Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Movie Review: The Woman (2011)

Hey, bloggers! It's February again and in the horror world, that means it is Women in Horror Month! How apropos is it that the post I had scheduled to run today would actually fit into this? Freaky!



It's been a heck of a long wait for this one, bloggers! I had totally forgotten about The Woman until I saw it at the video store the other day (yeah, a video store! They still have those!). The Jack Ketchum book of the same name that this movie is based off of is a true masterpiece in horror, as it is one of the most horrific tales I have ever read - in a good and a bad way, if that is possible. Ketchum is known for his balls-out horror yarns that pull no punches, and this adaptation is no exception. (Psst, you can read my review of the book here.)

As established in the previous film Offspring (which by the way is an okay little horror flick despite its bad actors and low budget - I also reviewed that movie here - am I a shameless self-promoter or what?!) and the books, the titular character The Woman is the last of a clan of feral cannibals who once savaged the woods and caves where they lived. When lawyer Chris Cleek, a.k.a. The Worst Father/Husband/Man in the History of the World, stumbles upon The Woman while out hunting, he decides to capture her and keep her locked in his cellar in an attempt to teach her how to act more civilized. His brow-beaten wife and daughter and his douchebag son are brought along for the ride. 

The Woman is an interesting little concoction because the book and the screenplay were written simultaneously by author Jack Ketchum and director Lucky McKee. This is probably the reason why the book and film follow each other so closely, except for the fact that the movie sets a much different tone than the book. Ketchum's The Woman was a very dark, gory, and disturbing look not just into what Chris does to The Woman but into the dynamics of this intensely screwed up family. Though The Woman herself no doubt has a gross, cannibalistic, and brutal nature, that doesn't even seem to compare to the atrocities committed by Chris Cleek alone. His power over the people around him is so severe that you find yourself hating every character at one point or another because they can't take down this one little man.

Lucky McKee's film, as aforementioned, has a slightly different tone, and one that I was not too happy about at first. In all these scenes that were supposed to be nasty and dirty, there was this banging, upbeat soundtrack behind it that too often took away from the seriousness and utter horror of the situation (well, except the end, which ROCKED). When Chris first sees The Woman bathing in the creek, the music started up again and gave the scene that feeling like, "Holy shit! This is great! I'm watching a naked chick take a bath!" instead of what the scene was really about - Chris zeroing in on his prey, another woman he can possibly brutalize and control. I understand that the soundtrack was used to lighten the mood of a movie that would otherwise be so freaking depressing you would want to kill yourself after watching it, and for some scenes the soundtrack was used really well (loved the song playing when Peg is on the field at school), but to me this shouldn't be a "light" story at all.

The mood and tone of the film is also set by Sean Bridgers, who gives an exceptionally eerie portrayal of Chris. The way he plays this man who is so completely evil and callous makes the audience angry and upset. After punching his wife in the gut, he can casually tell his daughter (whom he's been raping) to go get a cloth for her, as if she just had a little headache or something. Bridgers's performance is probably best described as one that is actually quite funny - but the most uncomfortable funny you've ever experienced. You can laugh or chuckle at the calm and almost likable way he delivers his lines - if what he was talking about wasn't so damn awful! I was very impressed by this man's performance and the commitment he gave to a role that nobody in their right mind would ever want to play.

And I'll be damned if Pollyana McIntosh (what a name, eh?) doesn't deliver with every fiber of her being in her portrayal of The Woman. She gave a standout performance in the same role in Offspring, especially in one of those last moments where she starts eating a guy's brains out of his head, so it's great that the filmmakers had the foresight to keep her character around and center another story around The Woman. One thing I wish Lucky and crew would have done was to include subtitles for The Woman's strange made-up language. I mean, mostly you get the gist of what she's saying from her expression and gestures but especially in the part where she asks Peg for help from her father, calling her "Mother" because she is somehow able to sense that Peg is pregnant, I think it would have helped to have the subtitles to show early on the connection formed between Peg and The Woman.

There is a smidge of Ketchum's famous gore throughout the movie but you have to make it to the ending for the really good stuff. Chris has finally gone too far when he kills Peg's teacher by feeding her to the dogs, and Peg finally sets The Woman free from the cellar to have her fun. Oh, it's glorious. Face-biting, body-throwing, body-hacking, heart-ripping, and heart-eating - all the bad guys in the movie finally get their comeuppance and it is bloody fantastic, if you'll pardon the pun. The gore effects are really well done here and as in Offspring, the filmmakers leave nothing to the imagination and show the audience these kills with all the blood and intestines and organs in their arsenal.

I think The Woman is looked at as a "love it or hate it" movie (or an "understand it or don't understand it" movie) and it may not be for everyone (especially this guy) but I'm one of the ones that loved it. It is probably the best adaptation of Ketchum's work so far, and though the handling of the material at some parts is not to my liking, the performances, editing, and effects more than make up for it.

P.S. Jack Ketchum rules!

31 comments:

  1. One of the worst movies of 2011. Period. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Honestly one of my favourite movies of 2011, even though like all of McKee's movies it suffered from horrible distribution, hence why it's now randomly appeared on DVD.
    The ending caught me totally by suprise, as I thought I knew were it was going until that point and it just really kicked it to a whole new level.
    This film really furthers how underated McKee is as a director and perhaps critics should have been looking at his work, when we were so busy heaping praise on Eli Roth, who was supposivly the new exciting voice in Horror, a title which should rightfully belong to McKee as proven once again here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Nebs and Maynard: :(

    @jaded viewer: I don't know that I would go so far as to call it the best movie of 2011 - it's not even really in the top 10 - but I do think it is worth a watch, for some viewers.

