that they need everything to be served up on a platter and it preferably being baby food and it preferably being McDonalds baby food. This film performs quite the amazing job of tightly illustrating the corruption of one's humanity in a film. Not only that, but said corruption happening inside a family dynamic.The mysteriousness and lack of clarification of the film serves as the fundament for building an allegory. This is not a film about an apocalypse per se, you don't get any nitty gritty details about what the virus is, where it comes from, how many it has killed, what the news had to say about it. This is a film about a family having to withstand a powerful destructive force coming from the outside, and how they are trying to protect themselves from it. This is the reason why everything is left vague, for the purpose of generalization, for the purpose of allegory, for the purpose of allowing the spectator to fill in the details themselves with their experiences. The vagueness allows for a much larger array of empathy. Should the film fall short in terms of execution, then it would indeed fall flat, and the allegory would dissipate. This film, however, is very carefully calibrated, and it is the audience that disappoints, not the movie. It disappoints through unwillingness to process information and sensations by themselves, but rather being locked into a mode in which they just expect everything to always be explained to them so as they can be entertained and not use their brains. The film begins with the execution of the sick grandpa. The following discussion is about how the 17 year old son should not have to be exposed to such atrocities. The very first issue in the film is about protecting the son. However in the night, the son keeps having the worst nightmares, mostly about corruption in one form or another, about getting diseased. His first nightmare begins from a painting of Breugel's, then in another scene we see another painting of Breugel's, Hunters in the Snow, a painting with a rich history in cinema. Tarkovsky used it in Solaris as the peak of the sensation of humanity desired by the astronaut's clone-wife. Lars von Trier burned it in Melancholia as the humanity in that film was being consumed by disease as well. The director here uses it knowingly, no doubt, to reinforce the question of one's humanity. The disease in the film is irrelevant. The disease can be whatever you want it to be, it's Trump. If you wanna know what comes at night, the IT, well it's Trump, OK? It's the corrosion and corruption of today's world in regards to our humanity. The family dynamic is organized in such a way that what is of utmost importance is to protect the son from the disease. From the Trump disease. From the terribleness-that- is-in-this-world disease. The vagueness of it all was not satisfactory for me either for the majority of the film. When it really clicked, however, was right at the very end, as the first time that the son shows that he has the disease is right after his father shoots the child and the mother. Then he gets a nosebleed. Then he is infected. This film is quite spectacular for having illustrated this paradox of organizing your life around protecting your son, only to have that very organizing be the thing that ultimately corrupts your son. It is a highly potent tragic allegory. One that requires a minimum amount of thought and effort to feel. Something that is far too excessive to ask of an audience nowadays apparently. The film offers no solutions, it just offers the proposal of contemplating this paradox, one that I am sure most of us are engaged in, in one form or another in our lives as well. This is why this film is so potent, because if only you would think for a moment you would realize that this paradox of protection is universal, and it doesn't need an apocalypse to occur. It just needs one to be such virtuously illustrated.

almost shaking. Trey Edward Shultz uses different aspect ratios to differentiate between the dream and nightmare sequences. When the real world slowly becomes "a nightmare" the aspect ratio slowly closes in.People are also annoyed by the unanswered questions. But I really enjoyed that. The movie doesn't guide the viewer and help it answer certain questions. The audience is left by themselves to figure out what is happening, which adds to the atmosphere. I could discuss this movie all day and try to figure out the mysteries of this film. Go into this movie with no expectations. Don't be persuaded by any negative reviews. Great job Trey Edward Shultz.

writing here are also highlights for me. I don't want to get into any detail about the film because it really should be viewed without any knowledge. There are so many twists and turns and I can honestly say that I don't think I ever looked away from the screen once.

star Michelin chef. Very few of these people will have the palate or taste for it, in fact most of them will be upset.This film is probably the most realistic post apocalyptic story I have ever come across. Anyone who knows the frequency and probabilities of solar flairs and what they would do to our civilization has probably played out scenarios in their head that are almost identical to the plot of this movie.It is this highest degree of realism in the unfolding of the plot and what happens between the characters that makes this film so engaging and captivating. As a work of craft, the film is a remarkable. It is so beautifully shot and the acting never drops below A+ quality for a single moment. This is in the top class of all the movies I have seen, and is one of the best post apocalyptic ever made in my personal opinion.

