Until Dawn review – efficient, if unscary, video game horror

TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:

"Until Dawn: A Conventional Horror Film Struggling with Originality and Depth"

View Raw Article Source (External Link)
Raw Article Publish Date:
AI Analysis Average Score: 5.9
These scores (0-10 scale) are generated by Truthlens AI's analysis, assessing the article's objectivity, accuracy, and transparency. Higher scores indicate better alignment with journalistic standards. Hover over chart points for metric details.

TruthLens AI Summary

In the wake of the recent horror film 'Sinners,' the release of 'Until Dawn' marks a significant shift back to the traditional horror genre, albeit with less ambition and creativity. The film, directed by David F. Sandberg, is based on a video game that was described as "pretty much a 10-hour movie" with interactive elements. However, this movie adaptation lacks the interactivity that defined the game, instead opting for a linear narrative where characters repeatedly die and come back to life. The story follows a group of twenty-somethings retracing the last steps of their missing friend, Melanie, and as they explore a mysterious valley, they find themselves trapped in a time loop, facing increasingly violent deaths at the hands of a masked killer. Despite the film's premise, the deaths are not particularly inventive, often involving predictable scenarios that fail to evoke genuine horror. The film's reliance on clichés and familiar tropes detracts from the overall experience, making it feel derivative of other films in the genre, such as 'Happy Death Day' and 'The Cabin in the Woods.'

The cast, which includes Ella Rubin, Odessa A’zion, and Michael Cimino, delivers solid performances, though they are hindered by underdeveloped characters. The dynamic among the group adds a certain charm, reminiscent of classic horror films, yet the film struggles to maintain tension and originality. While Sandberg's direction is competent and the film is visually appealing, it ultimately falls short of providing a memorable horror experience. The attempt to integrate video game elements into the film format leaves viewers yearning for the interactivity that made the source material engaging. 'Until Dawn' may be entertaining on a surface level, but as a horror film, it lacks the depth and creativity needed to stand out in a crowded genre. As it hits theaters in the US and UK on April 25, audiences may find that one viewing is more than enough to satisfy their curiosity without the need for repeat engagements.

TruthLens AI Analysis

The review of "Until Dawn" presents a critical perspective on the film adaptation of the video game, contrasting it with more ambitious horror projects like Ryan Coogler's "Sinners." The analysis indicates that while the film possesses certain strengths, it ultimately fails to deliver a genuinely frightening experience, which may shape public perception.

Purpose of the Article

The review aims to provide an evaluation of "Until Dawn" as a horror film, highlighting its shortcomings compared to other, more intellectually stimulating works. The author implies that the film lacks depth and originality, which could lead readers to question its worth. By positioning it as a "passable" yet "rather unfrightening" entry in the horror genre, the article suggests that audiences may be better served by seeking alternatives.

Public Perception

The article fosters a perception that "Until Dawn" is an inferior product, designed more for entertainment than for substantive storytelling. This could influence audiences to view the film as a lesser choice in a crowded genre, potentially diminishing its box office performance. The juxtaposition with "Sinners" serves to elevate that film's status while relegating "Until Dawn" to a more trivial category.

Hidden Agendas

There is no overt indication of hidden agendas or information being concealed in this review. However, the strong criticism of "Until Dawn" may be intended to steer audiences toward films that offer more depth or complexity, subtly promoting a preference for higher-quality cinema.

Manipulative Aspects

The review could be considered somewhat manipulative in its language, as it employs derogatory terms like "schlocky" and "piss-poor standard" to dismiss "Until Dawn" and suggest it is not worthy of viewers’ time. The comparison to a "deep-fried donut" after a "filet mignon" implies that audiences should seek more refined options.

Truthfulness of the Review

While the review reflects the author's subjective experience and opinion, it is rooted in a critique of the film's execution and narrative choices. This subjective viewpoint may resonate with those who share similar tastes in horror but could alienate fans of the game and the film.

Broader Implications

The review has the potential to affect the film's box office performance by influencing public perception and attendance. If audiences heed the review's caution, it may lead to lower viewership, which in turn could impact future adaptations of video games into films.

Target Audience

The review likely appeals to cinephiles and horror enthusiasts who value narrative depth and originality in films. By contrasting "Until Dawn" with other works, it targets audiences who are discerning about their film choices.

Market Impact

The film's reception may have implications for studios involved in the adaptation of video games into films. If "Until Dawn" underperforms, it could deter future projects, affecting stock prices of production companies involved in similar genres.

