A Midsummer Night's Fright shares a very similar expression of horror elements to the previous Hereditary Doom. There are no hidden heavy taste pictures at all, as well as a large area of blank background music, and the depression caused by the frequent use of long shots, as well as the eerie and cult scenes that make people feel terrifying, and the realization of the conspiracy of introducing the king into the urn. . . All of these are familiar to viewers who have watched Hereditary Doom.
However, the brilliance of the entire film is limited to this, and the film did not give fans too many surprises.
Although the time of occurrence has changed from darkness to Midsummer Night, and the story and conspiracy are relatively complete. But the core of the entire horror has not changed, and has not broken through the shackles of genetic misfortune. It feels like the same kind of story. The only difference is that the film uses the environment of Midsummer Night to cover the whole conspiracy and strange cult with a warm mask, and this hypocritical warmth continues until the end of the film.
His reversal of the plot is completely inferior to hereditary doom, but his ability to bring stamina to the audience through contrast is more than enough. It's basically the same type of horror movie.
I really like the scene where the male lead is having sex. A group of thin or ugly or old women cheer you on and sing to you when you are having sex. It is really ritualistic, and it also reflects the strange temperament and madness of the cult. But from a male perspective, does this really work?
View more about Midsommar reviews
