You know what the hardest part of writing these reviews is? Coming up with the opening paragraphs. I don't like just going into the plot summary cold, so I try to start things off with a piece of trivia or a (hopefully) interesting anecdote that's at least tangentially related to the film that's being reviewed. In the case of today's movie, Temple, however, I've got nothing. So have this meta-commentary on the topic instead.
In a hospital in Japan, a heavily-bandaged man in a wheelchair-cum-oxygen tent setup is being interviewed by what might be the Japanese police. He is one of three American tourists (we never really find out who, but it's a pretty fair bet it's not Kate, the woman of the trio) who were on vacation to explore old Shinto temples and rituals. There's the aforementioned Kate, her boyfriend James, and Kate's long-time friend Chris, who is both the translator for them on this holiday and, were told awkwardly at the start, recovering from a recent mental breakdown. From an old book mysteriously titled 'Folk Tales,' they learn of one particular temple and decide to visit it, disregarding the warnings that nearly everyone they speak to about this temple gives them about the place. Led to the temple by a creepily-precocious child (who surely has nothing to do with the six children who went missing there decades earlier...) it isn't long before they find themselves isolated and trapped there overnight, which is when the sinister and disturbing things start to happen...
Temple caught my attention because I saw it had been written by Simon Barrett, who was also the writer of films like You're Next and Blair Witch, working with Adam Wingard (they're also apparently working together on a Western remake of I Saw The Devil, which makes me very confused as to whether I should be worried about that remake or not, because I'm still recovering from the Oldboy remake). As it turns out, Barrett actually had a lot less to do with the film than his screenwriting credit would imply, which is a great relief because Temple is bad. Bad, bad, bad and bad.
Oh, gods, where to begin? Our three 'protagonists' are stereotypical and paper-thin, with about three individual characteristics to share between them. Chris is clearly meant to be our audience identification character, as well as possibly an unreliable narrator, but the film never really confirms that one way or the other. His sole traits are: had a mental breakdown; is so deep in the 'friend zone' with Kate that it's painfully ridiculous; and he's allegedly a Japanophile, despite the fact that he somehow doesn't know that Japanese books are read right to left. The very moment he first sees that creepy precocious child, you know exactly where this will eventually lead because creepy precocious children in horror movies are always supernatural in origin - and yet the film insists of dragging things out to the very end.
And speaking of the end of the film, apparently, I'm not alone in wondering, "What the hell just happened?!" there. Technically spoilers follow but consider this a public service: the bandaged man is apparently Chris and is accused of killing James and Kate out of jealousy. This causes him to go a bit barmy and he rips out of his oxygen tent, stabs someone in the neck with a pen and flees... but to where? We're never shown. Then we cut to (probably) Kate screaming in a very dark cave, something approaches her, and we cut to the end credits. Did I fall asleep? Did part of the film catch fire and there wasn't enough time to reshoot the ending? Am I suffering from traumatic amnesia? I am left both confused and angry. It feels like the cinematic equivalent of stubbing my toes on a doorframe in the dark.
At the film's start, over the opening credits we're given some alleged backstory about six boys disappearing at the temple in 1968, and something about a monk who may or may not have been involved who ended up dead. There's a brief reference to strange rituals at the temple, and then later there's a brief shot of a statue that's supposed to represent the temple guardian, allegedly a kitsune or Inari. Do any of these things come up during the remainder of the film? Probably not, aside from the creepy precocious child, because most of the film's third act was in near-complete darkness and made no sense. See the kid on the poster with that mouth? I didn't see anything like that in the film. I'd definitely remember if I had because it would have been interesting. There was probably some connection with the temple guardian and the lost children, and the temple making people mad, but apparently, the filmmakers just threw up their hands and went, "Eh just make it dark and spooky and let the audience figure it out. Coherent ending? What's that?" Well, maybe we'd be at all bothered to try to figure it out if you gave us any reason to care about your story or your 2D characters.
Comments