The Interior

Reviewers notes, humbly submitted:

1. Had the pleasure of a chance meeting with this film just after doing back to back re-reviews of Mission Impossible #4 and #5, showcasing the ultimate in Hollywood excess, and starring the youngest 50+ year old on the planet, Tom Cruise. THE INTERIOR on the other hand is, clearly, a Canadian indie, so this necessitated a downshift in expectations. From Hollywood we expect a roller coaster ride. From an indie, we expect something else, perhaps a look at the world around us, perhaps a look deep within ourselves. THE INTERIOR is about the latter.

2. The first 25 minutes are deceptive, bringing to mind the Michael Douglas 1993 film FALLING DOWN. However, as the writer/director makes clear (by literally cutting in the title precisely at this point) that is merely the setup for what is to come.

3. Reviewers and fans of the film have deigned to classify it as "light horror" and I do not disagree. Just as the iconic film REPULSION showed us that an apartment could also be considered a dungeon, a cage, and a mirror for the soul, THE INTERIOR shows us that the woods, the outdoors, can provide the same metaphor. (I remember a quote, forgot the author, about the wilderness, effectively saying that there are really only two kinds of people when it comes to the wild -- those that were raised in it, and everyone else.)

4. The film works well as a psychological study, moreso after the 25 minute demarcation point than before. Patrick McFadden does a yeoman job with the material he has to work with, reminding me very much of Henry Rollins in the cult indie HE NEVER DIED. Always focused, always moving forward.

I am astonished by the lackluster reviews I'm seeing here. I thought The Interior was one of the scariest movies I've seen in a long time and utterly engaging. The part in the forest (which is most of the movie) was by far the most interesting bit, but I mean, somebody on here said there was no tension. I felt like the forest part of the film was just tension after tension after tension, and more tension. I was watching the film late at night, and I should have been going to sleep, but I was too engaged and had to keep watching. This movie was listed as a thriller, but I would consider it mild horror. I will say that there were many times I had to watch between my fingers or squint my eyes because I was afraid of what I might see. The writer/director, Trevor Juras, really knows how to scare you without splashing violence across the screen. The best and most effective kind of scare.

In any case, I don't want to give any spoilers, so I'll just close by saying I really hope the filmmaker gets the recognition he deserves. This was a piece of top-notch storytelling as far as I'm concerned. Well done.

Low budget creepy psychological fare. Not for fans of Transformers or Pacific Rim. Not for the impatient. Not for those who want everything tied up neatly and explained.

This film should have been produced as a 15min short. If it were submitted in film school, it may achieve high praise; however, this should not have been distributed for mass consumption. Little to no plot, mislabeled horror, and painfully staid at times.

I got suckered in to watching this film because iTunes movies showed that it has a 100% score on Rotten Tomatoes. Don't fall for that. While there are a couple of creepy scenes, and you're kept guessing, its VERY leisurely pace and totally unsatisfying conclusion will leave you wishing you'd spent your $2 on something else.