About 
Backrooms has some truly great moments, but like much great horror, the more people try to explain it, the less scary it becomes.
Posted in: A24, Kaitlyn Booth, Movies, Review | Tagged: Backrooms
Backrooms Review: A Concept Better Suited For Shorts, And That's Okay
Backrooms has some truly great moments, but like much great horror, the more people try to explain it, the less scary it becomes.
Article Summary
- Backrooms turns a viral internet horror concept into a feature, but the mystery loses power as the film explains more.
- Kane Parsons delivers a strong opening and unsettling first half that capture the eerie appeal of the original shorts.
- Backrooms shines with outstanding practical sets and immersive first-person sequences that sell its liminal nightmare.
- The second half stumbles on thin exposition, leaving Backrooms feeling better suited to short-form horror than a full movie.
Backrooms has some truly great moments, but it's one of those shorts concepts that never should have been adapted into a feature-length film, because, much like great creature features, the longer we stay in the backrooms, and the more people try to explain it, the less interesting and scary it becomes.
Director: Kane Parsons
Summary: After a therapist's patient disappears into a dimension beyond reality, she must venture into the unknown to save him.
From The Backrooms Of The Internet To The Big Screen
The origin of Backrooms and how this story came to be is one of those moments where we truly see the shift in storytelling in the modern age. We saw it with Slender Man becoming a thing, and now we're going much more esoteric with this concept. The idea for Backrooms began as a creepypasta on 4chan, and the idea went on to be adapted into a series of shorts by director Kane Parsons.
The movie opening in theaters this weekend is from Parsons and is based on those shorts. It's the modern-day equivalent of adapting a story passed down through generations of summer campers or even mythology. Only it's coming from one of the worst websites on the internet, but that's neither here nor there. The entire thing is a great concept for shorts, but as a feature-length film, Backrooms has the same problem that so many monster movies do: the longer you show the monster, the less scary and interesting it becomes.
In the case of Backrooms, the location itself becomes less internet and more eerie the longer we spend time in it. That's why the first half of the film works as well as it does: conceptually, it has a lot more in common with the shorts than the second half does. Once the second half of the film kicks in, the problems start to show. One of the biggest rules of horror is that the more you show the monster and the more you try to explain it, the less scary it becomes, and Backrooms falls into that concept, only in this case, the monster in question is the location itself.
The second half spends some time, though not enough, trying to explain what is going on. The issue is they do a terrible job of it. A crappy explanation is much more annoying to get than no explanation at all. If they were going to take the time to try and explain what was going on in the backrooms, then they shouldn't have half-assed it. Either lean into the mythology that is just below the surface or don't touch it at all. As it stands, the movie gives some weird SparkNotes version of an explanation, gives you about two minutes to read said SparkNotes, then throws them away and declares that it is enough. You don't understand? Too bad, and also that's the point. If not understanding is the point, then tell us nothing. The horror of the unknown applies to knowledge, and paper-thin knowledge is still knowledge.
Some Of The Best Set Designs We've Seen This Year
It's a shame because the cold opening and the first half are pretty fantastic. The cold opening is intense and does an excellent job of showcasing the set design, setting the stakes for what happens to people in the backrooms, and keeping everything a mystery. The cold opening and the first half of the film are also where the first-person POV VHS filming is applied, and it might be some of the best first-person we've seen in a very long time. If there is any indication of Parsons's potential as a director, it's how good those first-person moments are, because much like first-person writing, first-person filming is something that's very hard to do well.
The set design in Backrooms is also fantastic, and if there is a movie to hold up as a reason why practical filmmaking is important, it's this one. The set was reportedly 30,000 square feet, and when actors talk about how worried they were that it would drive them insane, you know things are going to work out well. You can't fake liminal space, and A24 was very smart to realize that and give Parsons the budget he needed to create these sets. It might be some of the best set design we've seen so far this year, and could easily be the best we'll see this year. The Backrooms aren't just a location; they are the monster, the antagonist, a malevolent force without malicious intent, another character in this film, and kudos to every single person who put the work into that set to make it what it was. The movie wouldn't work on any level without that set.
-
- Chiwetel Ejiofor Credit: Courtesy of A24
-
- Renate Reinsve Credit: Courtesy of A24
-
- Chiwetel Ejiofor Credit: Courtesy of A24
However, the excellent set design in Backrooms makes the exposition moments in the second half even more frustrating, since none of it was needed. If there was ever a film where "show, don't tell" could be used to an insane degree, it would be this one, and while there are some examples floating around, it's not nearly enough, and if there are more examples, they aren't obvious to the layperson that they are important. You have liminal space where random things can show up at any time, and you have an esoteric concept you don't really want to explain; show, don't tell should have been applied as liberally as that ugly yellow wallpaper.
Backrooms is a very good example of how some concepts are made for feature-length productions, and that's okay. There is nothing wrong with making shorts. The thing that makes a concept like Backrooms interesting is the idea of exploring a bunch of weird-looking rooms and seeing what turns up next, what clue will be hidden in a corner. It's like a walking simulator, only for people who like to be slightly uncomfortable with their sense of space.
A feature-length film likes to have some sort of overall arc, motivations and stories for the character, a beginning that draws you in, a middle that keeps you engaged, and an ending that leaves you satisfied. Backrooms accomplishes the beginning and some of the middle, but fumbles the ending, doing a poor job of explaining or adding meaning to something where, ultimately, the point of the film appears to be that there is no explanation.
And if the explanation or meaning comes from things you can only know if you're a fan and have seen the shorts, then Parsons and his team have failed to adapt Backrooms into a feature-length film. You can make something for the fans, but when you have a budget in the millions and distribution from a studio, you need broad audience appeal. If the only way to walk away from Backrooms satisfied is to come in with a Wikipedia page's worth of knowledge, that is a failed adaptation, and no amount of fans yelling at the newbs is going to change that.
Backrooms
7/10
Backrooms has some truly great moments, but it's one of those shorts concepts that never should have been adapted into a feature-length film, because, much like great creature features, the longer we stay in the backrooms, and the more people try to explain it, the less interesting and scary it becomes.
Enjoyed this? Please share on social media!
Stay up-to-date and support the site by following Bleeding Cool on Google News today!