    @Elwood: I've seen most of McKee's work now and he's hit or miss. Sometimes it's the story that I don't really like (I hated his MOH episode Sick Girl) but the direction is usually pretty good. He just needs to get himself a bigger directing job with more distribution and hopefully people will take notice! And maybe he should use another actress besides Angela Bettis once in while! Not that she's not interesting! He just needs to change it up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can i ask about socket? How was she in the kennels ? And y did they just walk away with the woman at the end...its veena killing me coz i have no idea !?!

      Delete
  4. Glad you enjoyed it. In my top three movies of 2011, for sure. Great review.
    P.S Totally with you on the Jack Ketchum rules thing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great film! I just dont get the bit with the blind dog girl at the end thats eats the teacher? And just before that, when the dad is dragging the teacher to the barn he says something to his daughter about her and her sisters? Is the girl in the barn her sister? Maybe I need to watch it again to get it? Can anyone help?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The girl in the barn was the Cleek's other daughter (named by the Woman in the book as "Socket") who was born with anophthalmia, meaning she was born without eyes. Apparently instead of dealing with the problem, Chris decided to make her live in the barn with the dogs, where she obviously became feral and wild like the dogs, too. Another example of how evil and f-ed up the family was!

      Delete
    2. that is the best answer ive gotten about that character! i just watched the movie and was like..."what was that? she called her 'sister'."
      thanks that was REALLY helpful

      Delete
    3. Why did the woman kill Belle (Chris's wife) in the end? The wife was never bad to the woman. This part got me reallly confused. Killing Chris and his son makes sense but why kill the wife ?? Please help me out because this is driving me crazy :p !! Thanks in advance :)

      Delete
    4. I didn't have a problem with the wife dying because I had read the book - she knew that Chris was raping their daughter and never did anything about it. I guess in the movie, the Woman thought she was too weak. Can't say I disagree.

      Delete
  6. Does anyone have a picture / screen cap of Socket from the movie? :( I don't want to watch this movie but I do want to see what that character looks like.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I am still kind of confused by the ending of this movie? I get that the girl in the barn was her sister but why did Peg just walk off with "the woman" and her little sister? I am so confused.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My only two complaints of the movie. One. Is the child still alive from the beginning? I havent seen offspring so maybe it sheds light on this. Two. After the credits. Was that suppose to be a music video they just decided would be cool to add on to the end or does it relate to the story?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Loved it have watched it several times revenge is ever so sweet

    ReplyDelete
  10. I just finished watching this film. I enjoyed your review (and read the one of the book as well, because I couldn't help myself) and I wanted to address your thoughts about the music. I didn't think the music was lightening the mood, actually. I thought that the music was inappropriate on purpose, especially when it came to scenes of the father's complete crazy. These songs highlighted to me how completely without empathy this guy is.

    Not just The Woman herself, but his family, and the pets, and everyone he encounters, is just an object to him. He has zero compassion, and everything that happens in his sphere is orchestrated for his benefit. To me, the music helped to depict his mind as being this sort of carefree, breezy place while externally, he is directing the horror show that is the Cleek Family. The music made me very uncomfortable for this reason; it felt like a window into Chris' utterly conscience-bereft mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess I didn't look at the use of the music that way, but that totally makes sense. I agree, it does make you feel very uncomfortable which is probably the point.

      Delete
    2. Totally agree about the music. I think it really was essential to the film.

      Delete
  11. Can anyone give me some insight into the after the credits scene? I must have missed it the first time round and am totally intrigued!

    Btw - I adore this movie and review! Agree completely! :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Who was the daughter pregnant by.??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! & do you know why the mother lied about what the son did to the woman.???

      Delete
    2. In the movie they only showed him making her breast bleed...but the mother told the father the boy was touching her while touching himself

      Delete
    3. In the film the boy is torturing her with pliers, I assumed he was taking her teeth out at first but it looked like her nipples in the scene. I'm confused why they said he was touching himself. Also why would he want to civilised the woman when he basically uncivilised his own daughter. Doesn't make sense.

      Delete
  13. so, is socket related to the ones from the first film, or not??? anyone know?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm assuming the after credit video was just tacked on for fun, exposure to the artists who made it or whatever and had nothing to do with the actual movie. Someone correct me if I'm wrong because I missed something if I am.

    I am also in agreement with the anonymous blogger who on October 21, 2014 posted the question about why what the son did to the woman was totally differend from what was told to Chris by the mother. She explains to Chris that to some extent he was molesting the woman while "touching himself" while the movie depicts him mutilating her breasts with a pair of needle-nose pliers. Chris asks his son "is this true?". To the viewer the son could have said no and not been lying. Please explain.

    P.S. A rather entertaining movie by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  15. For the mother to tell the father that their son was mutilating the woman, would have made the father proud, and perhaps the torture would have been encouraged. The father was grooming his son to behave this way, and to the addle-brained mother's thinking, the son molesting the woman was the lesser of 2 evils.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Please someone explain the dream of the woman in the very beginning...like the baby, ect.

    ReplyDelete