Horror movies are as plentiful as ever these days, but so often the approach of modern horror seems to be to push the envelope more than what came before: make the audience cringe more, shock them more, gross them out, offend their sensibilities. Movie makers have gotten so extreme that a new sub-genre called “torture porn” has become prevalent, and when audiences become desensitized to that level of violence movie makers will look for the next line to cross.

 

One director has consistently taken a different approach. Scott Derrickson brings us to the edge of darkness in an attempt to disturb us on a much deeper level than what a momentary shock can do. Torture porn may make you cringe, but Sinister will make you sleep with the light on at night.

 

Ellison Oswalt is a true crime writer desperate for a best seller. When he discovers an unsolved case of a bizarre multiple murder, he sees a potential ticket back into the limelight. So he does what any good family man would do; he moves his wife and kids into the house of the murdered family. Upon exploring the new place Ellison finds a box of home movies chronicling not only his mystery of choice but also a number of other grisly multiple murders dating back to the 60's. Imagining what breaking this kind of case could do for his career, Ellison becomes obsessed with both the movies and the killer responsible for them even as a dark presence begins tearing his family apart in a reality quickly becoming a nightmare.

 

Rather than relying on gratuitously graphic scenes, Derrickson utilizes a less-is-more technique not frequently seen in modern movies. I would compare it to Paranormal Activity in its use of off-screen noises and unknown scares, but unlike Paranormal Activity, which relies almost solely on those aspects, Sinister gives us more story, more character development, deeper themes, and visuals that may have you doing a double-take the next time you pass a dark window. Was that a face you just saw out of the corner of your eye?

 

This makes for a more unsettling viewing experience than the average horror movie, but it also means we spend more time getting to know the characters and building up to the crux of the story. If you're looking for body count or BSF (Blood Splatter per Frame) then you may as well move along because Sinister is actually going to take the time to tell a story rather than throw two hours worth of gruesome images at you hoping one of them will lodge in your mind.

 

Some viewers prefer to see all the gory details, but I find the more suggestive glimpses far more effective. I can't tell you the last time a movie made me physically jump, but Sinister did that at least twice. I've been known to criticize movies that rely on jump scares as selling cheap horror, but Sinister has made me realize that I don't mind the jump scares themselves, I simply dislike movies that have nothing else to offer. The jumps here elicit an immediate physical response, but they are not what make the story unnerving. Rather than relying solely on jumps, Derrickson presses your face into the window of sanity and won't allow you to look away. I could swear I heard someone crying in the theater at one point.

 

The movie feels very closed in. The cast is small, and we almost never leave the house. I could almost wish for a little time away from the dark tension, maybe at the library or police station researching the events or seeing the plights of the children at school which we hear about but never see. At the same time, though, staying in the house creates a feeling of confinement that shackles us to the darkness alongside Ellison. The ominous atmosphere becomes oppressive in a way that other movies try but fail to achieve.

 

While there is little that I found negative about the viewing experience, I do have to admit I was not thoroughly impressed with all of the acting. Juliet Rylance (Ellison's wife ,Tracy) seems to smile too much at inappropriate times. Maybe this was intentional, but to me it seemed like she was having a hard time keeping a straight face during some of the conflict scenes.

 

My first impression of James Ransone as the deputy was that he came across as too Barny Fife-ish, but I like where the story takes his character and appreciate the comic relief he brings without feeling completely like a flat plot device.

 

Ethan Hawke is the real stand-out talent here. “Good” is not an appropriate word for him; this is a Jack Nicholson Shining level performance. He sells every aspect of his character: the concerned father, the conflicted husband, the attention-starved writer, the brave family protector, the scared man in way over his head. I could believe that he is exactly like this in his everyday life. If any of the other performances lack, Ethan picks up the slack and more.

 

Christopher Young once again joins Derrickson for the scoring. I like Young and have some of his earlier music, but I have never before walked away from seeing one of his movies with such a feeling of urgency to get my hands on the soundtrack. It creates an ambiance so thick, so unnerving that it alone may be enough to cause sensitive viewers to change the channel. I was so enamored of the music at times that I focused on it almost too much (which threatens to pull a viewer out of the movie), but found myself drawn back into the action before my mind could wander too far.

 

I think one aspect that is going to determine what many viewers think of the movie is the fun factor. Even though many horror movies are dark and gruesome, there is an element of fun, a sense of release when it comes to the fear of the audience. Sinister takes that feeling of fear much more seriously and doesn't leave a pleasant feeling when it ends. Rather it wraps its cloak around the mind and traps it there. From an artistic perspective it is quite effective and is part of the reason I've added this to my DVD shelf, but it doesn't give viewers the chance to laugh at themselves for jumping out of their skins like the typical pop slasher does. That can be good or bad depending on your particular tastes.