Unflattering Imitation, by Reed Lackey

The first and biggest problem with Infernal, though sadly far from the only one, is its decision to emulate the “found footage” format when telling its story.

If you don’t know that term, it first came to prominence with The Blair Witch Project in 1999 and refers to a filming style wherein the narrative appears to play out as if it were captured by a home video camera: with shaky camera work, out of focus shots, and intentionally awkward angles. Since the release and success of “Blair Witch”, dozens of movies ranging from low-budget independents to major studio efforts have sought to imitate the format, with mixed results. The most recent mainstream success franchise to use this format has been the Paranormal Activity films.

But the reason I have now mentioned two films other than the one I’m reviewing, which is Bryan Coyne’s Infernal, is that if you’ve seen either of those movies—or really any other “found footage” films—you’ve already seen everything Coyne’s movie might have to offer you.

For nearly a week after I watched the movie, I tried to soften my opinion on it. I believe that any film coming to fruition involves people who are trying hard to do good work and giving it their best efforts. I want to believe that. Out of respect for the cast, the production crew, and for Coyne himself, I want to put that on record and give them the benefit of the doubt. But, ultimately I have a responsibility to tell the truth and the truth is that I did not like anything about this movie. Wait, that’s not totally true—there were three shots in the film that were quite effective (notice I said “shots”, not “scenes”).

As I mentioned, the first and biggest problem is that the movie tries to be “found footage”. Yet, from the very first scene, the filmmaker betrays the format by editing together multiple angles within a scene where only one established camera is present. He further betrays the format in nearly every other scene, as characters in distress neglect to drop the camera and run, despite seeing that their daughter is having a seizure in the car on the street below; or as characters have “in-your-face” arguments with other characters while still evidently holding the camera up to their eye; or my personal favorite—when one character manages somehow to film the back of his own head as he walks through the house to investigate a creepy happening. This is not even to mention the dozen-plus instances of forced dialogue in which a character feels the need to point out why they are filming a moment which would not normally be filmed (due to awkwardness or tension or basic physical capability). Add to this that even within the scenes where a home video capturing might make sense, the shots themselves are mostly disastrous. As an example, there is an entire dinner scene, ripe with conflict and dramatic tension between four people, in which only one character’s face is seen (and that only in profile). Filming a scene like this not only disrespects the story, it disrespects the actors (who I presume were trying hard to fill the scene with believability, but I’ll never know).

Then, there are specifically forced story beats which hold no permanent relevance to the story at large, either from a character or narrative perspective. Take for example a sequence of opening statements from friends of the main characters at their wedding, where unnamed conflicts are referenced for what I assume is supposed to be comedic effect, but winds up being merely awkward. Or consider an entire sequence in which the little girl’s grandmother invites a priest into their home to assess the situation, and after an explosive confrontation between the priest and the girl’s parents (which is only visible in the bottom third of the frame, FYI) regarding the danger and evil at play, the grandmother and priest are neither mentioned or seen again. And I don’t want to even get started with the tremendous focus the film takes in the early stages about the little girl’s obsession with her hair which – spoiler alert – never winds up meaning a damn thing.

The characters are plastic. The performances are uneven—though I wouldn’t necessarily blame the actors for that in a film this unfocused. The camera work is terrible, ranging from puzzling to embarrassing to obvious attempts at showing off (why would a character be filming the person they’re speaking to through the mirror of the car where they’re standing?). The sound effects are beneath amateur levels (I think I might actually be able to recognize the voice of the actor playing the demon before it was modulated through Pro Tools).

And finally, the plot. The plot feels like someone wrote down their uncle’s retelling of Paranormal Activity, added a little girl, took away things like dread and pathos and filmed it as quickly as they could. By the time the film’s first real victim is revealed (in what should have been a moment of heart-wrenching devastation) I found myself stifling a yawn because of how inevitable it all felt. Hardcore horror fans might enjoy the film’s tropes and scarier elements, but they’ll likely enjoy it the same way as viewers of pornography do: because they care about little else besides seeing those versions of the same thing over and over again.

Earlier, I mentioned three effective shots. One of those is in the death scene of the character I alluded to just now. There was some decent make-up and lighting set up to execute a truly effective illusion of the character’s demise (I’m not sure why the camera was on, but the shot looked nice). The second of these shots is so good that it would hold up in any major studio production. There is an image in which the demonic monster is revealed as he climbs onto the bed of the little girl and crouches like a hungry predator. The shot is genuinely unnerving, even edging into frightening. Everything about that shot works and I still think about it as the movie’s crowning achievement.

If you can manage to find still shots of the moments I describe above, you should seek them out and spare yourself the time it will take you to sit through this movie. I’ll save you the trouble of finding the third effective shot I’m referring to: I counted the title card because it accurately told me the name of the movie and should therefore be considered effective. But you don’t need to look that up. The film I’m talking about is Infernal and it’s not really worth your time.