A Cure for Wellness (2016)

Directed by Gore Verbinski [Other horror films: The Ring (2002)]

When I first saw A Cure for Wellness, I was quite impressed. I didn’t entirely understand everything that was going on, but the very fact the film is about two hours and 30 minutes yet it kept me engaged throughout was definitely a positive.

I was definitely interested in revisiting it, especially since I don’t really hear that many people speaking about this one at all. Part of that, I would suspect, is due to the film not doing well in theaters, understandably so, given the length and somewhat ambitious nature of the movie.

Even so, I found it just as engrossing this time around as I did the first time I saw it. Personally, while the narrative structure is occasionally mystifying (such as the death of the central character’s mother), I found most of the story quite enjoyable. It’s true that you could easily guess some of the twists – if you’ve seen any classic Hammer horror, it’s not too far removed – but the journey to the finale, while perhaps long-winded, was still worth seeing.

The cinematography is absolutely stellar, and a large reason I’d recommend this. A Cure for Wellness is a beautiful movie – even during some of the more horrific scenes (such as someone being tied down, a tube shoved down their throat, and eels swimming down into their body), there’s a beauty. Much of the medical facility/spa looks sparse, and even scenes with a large body of people (such as the dance toward the end) possess a certain charm to them too.

Horror-wise, you have both the oppressive feeling of being in a situation you can’t get out of, along with a more traditional element of gore. Being caught in a seemingly idyllic spa with no way to communicate to the outside world is indeed horrifying, especially when mixed with the idea that something is very wrong at the spa; not only are hallucinations plaguing the main character, but their teeth are falling out. Oh, and there seems to be a moose/deer loose in the steam rooms.

On the gorier side, there’s a stillborn calf cut out of cow – not only do a bunch of eels come out of the cow’s stomach alongside the calf, but there seems to be tiny eels moving under the stillborn calf’s skin. There’s a lot of eels in general – from a quality scene with a water tank to an unfortunate location for a young (????) woman to menstruate – you better enjoy your eely friends, as they’re everywhere. Oh, and someone gets one of their teeth drilled into, in what has to be one of the most painful scenes I’ve seen in some time.

I personally love how the story of the baron and baroness is slowly uncovered, piece by piece. It has a predictable conclusion, to be sure, and there’s really nothing that surprising during the finale, but I still think most things came together okay. I especially enjoyed the dance the staff was having, though it didn’t end that well for some of them.

I don’t really know Dane DeHaan (who also starred in Life After Beth), but despite how atrocious his character is to start with, I can’t help but sympathize with him from early on. The fact he looks like a clone of Leonardo DiCaprio helps. Jason Isaacs (of Harry Potter fame, along with roles in Event Horizon and The Patriot) is about as fun as always. Mia Goth (Marrowbone, X) didn’t have a ton of agency until the finale, but she was still quite good in her role.

For the right type of horror fan, I think that A Cure for Wellness can be a rewarding experience. Admittedly, for a movie that’s about two and a half hours long, anything less than rewarding might justifiably be criticized to Hell and back, but even so, I think there’s a lot to like here, from occasionally creepy scenes and brutal sequences of drills and teeth, to stellar cinematography and a familiar, yet interesting enough plot.

A Cure for Wellness won’t be for everyone. Personally, I think the film has a lot going for it. I find so much of it an enjoyable, if not necessarily fun, ride. It’s atmosphere is quality, and the steam rooms look comfortable. It’s not a film for everyone, but I enjoy it.

8/10

Nightworld: Lost Souls (1998)

Directed by Jeff Woolnough [Other horror films: Strange Frequency 2 (2002), The House Next Door (2006)]

Known best as just Lost Souls (if it’s known at all), this television movie didn’t reinvent the wheel, but in it’s low-budget tackling of a somewhat common story, I found the movie quite serviceable.

Now, I saw this once before many years back, and about the only thing I remembered was the conclusion, so I didn’t get to relive the surprise, but even so, I like how the film focuses on the mystery of unsolved murders and throws multiple suspects out at us, many of them feeling like real possibilities. The idea of supernatural forces from beyond the grave helping people solve an old murder isn’t new, but it was done well, and with feeling.

Communicating through an autistic girl was a nice touch, because both parents here (played by John Savage and Barbara Sukowa) got to see their daughter do more than she’s been able to do (such as sing), and though it’s just a cheap television flick, I still liked that this had heart.

On that note, the horror here isn’t nearly what many fans might be looking for. It might even feel more like a supernatural drama at times, but when you throw in mystery and the decently suspenseful conclusion, I don’t see why all that many people would have an issue seeing this as a horror film, light as it might be.

John Savage is a bigger name, though I’ve only seen him in a handful of low-budget horror movies (such as The Attic). He does pretty well here, and I love the lengths he goes through to both figure out the answer to the old crime and protect his family. His wife, played by Barbara Sukowa, didn’t nearly interest me as much, but both children (Nick Deigman and Laura Harling) are solid, with Harling’s performance perhaps being the best. Richard Lintern was pretty good too.

Nightworld: Lost Souls isn’t anything that special, but I find myself enjoying it more than expected. I definitely liked it the first time I saw this, and it’s pretty much had the same impact on me this time around. It’s not stellar as far as made-for-television horror goes, but hell, I liked it. Sue me, brahs.

8/10

This is one of the many films covered on Fight Evil’s podcast. Listen below as Chucky (@ChuckyFE) and I discuss this movie.

In a Dark Place (2006)

Directed by Donato Rotunno [Other horror films: N/A]

This would be the third time I’ve seen this film, and I have the same lukewarm reaction I did the first few times. In a Dark Place, another rendition of The Turn of the Screw (the most famous being 1961’s The Innocents) is not really a bad film. But it fails to really go above and beyond what it could have been.

The ambiguity (is it a ghost movie? are the children possessed? is our main character just losing it?) inherent in the original story certainly remains in this rendition, to the annoyance of some viewers. By the end, nothing is necessarily for certain, though I personally feel clues do lead to one central conclusion.

The acting here isn’t overly stellar, and the lesbian subplot just seems a tad odd, but I appreciate them wanting to add a little something to the story. In some ways, this feels like a slow-burner, though whether it pays off at the end is up for each viewer to decide. I’m not a giant fan of the ending, but then again, I wouldn’t have expected much else. In a Dark Place isn’t a bad movie. It’s just not that memorable.

6.5/10