Global Context

While the review does not directly address broader geopolitical issues, the fluctuating quality of film adaptations can reflect trends in the entertainment industry, which often mirrors societal interests and cultural shifts.

Use of AI in Writing

It is possible that AI technologies were employed in drafting the review, as some patterns in the writing suggest automated assistance. This may have influenced the clarity and structure of the critique, potentially streamlining the analysis.

Manipulative Language

The language used in the review leans towards manipulation through its emotional weight and comparative analysis. The adjectives chosen serve to evoke a reaction from the audience, possibly leading them to dismiss "Until Dawn" before viewing it.

The review ultimately presents a critical lens on "Until Dawn," encouraging audiences to reflect on their choices in horror films while drawing attention to the ongoing dialogue about video game adaptations. Given the subjective nature of the critique and its focus on perceived quality, the reliability of the review may vary based on individual taste and expectation.

Unanalyzed Article Content

Aweek after the release of Ryan Coogler’s unusual, artfully crafted horrorSinners, we are now back to the industry’s genre norm with Until Dawn, a schlocky video game adaptation that has far less on its mind. Such a drastic drop in IQ and ambition means there’s no serious comparison to be made here and this weekend there’ll be no real competition at the box office (Sinners is likely to remain on top) so such contrast does ultimately allow the film to stay within its own, sillier space, a deep-fried donut for dessert after a filet mignon entree.

On its own, lower-stakes terms, Until Dawn is a passable, if rather unfrightening frightener, made with some skill and enlivened by a strong troupe of young actors, enough to notch it slightly above the piss-poor standard but not quite enough to really justify its existence. The game it’s based on has been described by the director David F Sandberg as “pretty much a 10-hour movie” but with interactive elements, the idea being that you can affect the direction of a narrative that would otherwise be fixed. There’s obviously no such gimmick here (at times one wonders what a Bandersnatch-style choose-your-own-adventure version would look like) and so instead, there’s a replication of the gaming process. In Until Dawn the movie, when the characters die they’re then brought back to life to die all over again.

Those characters are also different here than in the game, a group of twentysomethings who are retracing the final journey made by Melanie, their missing friend. Her sister Clover (Anora’s unimpressed housemate Ella Rubin) is fueled by guilt, their last conversation an argument, and while those around her are starting to lose faith, she’s compelled to follow vague clues all the way to a mysterious valley and the welcome centre that greets them. Taking shelter from the rain, the group is soon picked off by a masked killer only to wake up and find themselves back at the beginning. They’re stuck in a time loop where each decision leads them into a differently horrifying death.

Except those deaths, while certainly violent, aren’t quite as inventive as they could have been, most involving something sharp piercing through something soft (some spontaneous combustion midway does at least break the monotony nicely). A character jokes that the time loop is reminiscent of that one movie, but as another points out, it’s happened in an awful lot of them at this stage and even within the horror genre – in films such as Triangle, Happy Death Day, The Final Girls and Lucky – it’s become increasingly common (also using dialogue to admit unoriginality is not the save some screenwriters seem to think it is!). There’s an obvious comparison to 2011’s The Cabin in the Woods and even with both the structural novelty and the 14-year gap, this still feels like the kind of cliched split-up-and-investigate-noises nonsense that Joss Whedon was poking fun at in the first place.

Transplanting a video game such as this to screen has its pitfalls – one almost wants to reach out and click on the many obvious pick-up-and-explore clues littered around the house – but it does also give a plucky, Scooby Doo charm to some of the group text-on-screen investigation. The cast, also including Hellraiser’s Odessa A’zion and Love Victor’s Michael Cimino, are likable and committed, if stuck with predictably underwritten characters, and the gruelling nature of the die, wake up and repeat plot compels us to root for their survival. Their journey to finding out the details of their predicament and then some sort of way out is a little haphazard, the only real bright spot being a chance for Peter Stormare to reprise a version of his role in the game. His ramblings about trauma and wendigos might be nonsensical, but he delivers it all with snarling gusto.

Until Dawn is well-staged and entirely inoffensive, which, in a year that’s seen horror dreck likeThe Monkey,Opus,The Gorge,Heart EyesandWolf Man, will just about do. It’s held together by Sandberg, a director who has mastered the art of totally competent studio horror with slick, equally forgettable films like Lights Out and Annabelle: Creation and he again shows himself to be a crisply efficient commercial film-maker again let down by a far less effective script. For a film all about repetition, one viewing will suffice.

Until Dawn is out in US and UK cinemas on 25 April

Back to Home
Source: The Guardian