wilderness as paranoia runs amok.It Comes at Night has mistakenly been marketed as a horror film. Make no mistake, while the film certainly produces some effective moments of dread and terror, it plays more like a marriage between a psychological thriller and a family drama. Guessing from the initial reactions from the audience in my theater, I have a feeling that the film will play like last year's The VVitch. Not only did audience members walk out halfway through, but as the credits began to roll, I could hear some of them saying "What the f**k?" and "That was underwhelming." While audience members might have been expecting a film more akin to say, The Conjuring, as a result of the film's admittedly stellar trailer, Shults forgoes conventional jump scares and instead successfully mixes bone-chilling tension with a disquieting atmosphere.Continuing with the comparisons to director Robert Eggers' The VVitch, which was coincidentally also by A24, I found that I preferred Shults' work. While both are armed with lavish cinematography and fantastic performances all around, something about The VVitch did not click with me upon viewing. I found it to be a film that I admired more than I enjoyed in large part due to its achievements in the technical departments. Perhaps it is Brian McOmber's score that makes the difference, which truly shines in Shults' film. Eerily effective, McOmber's score works perfectly in tandem with Drew Daniels' gorgeous photography to create an unsettling feeling throughout the course of the film.However, the reason the film works rests solely on the shoulders of the performers, who sink themselves entirely into their roles. Joel Edgerton is the standout here, continuing to impress with every film of his that I watch. Edgerton adeptly portrays Paul, a father whose only goal is to ensure the survival of his family. The way in which he pursues that goal, however, is what lends Paul depth, allowing for riveting observation into the way in which he handles the increasingly tougher circumstances around him. As the film goes on, Edgerton brilliantly communicates the fear and paranoia required of him. Kelvin Harrison Jr. portrays his son Travis, and I was equally impressed by his performance. Despite Edgerton receiving top billing, the soul of the story lies with Travis. By allowing us to see his dreams and capturing his moments alone in the attic, Shults imbues Travis with a melancholic spark of humanity, as he wrestles with being a teenager in a world gone wrong. Additionally, the moral dilemmas that the film explores always keep Travis in mind, using him as the balance between the two families.While Carmen Ejogo delivers a great performance as Paul's wife Sarah, Shults' screenplay falls a tad short when it comes to her characterization. While Paul and Travis both feel more realized as individuals, Sarah feels more one-dimensional, which stands in contrast to Riley Keough's Kim. Keough herself, who I first saw in Mad Max: Fury Road continues to impress and she does so again here. Lastly, Christopher Abbott does a stellar job as Kim's husband Will. An early interrogation sequence that features him as the one answering the questions left me shaken, in large part to his performance. Much like Edgerton's Paul, Will's only goal is to ensure the survival of his family, but Shults expertly manages to create tension arising from the irreconcilable differences between the two families.Many have complained about the film's seemingly abrupt ending, but I believe that Shults ends it just as he should. The final shot is silent, yet haunting, as the framing communicates more than any dialogue could.Shults does not deal in black and white, only in gray. There are no heroes and villains, only regular people struggling to survive amid an unspecified event that has brought humanity to its knees. Straightforward in its storytelling, free from unnecessary twists and turns, the film nonetheless manages to get under the skin. If you have not seen the trailer for Shults' film, but wish to see the film, then do not watch the trailer. However gripping the trailer might be, I am glad that I did not watch it before having seen the film. Go into it fresh, and you will be rewarded with one of the most thrilling films of 2017.Rating: 9/10 Amazing

the woods, trying to isolate themselves from a world being overtaken by a deathly plague. With the pacing of a southern Gothic tale, the plot unspools with a mysterious naturalism, in which most of the horror elements decrepit bodies, dark spaces occur during nightmares and visions. In the reality of the film, the foreboding intensity that overwhelms the screen comes from a skin-crawling sense more than visceral fright. The looks of people's faces. The disturbing framing of a shot. The obscure design of a tree. The impending sense of death. It really is a rare beast of a summer movie, in which the filmmakers aren't just looking for money, but are looking purpose. With flowing camera movements, long-takes, uncomfortable focus and symmetry, and uniquely brilliant lighting, Shults gives us one of the most beautiful and intentionally visual films since possibly his last under-seen gem Krisha. The performances are remarkable, with Edgerton continuing his surprising ascent to being of the most interesting dudes in Hollywood. If you're looking for escapism, you'll be disappointed; if you're looking for greatness, look no further.

Comes at Night" shrugs off traditional horror beats and embraces the extended discourse of a nightmare, the inky blacks lit only by a hand-held lantern, the invisible contagions that we can't keep out no matter how hard we try, the way a fire we must light attracts things that might do us harm.It's "Night of the Living Dead" without zombies. It's "The Thing" without a monster. It's the distrust we have of everything outside, even the outsiders that are inside. It's the long narrow dark hallway to a door that's supposed to be locked, must be locked, but isn't.And it's one of the very best horror films of the year so far. A year that has already been a landmark one for progressive, humanist, and existential horror.And yes, it is a horror film, no matter what others may tell you.

introduction to the Apprehension genre.I loved how this movie was shot. Rather than big sweeping establishing shots or use of vivid color, the focus is right on the characters. The frame is often filled with a character's face; the movie not allowing you to back away from what they're experiencing. You're a fly on the wall that just can't get away.Joel Edgerton is the driving force of the story. He plays a father that puts aside his own morals and humanity in order to keep his family safe. Almost all of his actions seem cold and unforgivable if looked at individually. How they are done in context of the film, however, make you wonder what else he really could have done.I could see some people calling this movie slow. I would submit that it is patient. The pacing is perfect for the subject matter and there is no break in tone with this film. From opening to close there is a feeling of unease. I could also see people say there are too many loose ends. I would say this adds to the despair. Not every point is clear, not every piece introduced gets a pretty little bow. You'll wonder why these things happened. And you'll wonder how you could have fared any better. 8.25/10.

when put in a desperate situation.Still well played to the very end, but it can be a little iffy for those expecting something not so different in there horror.http://cinemagardens.com