Cure for Wellness" is a bit of an underdog in my book. It's a big-budget picture backed by a major studio that is a financially dangerous mix of genres, references, and ideas. It's, in a word, ambitious—and a gamble on just about all fronts. The result is phenomenal in many regards, less so in others, but given the current climate of the horror film, this movie offers a lot of things that you simply do not see much of in genre films (or just films in general, for that matter) anymore.

One could list the aesthetic references for days, though director Gore Verbinski seems to be heavily influenced by Alfred Hitchcock in compositions, David Cronenberg in theme, and Mario Bava in both—and that's probably just the tip of the iceberg. In any case, the film is visually sumptuous, and honestly one of the best-photographed films I've seen in perhaps years. Stunning compositions of the castle yard and the surrounding Swiss Alps need to be seen to be believed, while the vintage hospital interiors are equally stunning and atmospheric for different (and more sinister) reasons. While the first twenty minutes of the film are wildly contemporary, everything that follows seems to be framed within a pre-World War II vacuum.

Needless to say, the film is visually incredible and saturated in a Euro-Gothic atmosphere that to me seemed quite reminiscent of Bava (think "Kill, Baby... Kill!" stretched to big-budget parameters). In terms of narrative, the film is borderline mythical, weaving an entire history of the sanitorium that, though contrived, is enough to pique the interest of any self-respecting genre fan. The main problem here is that the unfurling of that history and its relationship to what is happening at the sanitorium is not only semi-predictable, but it begins to drag its feet a bit in the last act of the film, coming to a conclusion that, though appropriate, feels slightly pedestrian. I don't want to say the film devolves, but it certainly does cross the threshold from "genuinely unique amalgam" to "semi-predictable psychological thriller" somewhere in the third act.

In spite of this, however, the film is undeniably fun, and remains engrossing from start to finish; though the two and a half-hour run time could have been trimmed a bit, the film never felt tedious to me, probably because of how skillfully it was able to invent and then wallow in its own world. Solid performances also help; Dane DeHaan convincingly plays the young and assertive financier, while Mia Goth is an ethereal and guileless patient whom he befriends (and who plays a key part in what is to come). Jason Isaacs is also sinister as the cool, self-possessed leader of the hospital.

While "A Cure for Wellness" certainly deserves some hits for taking a few predictable narrative routes, I am still somewhat surprised that it's gotten the negative feedback it has from critics. I think genre fans will genuinely appreciate it—ranging from sci-fi fans to through-and-through horror cinephiles like myself—because it uses its references smartly and evokes an atmosphere that is truly overpowering. There is enough heady Gothic atmosphere, body horror, and psychological paranoia to keep everybody engaged. Even when it's predictable and even when its own mythos registers too absurd, I can't bring myself to knock it because there is so much it gets right—but I suppose my greater point is that, even when it doesn't get it right, you never feel compelled to look away. 8/10.

Director deserves applause for depicting a brilliant psychological horror with intencse thrill , stunning cinematography , sound , brilliant direction , performance are enough to make it must watch , it will give you feelings like "Shutter island " ..

(I saw a preview screening of this.)

Director Gore Verbinski is best known for the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, and also Rango, The Ring, and The Mexican, so "quietly understated" is not really his thing, If the Pirates movies are kind of a throwback to old Hollywood swashbucklers, this is a more lurid version of old Gothic suspense thrillers like "Rebecca" or "The Island of Doctor Moreau."

The main character is Lockhart (Dane DeHaan), who is the exact sort of morally bankrupt young financial hotshot you've seen in a bunch of other movies. His bosses are so cartoonishly evil that they may as well be counting wads of cash as they tell him he's being sent off to Europe to fetch a wayward executive whose signature is needed to allow a merger to go forth so as to allow them to rake in more millions. (Oddly, a similar plot undergirds the otherwise-completely different Will Smith vehicle "Collateral Beauty.")

Most of the rest of the movie takes place in a Swiss Alps sanitarium where practically everything looks like it's from some time in the first half of the last century. I half expected John Harvey Kellogg to show up, but instead we get Volmer (Jason Isaacs), the place's director. As with the patients and the staff, there's something not quite right about the overly affable man, and the impatient Lockhart has plenty of time to figure it out after an accident delays his trip back to New York.

Exactly what's going on, and why no one ever seems to leave the place, takes quite a while (almost 2.5 hours) to unspool, but Verbinski successfully distracts the viewer with visually arresting images of hallways, of peacefully exercising old people, of slithery fish, of living and maybe dead bodies in all shapes and sizes (but mostly white and old), and so on. A teen girl (aptly named Mia Goth), the only young person besides Lockhart, may hold some clues. Rather than a lush island, the sanitarium is high on a mountain, but the effect is the same, as if the viewer has been transported to a world apart.

Does this all sound good? Then you'll probably like this very dark fable. The deep mystery of why the place is so strange is possibly layered with too much complication. I think everything fits together pretty well, but I'm not positive. I am positive that this is definitely going to be a lot different than anything else in the multiplex whenever you might choose to see it.