The Unborn Review
Posted by Jeremy Thomas on 01.12.2009
Jumby wants to be born now. If it means I didn't have to see this movie, then for God's sake, please let him be.
Directed by: David Goyer Written by: David Goyer
Starring: Odette Yustman - Casey Beldon Gary Oldman - Sendak Ethan Cutkosky - Barto Cam Gigandet - Mark Meagan Good - Romy Jane Alexander - Sofi Kozma James Remar - Gordon Belman Idris Elba - Arthur Wyndham C.S. Lee - Dr. Lester Caldwell Rhys Coiro - Mr. Shields Carla Gugino - Janet Beldon
Running Time: 87 minutes
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and terror, disturbing images, thematic material and language including some sexual references
David Goyer is a mind-boggling filmmaker at times in terms of the wide spectrum of his films; not in style, but in quality. The man behind the stories of such well-received films as Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and Dark City is also responsible for serious critical and commercial flops, such as Blade Trinity, The Crow: City of Angels and the made-for-TV movie Nick Fury: Agent of Shield starring none other than David Hasselhoff. It often seems as if Goyer has one good movie in him for every four or five bad ones, or perhaps that every time he puts together the story for a great one he must then, by some karmic decree, balance it out by just as much on the other side of the spectrum. With the 2008 Batman sequel pulling in accolade after accolade, including a Writer’s Guild of America nomination for Goyer and his co-writers, one wondered what his next project would be. The answer is The Unborn, a PG-13 horror film starring Odette Yustman and Gary Oldman that he both wrote and got behind the lens to direct, something he hasn’t done since Blade Trinity.
The film stars Yustman as Casey Beldon, a college girl living with her father (Remar). Casey’s mother was institutionalized when she was young and ended up committing suicide by hanging herself, something that Casey is still dealing with. Casey finds herself, while baby-sitting one night, plagued with a strange dream of a young, disturbing boy (Cutkosky). When a creepy event with the children leaves Casey hit in the face with a mirror, she starts to develop a discoloration in her cornea. As the strange dreams continue, other things start to happen; she starts seeing the weird boy all over the place in ominous ways and mirrors start to act up. She eventually comes upon a secret from her father; she was a twin, and her brother died in the womb. Casey becomes convinced that she is being haunted by the ghost of her unborn brother, and that it was what caused her mother to commit suicide. As she investigates further, dark secrets emerge and she turns to the skeptical Rabbi Sendak (Oldman) for help. But can Sendak, Casey and her boyfriend Mark (Gigandet) stop this all before it is too late?
David Goyer is a talented writer; that much cannot be denied. Even some of his worst films, such as The Crow: City of Angels have come from interesting ideas that were poorly executed. The Unborn is the culmination of that flaw in Goyer’s work. While the writer/director has some very interesting ideas, they are executed on film and in the script in such an inept, painfully bad way that it completely misses the mark. Goyer has drawn heavily from Jewish mysticism, an untapped reservoir of supernatural stories and myth, to create the script, but in attempting to make such an esoteric subject accessible to a PG-13 audience he dumbs it down to the lowest common denominator of bizarre-looking contortions of life and jump scares. One of the reasons The Exorcist worked so well as a horror film is that it took the Judeo-Christian ideal of demons and stayed as faithful as possible to the old tales and the history of exorcisms in Catholicism without trying to turn it into a shallow jump-scare laden film. In Goyer’s film the images are bizarre, but with the exception of a legitimately creepy human contortion that has been already been plastered over posters and trailers, it’s so off-key as to be laughable—which, indeed, the audience in the theater does do. In the meantime, Goyer is largely incompetent as a director here. From the opening moments where a dream sequence does little to frighten, through the early part of the film where he seems more interested in showing Yustman in a skimpy top and panties, Goyer seems to be more than willing to pander to a crowd wanting nothing more than quick “boo!” moments and flashes of skin. It’s a complete disservice to a fascinating concept of the ghost as a Jewish demon, known as a dybbuk, that seeks re-entry into this world.
