Daniel: Somehow I went into this not realizing it was an anthology film. Aside from the title and knowing it was labeled horror and would have some kind of supernatural element, I knew nothing. The opening shot of the countryside is gorgeous and the music by Benjamin Symons I think is fantastic from that very start. From those vibes I figured this would be some sort of folk horror. And as the credits rolled over the opening scene/dialogue there was nothing obvious to say “this is the start of an anthology wraparound”…
Shaun: I also found myself surprised by the setup. The anthology format is hardly new to horror, as I’m sure you (and our mutual Skiffy friend David) well know. The film that Lore immediately brought to mind was Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983), but unlike that somewhat controversial anthology film, Lore‘s setup is a story unto itself. Our band of young thrill seekers believe they’re on a new and unique horror adventure into the woods not realizing they might be part of something else. What that is could be a creepy old man’s story, a cleverly craft bit, or possibly a horror unto itself. This is probably my favorite part of the film: its frame narrative. And that frame – a group of thrill seekers telling ghost stories around the campfire – made me think of another horror anthology in TV form: Are You Afraid of the Dark? (1992-2000; 2019-2022). However, turning that frame into something more than just people telling stories is, I think, where this film offers an interesting deviation. Wholly original? No idea. But interesting nonetheless.
Daniel: I completely agree with that all, and that’s another thing that surprised me about Lore, that I loved the frame story wrap-around. Normally it’s the structural part of anthology films that I find not holding up on its own, of being forgettable in place of holding up the main stories featured. Like you say, here it becomes an interesting link to all the stories, and nostalgically creepy/enjoyable in its own right. A good chunk of that success also comes from Welsh actor Richard Brake, a horror staple who will be familiar to fans of Rob Zombie’s horror movies. Here he is playing Darwin, that old man who runs this mysterious haunted experience in the woods, “a once-in-a-lifetime experience [that] will stay with [those thrill-seekers] for a lifetime.” He gets some great lines. With his sinister smile and chuckle he introduces the characters – and we the audience – to what will go on at this haunted experience. The tour has a custom within these woods, land where over three thousand ancient bodies of unknown origin were found buried by archaeologists. Each member of the tour takes a wooden totem from Darwin, burns it within a fire, and tells their ghost story, a fable that haunts them, a tale to feed the dead, the evil. This opening, the intervening segments, and the conclusion just perfectly capture a spooky atmosphere for this time of year. With the first totem tossed in, the first tour attendee begins his tale: “Shadows”.
Shaun: I think the more interesting thing about Richard Brake’s performance is not that sinister smile he is known for but the atmosphere he creates before and after each of the tales. For me, the film was most compelling in these moments because we, the audience, are on a similar journey as the characters. Is he for real? Or is this just an act? I figured out the answer before the end, but it was fun feeling like I was on the same thrill experience as everyone else.
As for the first of the stories, “Shadows,” I thought it was an interesting way to set the tone and form of our stories. These are reflective of what you’d experience around the campfire: stories that have a theme or plot but might be a bit rough around the edges. We don’t tell perfect tales in oral storytelling, after all. “Shadows” is probably the most complete and tonally consistent of the four for me. Here we get Daniel (hey, it’s you) played by Primeval alum Andrew Lee Potts (who remains adorable) who is being chased by a pair of gang muscles (Steven Blades as Terry, and Daniel-John Williams as Barry). While hiding in a warehouse, he is seemingly rescued by some kind of twisted, monstrous creature. What follows is your typical horror monster survival story, but one that I thought was particularly well acted by Potts, who is believably terrified and desperate. I won’t ruin the ending – the twist is genuinely interesting – but I will say that I enjoyed this tale the most.
Daniel: The brief disappointment that I felt for leaving the campfire story gave way to my being drawn into “Shadows.” I think it’s because it starts mid-action with a simple setup, and, as you say, the acting is really compelling. As the story is revealed to be a monster or ‘creature feature’, I was glad to see they weren’t shying away from a bit of gore and balancing the seeing of the horror/monster with moments where that is merely glimpsed or implied. The other chapters that follow continue that balance well also. I did find the ending of this story to be the most compelling, and so I would agree with “Shadows” being the most complete of all the stories in Lore. However, I think that each of them are equally tonally consistent within themselves. It’s just that each story has a unique tone and draws of course from a particular sub-genre or trope of horror.
The second story, “The Hidden Woman,” switches things to the Haunted House corner of horror. From the opening shot of the house, we’re clear on the basic story and tropes we should expect here. Hannah (Jennifer K. Preston) and her son Charlie (Theo Preston) move into this creepy home that they’ve inherited from her mother. They soon find they aren’t alone there.
