Review #63: Ghost Stories (2017)

This review was originally written in October 2019.

October Horror Movie Review #11: Ghost Stories

I had heard about this movie when it first came out; I thought it looked interesting and figured I'd watch it sooner or later. However, I'd heard it got bad reviews, so I let it slip into the "later" pile. When I first started watching this today, I was kind of shocked that I had heard negative things about it- I didn't remember any specific criticisms, just the fact that it reviewed poorly- because it seemed good. It seemed really good, in fact. But by the end I understood. I'll get to why in a moment.

I usually try not to give any spoilers in these reviews- often to the point where I feel like someone who hasn't seen the movie would have no idea what I was talking about because I kind of dance around things. I will give some spoilers for this film (maybe not all, but some) but I'll try to keep those until the end. I will just say: The ending of this film really, really killed the rest of the movie for me. I was very much on board right up until the first of the big reveals, and even a little bit after, but then the last like five minutes felt like it was trying to make me regret having watched the whole movie. I feel like the ending made no sense and retroactively made what I had previously enjoyed meaningless. What was even the point? I honestly think this would have been a better film if it ended right at the part where Martin Freeman tears the wallpaper.

Just leave it right there- cut to black. End of film.

Bizarre, yes. Confusing, yes. But at least you'll have like 70 minutes of a good horror movie (still not without some faults, but good). And thinking about the ending now, I feel like any criticisms I do have about the first hour could be hand-waved away by pointing to the ending and saying, "See? It doesn't matter." And that's a rare hallmark of a bad movie- one that twists itself in such a way that even lazy writing can be justified. That's not a good thing.

Let me try to say what I liked about this film. First, the overall premise for this film was amazing. A skeptic who's created a career out of exposing psychics and profiteers from the supernatural gets the opportunity to meet his idol, who is now a sick old man who has seemingly had a change of heart. The old man thrusts an envelope in his hands containing dossiers on three cases he could never solve; "I need you to prove to me that these aren't real," he says with a ragged voice, "I beg you to prove it to me."

And so then Mr. Skeptic goes and investigates the three unexplained cases, and in the process... starts seeing things himself. And despite his insistence, maybe there IS something supernatural at play...

....Except this is where the movie gets some criticism from me. Nothing about these three cases is so unexplainable; each one is one single person's testimony with no physical evidence or even any corroborating testimonies. I was actually quite disappointed by them- however, I was super surprised when the protagonist shows back up at the old man's trailer near the end of the film and complains about this exact thing- there wasn't anything mysterious at all. Unfortunately, that's where the movie takes a turn- the turn starts off super weird, and then just gets kind of... bad? (Spoilers ahead.)

Spoilers

Spoilers

Spoilers

So the entire movie is in his head? Really? Then why do I care about any of this? Now I'm normally the kind of person that rolls my eyes at people saying things like "why does any of it matter, it was all a dream" because generally I think the main purpose of movies and TV is to enjoy the ride, so it shouldn't make that much of a difference if a given episode is a dream or not. But in this case, the entire enjoyment of the movie comes from wondering what the mystery is, wondering if the main character is going to stop being a skeptic, wondering what could be so spooky it turned the old man away from pursuing the truth entirely. But in the end, literally none of that matters? Was the main character even a skeptic to begin with or was that part of the dream? Did the old man ever exist or was that, too, part of the dream?

And here's the thing: I LOVED all of the little subtle clues that something was amiss- the bizarre behavior of the parents in the teen's flat, the spooky guy in the jacket that kept popping up, even the fact that the old man was Martin Freeman in disguise, I LOVED ALL OF THAT. But I only loved it because it felt like it was in service of some bigger mystery- a bigger mystery that was NOT "it's all a fever dream". In the end it serves nothing. Those details could have been absent and nothing in the resolution would have been changed except I wouldn't have gone, "Oh, that's the kid from before". The ending made me enjoy the previous hour even less. And that's bad.

I also had some other complaints about the movie too- like the timeline seems real confusing. How long ago did the old man go missing (hence why the main character never got a chance to meet him)? I got the impression it was a long time ago, like years or decades ago, and that he went missing because he found those three cases and then he couldn't go on living the life he did because he doubted everything he stood for. But if that's the case, then how old was that teenager when he had his supernatural occurrence? He would've been a little child (or not even born yet) if the timeline played out the way I think it was meant to, which doesn't work because the whole point was that he was out driving by himself when he hit that goatman or whatever. But then when I get to the end of the film I feel like the answer is "duh it was all a dream, it doesn't matter" and that is incredibly stupid.

I am supremely bothered by how bad the ending was. Like, it makes me actually angry. And then THAT makes me angry because I thought some parts of the movie (like Alex Lawther's acting in the scene in his bedroom) were AMAZING! But it doesn't matter because it was all in service of nothing.

Also- minor gripe, but I don't think the writers know what Locked-In Syndrome is. They used that term a few times, but what we see in this movie isn't Locked-In Syndrome. They basically meant it to mean "a coma" ("the lights are on but nobody's home" is how they refer to it twice) but that's the exact opposite. Locked-In Syndrome is when you appear to be in a coma, but you're 100% conscious and unable to communicate. You wouldn't be talking over someone's comatose body like, "Hmm, he might be Locked-In. Oh well. Let's make some jokes about his failed suicide." It's bothersome because they didn't do the basic research for something they didn't even need to include in the first place.

Anyway. I'm done complaining about this movie. It took a genuinely interesting premise and just crapped all over it.

Overall rating: 3/10

What You Should Watch Instead of Ghost Stories: Basically any episode of Black Mirror, most of the cast will be the same