Along the way, he creates cardboard characterizations for everyone but a few key characters such as Casey, Sendak and Sofi Kozma (Alexander), a Holocaust survivor that factors into the back story. Yes, that’s correct; besides the ghost, the Fuhrer’s folk turn up. When Nazis show up in horror, as previously seen in Exorcist: The Beginning or 1983’s The Keep, you know to be worried, because they're usually there just to give the filmmaker justification for saying "very very bad things happened, and that's why everything's scary now!" Unfortunately here, by the time they show up, you’re already well past the point of worrying and are either laughing or checking your watch to see how long it is until the movie is over. Goyer should be given some credit for trying to hold some reasonable elements of authenticity of exorcisms, but even that is bowled over by being far too short of a segment before we get into an action-filled yet boring climax. One thing that he absolutely must be given credit for, and I say this one without any caveats involved, is that despite the PG-13 rating it never feels sanitized for our protection. He manages to create a film that feels it earns its horror status without tossing in the liberal amounts of gore, blood and sex. Goyer certainly deserves some level of praise for that, and I’ll gladly give it to him…even if that’s about the only praise he’ll earn here.
The shallow characters aren’t given much of a lift by the acting either, as Yustman spends most of the early parts of the film in her underwear with a vacant expression and the rest of it screaming and Meagan Good doing the snotty-yet-superstitious best friend role absolutely no favors. Gary Oldman is good enough, but he’s still sleepwalking his way through this performance compared to his excellent work in scores of other movies. Poor Jane Alexander is given the extremely unenviable task of delivering the cringingly bad (and in poor taste, I might add) line of “You must finish what was started in Auschwitz” with some sort of emotional depth, and at least she somewhat succeeds. Goyer absolutely wastes two very talented actors in James Remar and Carla Gugino, whose appearances collectively make about ten minutes worth of the movie. Meanwhile, Cam Gigandet, recently seen as the villainous James in Twilight, manages to hold down the role of boyfriend Mark with at least some level of engagement and charm, making his performance, while hardly great, one of the better ones in the film.
Goyer unfortunately doesn’t seem to understand what makes a great horror film. He knows what sells trailers, certainly, as there are more than enough creepy moments, jump-scares, and hot young adults to put together a worthwhile two and a half minute advertisement. Unfortunately, the remaining eighty-four and a half minutes are full of some of the greatest horror clichés and predictable moments known to cinema and poor attention to detail. When Casey is jogging along in the morning to open the film, you almost immediately know that she’s in a dream sequence. He rams all of the elements that have stunk up horror for the years into one; the Americanized version of J-Horror creepy kid (but it’s a boy this time, so it's original, see?), the stupid decisions made by the characters—I swear I’ve never seen so many people react to lights going out by venturing into the darkest corners before—the aforementioned Nazi element, the countless gaps in logic, the need to explain everything, the terrible twist at the end. At the end, the audience walks away feeling like they’ve seen several of the worst horror movies of the year all crammed into one. One hopes that Goyer has found a story editor on his next script—which, by the way, is X-Men Origins: Magneto—who can take his interesting ideas and make something great out of them. Otherwise, X-Man fans should be far more scared then anyone walking out of this movie where I attended it ended up being.
The 411: Every January, there is an automatic early contender for the worst film of the year. In 2008, it was Meet the Spartans; in 2009, it is The Unborn. While not nearly as bad as Spartans, David Goyer's film is a very interesting idea that gets hamstringed by terrible plot twists, horrible dialogue, and shallow exploration of the concept. The performances, with the possible exception of Cam Gigandet and Gary Oldman, match the script and help to deliver a horror film that somehow manages to match last year's worst scare filck, Prom Night.
From the Co-Writer of The Dark Knight lol what a tool
Posted By: Guest#1120 (Guest) on January 12, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Only scary part about this piece of shit was when I woke up in the middle of the night, saw that my wallet was on the floor open, and when I looked inside my 8 bucks was gone. Seeing Odette Yustman's camel toe did make for a movie moment though.
Posted By: Wells (Guest) on January 12, 2009 at 12:25 AM
At least the girl is hot.
Posted By: Guest#8429 (Guest) on January 12, 2009 at 03:33 AM
You say, " Every January, there is an automatic early contender for the worst film of the year", then give 2 examples, one being the movie you're reviewing. If you're gonna make a statement using "Every January", you should give more than just 2 examples.
Posted By: matrix1004 (Guest) on January 12, 2009 at 09:08 AM
I knew this movie would suck, after all, I'm not afraid of anything that hasn't been born yet.
Posted By: Duncan (Guest) on January 12, 2009 at 10:42 AM
I don't get all the negativity towards this movie. I went to it with a couple of friends and while I didn't jump to much I didn't see much wrong with it either.