While gothic haunted house/ghost stories might be my very favorite setting for horror, I felt that the “The Hidden Woman” suffers from adhering too strongly to standard tropes and expectations from the gradual reveal of activity to the jump scares, and an ending that doesn’t quite satisfy. The backstory is kept minimal, making the nature of the ghost (and the reasons for Hannah not knowing much about her mother or the home) unclear and underdeveloped. Yet, director Patrick Michael Ryder puts flashback shots atop dialogue near the end of the story – of a scene that just occurred minutes before – as if the audience is too stupid or forgetful to make connections to what just happened.
Despite this, I did adore the jerky motion of the ghost’s dance up the stairs and through the halls. This type of disquieting visual isn’t new to horror – J-horror has done it really well – but it is performed here by physical human talent: contortionist Jordaine Lincoln, rather than computer effects.
Shaun: I had similar reactions to “The Hidden Woman” as you, though I also found this to be the weakest of the four entries. Sure, the contortionist work is a fun horror idea, but it doesn’t seem connected to anything else in the story and only appears when the story needs to ramp up the tension. What is it actually adding, though, that a creepy dead-looking ghost woman doesn’t already give us by default? There were also coherence and acting issues here that made the story land more with a thud for me. The performances felt the most stilted, and the logic of the ghost woman’s disappearances when disturbed by the mother seemed confused. Can the ghost be disturbed by a light turning on OR does the light only matter when convenient to the plot? Here, I’d have preferred the consistency of Supernatural‘s salt shots.
You mentioned tone, and here I think we get one of the biggest shifts as we move from “The Hidden Woman” to “Cross Your Heart.” Creepy horror to creepy comedy (almost parody). A big part of that is the presence of Rufus Hound (as Steve), best known for his glorious mustache game and numerous comedy appearances. This was rather jarring at first. While the frame narrative has elements of comedy, it is tonally *not* a comedy and frequently reminds us that, at least from Darwin’s performance, this is much serious. And that jarring-ness made it so I didn’t enjoy this story all that much until I started thinking back to it while putting together responses for this post. Some of my favorite horror anthology programs and films turn over into comedy, and there must be a good reason for it. For me, that reason is practical: a complete horror story has to have build-up and release (catharsis), but a short horror story has to do that in a truncated timeframe. Since horror tends to push the limits of comfort, repeating that process over and over might result in a more negative reaction. So instead, we get a bit of comedic horror relief where the terror and gore is twisted to another purpose.
I’m saying all this without mentioning the plot of “Cross Your Heart”: Steve (Rufus Hound) is an unfaithful, boorish man who has convinced his wife, Cath (Katie Sheridan), to keep their marriage alive by turning to the world of swingers. It’s clear from the start that Cath doesn’t want to be there and Steve has mentally manipulated her into this. Naturally, Steve doesn’t get the happy ending he was hoping for – or, really, any happy ending. The woman Steve has arranged an evening with turns out to be rather violent. As with the first story, there’s a twist here, and it’s a pretty fun twist. Also: all of this sounds very serious – and it is – but the way it is shot and the performance Hound presents here is almost parodic, with Steve coming across like a caricature of a very real kind of man. We’re not supposed to like him, but I also think we’re supposed to root for something bad to happen to him in a way that is darkly funny. And, well, it does…
Daniel: Yes! I actually watched through Lore twice because I had first watched it a long time before we were able to get to the review for the blog. The first time I viewed “Cross Your Heart” I was thrown off by it for all the reasons you talk about. But upon the rewatch and thinking about it more, the more brilliant I found it as parody, and how it just goes full on into gleeful craziness with the final scene. By its conclusion it reminded me of some of the best successes that American Horror Story has had in creating things that are bat-shit zany with over-the-top performances and a recognizable style. The subgenre of horror that I’d say this belongs to also matches something that AHS has tackled a few times as well.
I also enjoyed on the rewatch that there’s all sorts of ironic foreshadowing in Steve’s lines at the beginning, but viewers are so focused on how he’s being such a blatant arse, that their minds don’t necessarily go in the directions this story soon will. This is the first story told within the campfire wrap-around where the story teller does not give the actual title of their tale. We’re just given the setting of a ‘cheap hotel.’ So, everything here comes as even more of a surprise.
