Pearl

Despite quite a characterful effort from Mia Goth as the title character here, I wasn't really very impressed with this film. She lives on a farm whilst her young husband is off fighting on the Somme. She shares her life with her Germanic, rather authoritarian, mother "Ruth" (Tandi Wright) and her profoundly disabled father who cannot speak and who is entirely dependent on these two women. "Pearl" longs to escape. On one of her occasional visits to town to collect her father's laudanum, she encounters the local projectionist (David Corenswet) who shows her a (quite racy) film and suggests that maybe a new life could be her's. Meantime, her life at the farm is becoming unbearable and her options for escape lead her to realise that drastic action may be needed - a plan that is accidentally put into play after an altercation with her mother. It's perfectly watchable, this, but it's also perfectly forgettable. The story is weak and thin, and though the photography is attractive, the whole thing just doesn't catch fire for me. There's no menace. It's not an horror film - it's a film about a mentally ill girl that offers us a few mildly entertaining scenarios that peter out as quickly as the plot does before an ending that screams sequel loudly and defiantly. It certainly does not need to be seen on a cinema screen.

**By: Louisa Moore / www.ScreenZealots.com** The strange and unusual “Pearl,” a prequel to writer / director Ti West‘s “X”, is a different kind of slasher film. Creating an origin story for the title villain, the film tells the history of a farm girl dreamer with a serious mean streak. It’s a horror movie that’s unlike any other, a candy-colored, nightmarish dream world of lofty ambitions, brutal violence, and bloody murder. Pearl (Mia Goth) is trapped on her family’s isolated farm. She dutifully performs her barn chores and tends to her ailing, wheelchair-bound father (Matthew Sunderland), all under the stern eye of her overbearing mother (Tandi Wright). Pearl wants nothing more in the world than to live the glamorous life of “the girls in the pictures” that she sees on the big screen at the movies. With her husband Howard off to fight World War I, Pearl finds her ambitions at odds with the reality of the life she’s been dealt. It’s clear something isn’t right with the young woman, and her violent tendencies begin to bubble to the surface. Things weren’t great for women in 1918, and the world certainly wasn’t a place for a fiery feminist. The film is an intriguing character study of a thoroughly disturbed woman who is a victim of her own gender. Goth is asked to do the film’s heavy lifting, and she gives a wonderfully unhinged lead performance. She screams a lot but displays an impressive range, especially as she is thrust into episodes of psychopathic ire. Her calm demeanor is frightening, and almost as disturbing as her precise, unique kills. Using farm tools, Pearl becomes a skilled murderer as she gives herself over to her homicidal desires. The story is simple but engaging, and West creates an old-timey mood with a vintage score that fits the tone beautifully. The Technicolor aesthetic harkens back to Hollywood’s Golden Age, a time of traditional glitz and glamour. It’s a great looking film that feels fresh and different, and West directs with an assured eye. His long, unbroken takes are showy but executed with purpose, and the film features a powerful monologue that’s unforgettable. One of my favorite parts about the movie is the chilling ending, an extended scene of a true demented breakdown that still haunts me. There’s so much that makes this film so memorable, and “Pearl” is a special kind of horror film with a refreshing style and killer instinct.

I will be doing a combined review for the two films, "X" and "Pearl." Upon seeing the high ratings given by both the general public and critics to these movies, I am left puzzled about what truly makes a good film. Let's start with "X," a movie that I found to be absolutely terrible. The film revolves around pornography rather than a cohesive storyline, resulting in a disjointed and atrocious viewing experience. The cinematography, acting, storytelling, and writing were all subpar, yet critics inexplicably praised it. The attempt to elevate the film with Jenna Ortega fell short, as she had minimal screen time amidst excessive male and adult nudity, making it unsuitable for general viewing. This is a movie best watched in private, not recommended by me at all. Moving on to "Pearl," I was equally disappointed as it also relied heavily on sexual themes. The film took a bizarre turn, culminating in a scene that made me walk out of the theater in disbelief. It's baffling to see these films receive acclaim, especially when performances like Mia Goth's are lacking. It seems that the current focus is on titillation rather than genuine storytelling. As we await the verdict on the third film, it appears that the world may be more interested in gratification than meaningful narratives.