Posted By: Evan (Guest) on January 12, 2009 at 02:37 PM
Hey Csonka, nice review. Even worse than your usually wrestling nonsense. I pity any children you have emparted knowledge to.
Posted By: LOL (Guest) on January 12, 2009 at 02:40 PM
You forgot one other thing Goyer deserves credit for: giving us our money's worth.
Seriously, where else will you find a movie where 84 minutes goes by like 240?
That's some movie magic for you -- the man stretched time itself to make your money go further.
This movie sucked. Bad. They ineptly combined elements from much better movies, didn't have any scares except for "BOO!" jump scares (which were telegraphed to a ridiculous degree), and had so many holes in the plot that I could use it to strain spaghetti.
Just a few things that bugged me (not necessarily all plot holes, but all of them were stupid):
- What the hell was the point of the baby/mirror deal? If the demon just wanted inside of the girl, what did the baby have to do with it?
- What the hell was the point of the film strip, except to provide a single lame "scare"?
- Who the hell shot the film strip?
- So, it turns out that Jumby didn't want to be born. So, why the hell did the kid spend the first half of the movie saying he did? And then, once she found out that was the nickname of her brother, the name was never mentioned again.
- If this demon can jump from person to person, why is it so intent on possessing her? It seems plenty powerful without her.
Ugh. So much brain hurt.
This movie sucks. HARD. I can't agree with the review more.
Posted By: Jimbob Jones (Guest) on January 12, 2009 at 06:03 PM
I take offence to this movie at one point of my life i was an unborn baby...
Posted By: 411 manias enemy (Guest) on January 14, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Here's for the douche who said 2 examples aren't enough. We all know there are shitty January releases, here's a few
2007: Epic Movie, The Hitcher
2006: Grandma's Boy, Big Momma's House 2
2005: White Noise, Alone in the Dark, Hide and Seek
2004: My Baby's Daddy, Along Came Polly
2003: Kangaroo Jack, Final Destination 2, Biker Boyz
Those are just the worst of the worst. There are others like Hostel, You Got Served, Stomp The Yard, Hoodwinked and others I left off the list. January is a crappy month for releases because there are always awesome movies released, but then a bunch of stinkers. There's rarely a "ho-hum" movie released in January. It's feast or famine.
Posted By: beezy (Guest) on January 14, 2009 at 02:17 PM
Woah woah woah, Grandma's Boy was great, don't you dare lump it in with all that other shit.
Posted By: Guest#9799 (Guest) on January 14, 2009 at 04:32 PM
This movie was trash.
It's not often that I totally blackout when watching a flick, but this was one of those times. I mean, if I could take this flick and put it in pill form, I could do away with my Ambien prescript *easily*.
Posted By: Mobilemoll (Guest) on January 17, 2009 at 11:55 PM
YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING... I LOVE GRANDMA'S BOY!
Posted By: Kwick (Guest) on January 19, 2009 at 03:02 PM
You dumba** that find they need to post examples of other "bad" January releases.
Many of those movies where extremely popular, and well liked by many other than just the "movie critic".
Many of them have gone on and had better careers then you will ever have, so STFU and let people create their own opinions.
(Personally, I liked quite a few of those movies you listed)
Posted By: Billy Bob (Guest) on January 19, 2009 at 06:44 PM
Yo, went to see this movie on saturday, its shit, only bit that made me jump was the train that flashed onto the screen and screeched. lol, waste of £7 :/
Posted By: Dom (Guest) on March 02, 2009 at 07:17 AM
people who find this scary are lassies
Posted By: keiran (Guest) on March 17, 2009 at 08:08 AM
this was a crap film.
all i have to say
Posted By: amy-rose (Guest) on May 11, 2009 at 08:50 AM
it was shocking how absolutly shit this film was. considering most films scare me i dont think i jumped once it was just pathetic. There was nothing in this film that made me want to see it again, the fact that the main actress was pretty much naked all the way through was plain embarresing, its obvious the only reason they allowed her to be wearing hardly any clothes is so at least the men going to watch this film will have a reason to stay and FINISH the film, even the story line was rubbish and predictable, i thought the whole point about sending the dead child away was that there had to be lots of people there to read the 'spell' or whatever it was, so when they were all killed one by one surely the 'spell' wouldn work? just ridiculous really!
Posted By: lisa (Guest) on May 12, 2009 at 09:29 AM