The final campfire tale before Lore closes out its wraparound plot-line is also one without any title provided by the character telling it. She simply refers to ‘Hollywood trailers.’ Three friends enter into a cinema complex excited to see a movie together. They head up to the concession counter to order food from Gareth (Finbar Healy), an extremely tall man whose name tag rests pinned to his shirt on display, but whose head remains high above the other characters, out of frame. When Gareth has trouble with the registers, he calls his boss for help, whereupon the supervisor angrily berates Gareth for repeated incompetence. Gareth’s bad day of suffering abuse continues until he can bear no more and snaps. Horror fans should know what’s coming in this story that the credits name “The Keychain Man.”
Armed with a makeshift weapon, Gareth picks up a mask from the movie display and uses it to cover the face we still haven’t seen. And so we find Lore concludes with a slasher, a gore fest of inventive movie-theater kills (including by popcorn machine.) Like “The Hidden Woman,” “The Keychain Man” sticks firmly to the standard expectations and tropes of its subgenre. But here with a slasher, sticking to the familiar can successfully be done with a carefree atmosphere and no need of subtlety. The crazy blood bath that follows works well, with a bit of absurdist comedy to the entire set up and Gareth’s transformation into The Keychain Man. A comedian by trade, Finbar Healy works well in this due to his physical height and voice, but also his timing, which helps bring the violence of this entry far enough away from disturbing seriousness to make it something people can feel comfortable enjoying.
Shaun: I’ll add here that “The Keychain Man” is rather self-aware of both the tropes on display and the way those tropes would interact with the conditions of contemporary Britain. Both “Cross Your Heart” and “The Keychain Man” offer socio-political meanings that have cross-generational appeal, though the way technology plays a role here seemed rather interesting to me. I thought back to Scream and other self-aware horror films of the turn of the century, where the camcorder might have played a role in providing evidence for what was really going on. Here, that role is filled by the cell phone, which is not necessarily an original idea by any stretch but still a nice touch that I think might otherwise have been left out without that self-awareness. For example: when one of the characters must hide in a women’s restroom, he’s beset upon by a woman employee who immediately berates him and calls him out for making up stories. His hastily recorded video of Gareth murdering someone ends up providing proof that he’s not a creeper but legitimately trying to hide. It’s a funny scene, but it’s also one that made me think that this sort of thing will only be believable for maybe another decade before it’ll be possible to fake this footage on your phone. Will this mean reverting back to the evidence of experience of earlier slashers?
From here, we probably can’t say much beyond our general thoughts about the movie. There’s more, but you have to see the movie to know what it is!
Honestly, I thought this was a fun and engaging anthology film. Certainly, it has rough edges and doesn’t do anything new or different with its horror elements. As you’ve pointed out, Daniel, much of this film sticks to the clichés of horror. Sometimes, that works in its favor. Other times, it can feel a little basic. It’s also a film that, for me, was sometimes incomplete in a way that left me a little unsatisfied in parts. However, I’m not sure I can fault the film for adhering to the realism of its frame narrative. If you’ve ever been around a campfire telling scary stories, you’ll know that they’re not perfectly constructed. From a viewer’s perspective, this may create a flatness in some of the stories – and I certainly felt that for at least one of the stories. But if we’re going to be honest here: this is a fun way to tell four very different ghost stories while keeping them connected to something. Without that, it’s just a collection of short films. To me, that’s far less interesting.
Daniel: That’s a great point you mention there at the end. Anthology films will typically have different segments that appeal to different fans, so they can be hit or miss. But anthologies that manage to keep an interesting coherence rather than just being a loosely-linked collection of random bits will be far more successful. Lore ends up being greater as the sum of its individual parts, so that even if there were sections that I enjoyed less than others, the overall film was something I enjoyed and felt fine watching again. Each story felt like a tale that would be told around the campfire in the situation of the wrap-around plot, even if they were a little flat at times, as you say Shaun.
I began this by talking about how much I enjoyed the wrap-around, including its conclusion. Effort was put into making it a complete tale in and of itself. The only thing I found odd regarding its conclusion were the participants’ missing cell phones the morning after the campfire tales. I’m unclear of the significance of including this detail and moment. It slightly heightens the strangeness for the characters in the day after, but it already seems odd enough with Darwin’s departure.
Lore is an anthology horror that I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel for; this should be picked up for a service like Shudder regardless. The mix of horror genres within it make it work well for broad appeal, and the basic wrap-around plot certainly could continue in future installments.
If David ever ends up seeing this, I think he’d have interesting thoughts as well, particularly in putting it in more context with the large realm of horror anthology films. And for Skiffy & Fanty horror fans, when you check it out, let us know what you think.
Disclosure: We received a complimentary screener for this film from its distributor.
