Archons

Archons is a psychological thrilller / horror that picks up the 'tried and true' theme of something lurking in the woods. The movie starts with a 35 minute slow burn where characters are developed. The story revolves around a three member band that was a borderline one-hit wonder years ago. They head off on a five day canoe/hike trip - you guessed it - deep into the woods. The upper Canadian Rockies in this case. The purpose is a spiritual journey to inspire their guitarist song writer's mental block. And like any credible rock band, they have enough drugs to fill a pharmacy. The lead vocalist - like any credible rock star - picks up a groupie as well along the way.

It then becomes apparent that something(s) are watching them. Ironically, the only time they are aware of being watched, however, is when they are high on acid. So the blur between real and 'not real' is central. The acting wasn't bad. But the plot moved.in a disjointed fashion and the last 10 minutes made little sense. As for the things in the woods - well, B-budget shines through there sadly. I feel like the movie could have been cool - but ended up falling flat.

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.

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 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.

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!