*this review may contain light spoilers for Backrooms*
At just 20 years old, Kane Parsons has made history with his debut feature film, Backrooms, which has broken all sorts of box office records in its opening week. The guy is younger than I am, and he has achieved a milestone in the film industry that few horror directors ever will.
This story comes fresh off of the snowballing success of 26-year-old Curry Barker’s Obsession, a film that accomplished the rare feat of having 3 consecutive weekends see an increase in money brought in at the box office. In many ways, the successes of these two directors should be celebrated.
Still, looking at the content of Backrooms itself, I only came away feeling like there was a lot to be desired. And while Barker’s Obsession did what it did in theatres by its own merit, the same cannot necessarily be said about Parsons’ Backrooms.
Until we see statistics from later on in Backrooms’ theatrical run, this remains partially speculation, but Parsons had the privilege of inheriting an IP that was always going to do good in theatres. This is not to discredit Parsons’ role in all this, especially as the man who made the Backrooms web series, but Backrooms did not need to be good, in the same way that the Five Night’s at Freddy’s movie did not need to be good – they would have financially succeeded regardless of quality.
Now, let’s step away from the principles of my review, and get into the review itself. Here, I’ll start with the good aspects of the film – of which there was no shortage.
For one, the set design here was incredible. If I were to picture the way I’d have wanted a Backrooms movie to look, this film got exceptionally close. On top of this, the dreamlike nature of the Backrooms as a concept was executed about as well as I could have imagined it, in no small part due to set and sound design.
It’s also worth noting that Chiwetel Ejiofor’s performance as the protagonist, Clark, is one that should be celebrated. Despite my gripes with Clark as a character, Ejiofor was incredible in the role that he was given.
Here is a good spot to transition into the negatives of the movie, though, because Ejiofor could have been given so much more. Backrooms, a lot more than I was expecting, became a character-driven film, largely centred on Clark’s experiences in the Backrooms. For this to be the case, Parsons entirely missed the mark with Clark’s eventual descent into madness taking place almost entirely off-screen.
I’ve seen a lot of people online explain that the Backrooms film is more of a psychological thriller experience than a straight horror film, and I disagree with this concept on two points.
For one, the concept of the Backrooms is simply just better as a pure horror film than as it was presented in this movie. At its core, the biggest strength of the concept of the Backrooms is its liminality – the application of uncanny valley to places and objects. It’s creepy in itself, and this is something that Parsons failed to capitalize on. Even amongst this film’s biggest defenders, I’ve seen the concession that Backrooms wasn’t really scary.
Secondly, I just don’t think Parsons even nailed this supposed “psychological horror” in a particularly effective way. As I mentioned before, Clark’s descent into madness happens entirely off-screen. We see him of sound mind in the Backrooms, and then it cuts to the outside world, and by the time we’re back with Clark, he’s lost his mind. There was a little bit of character development in the first act that didn’t render this entirely nonsensical, but it was still not compelling.
It is here where I will get into the grander point that I’m trying to make – the point that the title of this article is alluding to. Across all mediums, I’ve seen a recurring theme in Gen-Z art, which is that it is often experimental or abstract for the sake of it. In Backrooms, this manifests itself as a convoluted compilation of scenes. Are these scenes trying to tell a story? Maybe. Could I do 20 hours of research into Backrooms lore and understand all of this a little more? Probably. Will my opinion be met with a response that I simply don’t have the media literacy to appreciate Parson’s experimentation? Certainly.
The fact is, though, that a movie needs to be judged on its own merits. And what Backrooms showed was an experience trying to be more than it was. To me, it feels like Parsons (and several other Gen-Z artists) tried to force a masterpiece rather than letting one come naturally through the filmmaking process. This is, course, unverifiable, but it is a certain vibe that an increasing number of modern works have to them.
In contemplating this concept with a friend, I theorized that this trend is largely due to the importance placed on quantifying art in spaces like Rateyourmusic and Letterboxd within Gen-Z circles. If this is the case, it would certainly explain why there is a disconnect in how Backrooms presents itself and how I feel about it.
Backrooms is ultimately a film that I would say is worth watching. It’s creative, even if it sometimes tries too hard to be, it has awe-inspiring sets, and it has landed for others in a way that it did not for me. That alone is enough for me to recommend it.
I will end with my own version of a quote said in the movie: Backrooms is like describing experimental horror to someone who’s never seen experimental horror, and asking them to create an experimental horror film.
6/10
About The Author
