3 out of 5

Directed by: Corin Hardy

This is really just a dash above tolerably entertaining, enough to make it a worthwhile viewing but with plenty of “as long as you ignore this…” caveats.

There’s a very clear intent to Hallow, because it kicks in early in the movie: to make a (seemingly) mostly practical-effects creature feature flick, and to not make it PG-13.  When the creatures begin their assault upon our two leads – Adam and Clare (Joseph Mawle and Bojana Novakovic), the two big-city Londoners who’ve moved to rural Ireland in order to mess with local lore with their ignorant big-cityness – it’s pretty much non-stop from then on out, and Hardy gets in our face with impressive costumes, ooky sets, and lovely body-disfiguring makeup.  And while this intention was very much appreciated during the scenes that highlighted it (which admittedly take up the bulk of the film), it kept nagging me that I felt like none of it had really been earned.  In the same way that we malign Grand Guignol horror for just taking joy in evisceration without establishing character, the same can absolutely be true for more “serious” horror fare.  The couple has moved to their Irish cottage so that Adam – a tree doc of sorts – may study a local fungus; the locals cast judging glares ’cause you shouldn’t be messin’ none in them woods due to… The Hallow.  And one or two sentences are allotted to explaining the folklore surrounding The Hallow.  But this is done in very general gestures that feel like Hardy was annoyed he even had to establish a setting.  The Hallow?  You get it, right?  Okay… here they are…  And sure enough, we get going.

Which, as mentioned, works.  For the most part.  There’s some editing frustrations, as Hardy moves the camera and cuts a lot; there are several technical reasons we can suppose this was done, but again, it feels like a film split between two mentalities: brooding build-up and balls-to-the-wall horror thriller.  There’s simply no hesitation to show our baddies, but only for split seconds, and often framed in such a way that it’s occasionally confusing as to what you’re intended to focus on.  We absolutely get the gist of the shot because we understand the cues, but the actual visuals don’t always sync up with that gist.  I also haven’t mentioned the couple’s child, which of course is desired by The Hallow.  I haven’t mentioned it because it also feels incidental, despite being a central plot element.  Clare ends up toting the thing around and screaming a lot, and, once again, I found the tone here uneven: is it a protect-the-baby flick or an I-don’t-want-to-die flick?

All of the ambivalence in tone is well summarized by the movie’s “aftermath” shots, panning over the wreckage: these shots are done to give us a look back on our ordeal, to slow down and reflect at the damage wreaked in the wake of our film.  And in The Hallow, it has no context.  I felt no ordeal, I just felt like I’d watched some cool creature feature footage for about 40 minutes, because everything else was just there to prop that up.  You can go this route, of course, but that Hardy was clearly attempting to mush in some mythology and drama to things muddies the possibility that that was the intention.  However: look at that rating.  I didn’t hate my time with The Hallow, I was just surprised at how empty it was.  It’s still fun, as long as you don’t invest anything in the characters or story, and it successfully delivers some unique and creepy creatures, along with some nice R-rated body horror, which we all know we love.