Relata a história de um grupo de rock que cai em desgraça meia década após o lançamento de seu 'single' de sucesso, enquanto eles viajam profundamente na natureza canadense em uma jornada es... Ler tudoRelata a história de um grupo de rock que cai em desgraça meia década após o lançamento de seu 'single' de sucesso, enquanto eles viajam profundamente na natureza canadense em uma jornada espiritual.Relata a história de um grupo de rock que cai em desgraça meia década após o lançamento de seu 'single' de sucesso, enquanto eles viajam profundamente na natureza canadense em uma jornada espiritual.
- Prêmios
- 2 vitórias no total
Avaliações em destaque
I didn't read the reviews prior to watching the film, as the current 3.7 rating led me to believe it might be underrated. Upon watching, my personal opinion is that it is vastly underrated, but I absolutely understand that the appeal will be for a niche audience.
The acting is good, the cinematography is gorgeous (shot in the wilds of beautiful British Columbia), and the sound is excellent. My personal appeal is with the story. I LOVE the idea of a band setting out on a drug-fueled adventure with the (expressed) purpose of following what comes in order to write new and more inspired music. There's plenty of films that approach something similar to this in the comedy realm, but NOT in the horror/sci-fi world. No spoilers here, but the personal appeal I hold for this type of story made it a really good watch. Having, umm..."enjoyed my youth in many out of body ways," there are just not enough movies that use psychedelic experiences for personal improvement. The obvious catch to all this is that as the story unfolds, the viewer quickly learns that there is more to what is happening than what was originally laid out. That's where the atmospheric haze of drugs vs reality really takes the viewer to new, almost Faustian levels.
While there were a few questionable edits, and some questions that never get answered (though to be honest, I don't think they were meant to be answered), I thoroughly enjoyed how the dark nature of the film flourished with each passing scene. Contrary to what some reviews state, I think the writer and directors actually knocked it out of the park here- it's difficult to tell a story from the perspective of someone on psychedelics, let alone create a film that isn't filled with cheesy tropes or standard misconceptions. Heck...there were even some twists and surprises that I absolutely didn't expect.
All in all, I totally enjoyed Archons. It certainly wasn't made on a gazillion dollar budget, but it also wasn't relegated to a micro-budget. My guess is that it would appeal to folks who understand psychedelic drugs and enjoy horror/sci-fi. The viewer should also keep an open mind and a) not compare this to other horror flicks, and b) not ask too many questions. Just go with the flow and enjoy what turns out to be a pretty crazy ride. A ride that could be described as "Faustian."
The acting is good, the cinematography is gorgeous (shot in the wilds of beautiful British Columbia), and the sound is excellent. My personal appeal is with the story. I LOVE the idea of a band setting out on a drug-fueled adventure with the (expressed) purpose of following what comes in order to write new and more inspired music. There's plenty of films that approach something similar to this in the comedy realm, but NOT in the horror/sci-fi world. No spoilers here, but the personal appeal I hold for this type of story made it a really good watch. Having, umm..."enjoyed my youth in many out of body ways," there are just not enough movies that use psychedelic experiences for personal improvement. The obvious catch to all this is that as the story unfolds, the viewer quickly learns that there is more to what is happening than what was originally laid out. That's where the atmospheric haze of drugs vs reality really takes the viewer to new, almost Faustian levels.
While there were a few questionable edits, and some questions that never get answered (though to be honest, I don't think they were meant to be answered), I thoroughly enjoyed how the dark nature of the film flourished with each passing scene. Contrary to what some reviews state, I think the writer and directors actually knocked it out of the park here- it's difficult to tell a story from the perspective of someone on psychedelics, let alone create a film that isn't filled with cheesy tropes or standard misconceptions. Heck...there were even some twists and surprises that I absolutely didn't expect.
All in all, I totally enjoyed Archons. It certainly wasn't made on a gazillion dollar budget, but it also wasn't relegated to a micro-budget. My guess is that it would appeal to folks who understand psychedelic drugs and enjoy horror/sci-fi. The viewer should also keep an open mind and a) not compare this to other horror flicks, and b) not ask too many questions. Just go with the flow and enjoy what turns out to be a pretty crazy ride. A ride that could be described as "Faustian."
I had high hopes for this film - Nick Szostakiwskyj's previous offering, *Black Mountain Side*, is a criminally underrated folk horror. But there's no story here, no continuity or coherence, no attempt to explore the mythology. I'm still not entirely sure what I just watched.
Edit: It is better on a second watch, but only slightly. Yes, it's beautifully shot. Yes, the audio is great. Yes, the actors are on point. I guess I either wanted to know more about the nature of the threat or see less of it.
Edit: It is better on a second watch, but only slightly. Yes, it's beautifully shot. Yes, the audio is great. Yes, the actors are on point. I guess I either wanted to know more about the nature of the threat or see less of it.
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.
I'm actually kind of annoyed. At the beginning of the film I said "wow even if nothing happens I could look at the scenery the whole time and still be pleased." That is until I started really desiring to know the whole mystery and honestly there was no actual ending. There was no question answered. The movie made no sense, the characters were terrible actors and their interactions more frustrating than not knowing what was happening in the storyline. I'm pretty lenient with movies but this was just a very pretty turd. Gorgeous scenery, the characters seemingly looked their parts, it should've been fairly easy but no. The effects were terrible too, from the monsters to the headless wooden dummy sitting in the shower. Yeah I saw that wooden hand, we all did.... Disappointing considering the director previously made a movie alot of people really likes. I expected better. And you should too. Very slow burn, very frustrating to watch.
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.
Você sabia?
- Trilhas sonorasBackfire
Written by Slowspell & Chad Gilmour
Performed by Slowspell & Chad Gilmour
Produced by Mark Dolmont
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Archons?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Tempo de duração
- 1 h 28 min(88 min)
- Cor
- Proporção
- 2.39 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente