It is rare that I come across a film I just outright don’t really like. Many people have called this a flaw, and I’ve been told to explore being a bit more critical of the media I’m consuming. Lately, though, I’ve felt a somewhat jarring shift in the usual balance when it comes to film interpretation and comprehension. I used to feel like everyone else was so harsh in their takes (sometimes, I still do - people work very hard on these things!) but I’m starting to have more experiences where I’m hearing everyone stand up at the credits saying “that was great!” and replying “sooo great” back to their seat mates while I look around wondering if we just saw the same movie.
The most recent example of this was my viewing of Curry Barker’s Obsession. Not only have my social media feeds been bombarded by marketing and influencer outreach plants claiming this film to be the “next great horror classic”, but I sat in a sold out theater with an audience that seemed to gush about their love for it all the way back to their parking spots. I felt lost, and maybe a little out of touch. Was this supposed to be what is expected of horror now? Is this really what the new classics are? Am I too old to enjoy what’s meant to be standard from here on out? Is it because I’ve had stalker experiences in my life and would’ve appreciated a bit of a different lens on the films subject matter?
And still, simultaneously, I can’t deny that there are elements to this film that I did appreciate. I’ve argued in the past that some of the best films are ones that just continue a dialogue after they’re over - movies that give you plenty to riff back and forth on, good or bad. Does that mean it’s a good movie, in my usual opinion’s logic? I can’t give a definitive yes, even though I do tend to enjoy ones that can give me a sense of disappointment while still intriguing me. I can, however, lay out these particular things that stood out to me, both hopeful for and unmoved by. Let’s start with…
What’s Wrong.
As stated above, one of the biggest mimicked review points I’ve seen so far around this film is that it’s an “instant horror classic”. One of my biggest frustrations here is that I find it exceedingly difficult to accept it taking that title, when it references no true classic and yet still tells a story we’ve heard a million times before in episodes of Twilight Zone, Tales from the Crypt, and more. If it isn’t genuinely a new concept, or a clear love letter to true classics, what is it that makes it that deserving of this amount of praise? Much like our “protagonist” Bear, the influences here do not stretch past 8 years ago and are mirroring an authenticity that isn’t based in respect for the groundbreakers, catering to fans who like the idea of what being seen as a horror fan gives them - some sort of clout in being the first to see the newest thing and get the popcorn bucket (or, in this case, One Wish Willow replica).
How the clear nods come into play here, which for me do not equate to the playful back and forth references between directors like Carpenter & Craven, feel more like Blumhouse attempting to reheat A24’s Hereditary leftovers. It’s clear in the lighting, the color palette, the anxiety-ridden downer-popping sad boy. It’s just not done with much new juice added, kind of like an electrified frankensteins monster of comedy central heyday content, Goosebumps-branded consequences, and a slight dash of rotten.com visuals. It’s weird to hear the actors referencing newer films like Pearl as inspiration when asked about it in interviews. All of these vibes are too new to be attempting to repackage and sell as a shiny new car.
This further gives me concern knowing Barker will be taking on the next Texas Chainsaw remake, and has referenced not the original film, but the much newer remakes when asked about his vision for the rebrand. I think he did some fun splatter exploration here with Obsession, but I worry about that potential of a repackaged last season version of Leatherface.
What I do think he would really succeed with is digging into any of the above mentioned Aesop’s Fables-like horror shows of the 90s. He clearly has a connection to stories with a darkly comedic twist or catch involved, and based on the flow of Obsession, I do think it could be a pairing similar to Osgood Perkins taking on Stephen King’s The Monkey (aka, a match made in heaven for our silly viewing pleasure). He and the Cryptkepper would be a chef’s kiss kind of moment, and a fitting playground for his comedic horror perspective.
And now, we arrive at the (cat?) meat of it all.
(Likely spoilers from here, so maybe stop reading if you haven’t seen it yet?).
How this story is pieced together, and who it centers leaves a lot to be desired. I’m sure if you’re even reading this, you’ve probably already seen a handful of articles titled something like “Who’s the REAL VILLAIN in OBSESSION?” - yeah, me too. While it’s obvious that Nikki is being abused throughout and is of course a victim here, the film also never really sells you a hero.
Even Nikki is frankly, not that kind at the beginning of the film when she’s her true self. She’s somewhat belittling to Bear, talks over him on the phone, and has a very indirect way of addressing what her intentions are (particularly in the initial car scene, where it plays out like a cat and mouse game of dialogue suggesting she could either secretly have feelings for him or very much wants a boundary of not crossing the friendship line).
Their coworker friends are equally lackluster in their support of Bear’s desire to talk to Nikki about his feelings, and at points even manipulative by withholding information (like the fact that Ian had slept with Nikki already) or pushing established boundaries (like Sarah asking Bear to leave the house in the middle of the night to meet her).
Then, there is our main character himself. Bear is not very good at taking responsibility in navigating his life. While many of the situational aspects of his experience are undoubtedly sad, he also isn’t doing much to change the shape he’s in. He would rather feel jaded staring at Nikki’s instagram all night than have a heart to heart with her, much in the same fashion that he would breathlessly say “How’d she get into these” when his cat overdoses on medicine instead of proactively ensuring they’d be in an inaccessible spot in the first place. He’s very much on the dopamine-deprived mindless scrolling option of existence.
It’s similar to another film released this year that I couldn’t really give much care to - The Drama. The real victim is us, the audience, being subjected to seeing kind of insufferable characters bicker on screen for 2 hours, without much of a satisfying conclusion from it.
Alright, I’m landing back at the “how it’s pieced together” bit I mentioned before, then we can get onto the positives. I think the biggest complaint I have is that I don’t view this story as a horror story when we are guided through it from the POV of the physical abuser. I think having Bear centered in this story lessens the deeply unsettling impact that Nikki’s POV could have given us. Had we a solid scene of the sense of being woken up, fade up from black, Nikki’s eyes flickering open in a horrified realization that she has no control over her body, zero autonomy, and it’s because of someone she viewed as safe made her that way? Chills. We get barely two scenes where the authentic Nikki states her true condition to us - basically giving the audience nearly zero relatable connection to her, instead opting for a slew of visual gags to signal “Crazy Nikki” is terrorizing Bear and his friends (including weirdly out-of-place scurrying body movements and jump scares you’d be more apt to see in a free Steam Game). It’s giving that old familiar feeling of girls being carelessly labeled as crazy bitches and "chill boys have it SO hard" ideology.
You know what would have been radical to see? Inner-Nikki scream-crying inside of Outer-Nikki while she shoved Sarah’s face into the steering wheel - I simply find it much more scary to think about the trapped, no control Nikki witnessing all of this in a locked state compared to Bear sort of just…getting what he asked for because he’s never read a story about a wish gone wrong in his life. Like, hello, have you never seen the episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer where Xander makes every female in the world obsessed with him?!
*Deep Breath* Okay, palette cleanser, everybody! I told you there were some pros to balance out these cons and I am ready to dish them.
What’s Right.
The real stars of this movie are the Special FX makeup artists. From making Bear appear to be a sweaty spaghetti mess through the entirety of its runtime to that insane smashed-in Sarah corpse, this team absolutely nailed it. It’s a shame that their gore isn’t more prominent throughout the beginning and middle, but you can’t deny their shining work in the last third of the film. I hope to see much more work from them in the future - shout to their Makeup Department Head, Allie Shehorn!
I admire that Curry Barker put a lot of himself into bringing this to life. Finding out that he also edited the film, as well as learning his mother is an artist and helped influence the One Wish Willow packaging, were really heart-expanding to discover. I hope that he continues to utilize his gut instincts in how a story should flow, and relying on those closest to him to help envision the whole. Similar to my initial disdain around Talk to Me becoming moot upon viewing the incredible Bring Her Back, I have high hopes that whatever he cooks up next flips my script and gives me a new director to be stoked on.
Ultimately, I will admit that I think the film will serve as a solid time capsule to reflect on our currently desperate and underwhelming era. We are not at the exciting birth of disco or color television or access to porn and video nasties via the internet in the year 2026 - we’ve seen it all and are more focused on suppressing the anxieties-of-the-day and boringness we oscillate between in a society drained of nuance, “newness”, or risk taking. It paints the picture of a generation of muted, amalgamations of our former boundary pushers repackaged for the new, chronically online audience. That’s not solely because of my feelings around the marketing campaign or its too-early-to-mimic influences, but also present in the side characters throughout the actual story. Its reflection of the new generation and its baked in apathy because of prior generations not owning their shit or making anything better - from the gen-z stare counter clerks to the help line operator - is a clear depiction of the current temperature society’s working with. Nobody gives a fuck about your self-made issues, and they actually do expect you to own your own shit by now…like, you know, taking the time to consider whether or not any love wish or spell has ever worked out well for anyone in the history of ever before breaking a spooky kids toy in half.
The Studio Marketing of it All.
Cinephile society seems to be drinking the Big Studio Kool-aid as of late. It reminds me of this interview I recently saw from Matthew McConaughey discussing when he got his first really nice place, afforded from an acting gig, and quickly realized he didn’t need all the bells and whistles attached. He simply said YES to it because he had been given the option. It wasn’t based on actually liking it, but when you’re starved for something, you’ll accept anything that seems like it’s new to you and a bit flashy. Are we really impressed by this film, or are we playing into a studio that hands out little memorabilia pieces like suckers after a shot? Sure, you got the collectible. You got to make take a photo by the cardboard cut-out and post it on your Stories. Was it to feed into a views system that generates buzz for something the studio sees as needing a boost from “viral” campaigning, or because you truly back it? Do you think the mock "on the street" interviews with Inde Navarrette leaning into the "crazy ex" personality with her answers is playful camp, or do you see it as a perpetuation of a stereotype because drama gets butts in seats? In other words, are we accepting this trend of campaigning focus over film content totally based on what it says about you as a movie-goer to enjoy this film, what it says about your personality, your merit, simply because mass marketing is telling us it’s the film fan thing to do?
I don’t know. I can’t answer that question for you. It’s sort of an individual thing, and it takes sitting with yourself to pick your truth out.
If you liked Obsession, I genuinely love that for you. If you didn’t, I would like to remove the shame and let you know you’re not alone.
Either way, for now, have a nice day & watch something good.