Another film of which I knew absolutely nothing about before watching it. 'We Have Always Lived in the Castle' (2018) appeared seemingly out of nowhere on Now TV and looked like it fit the bill for these reviews. It also happens to be around 90 minutes in length which at this point is one of the big selling points for me (there is a reason I haven't yet reviewed 'Interstellar' (2014) and 'Castaway' (2000). I was also intrigued by the fact that I knew literally nothing about it, so it seemed a win-win. Well, unless it turned out to be crap. The film follows the Blackwood family, Merricat (Taissa Farmiga), Constance (Alexandra Daddario), and Uncle Julian (Crispin Glover). They live a solitary life alone in their mansion after being ostracized by the town who hold grievances against their late father. The family's issues widen when a distant cousin, Charles (Sebastian Stan), comes to visit. Although he acts friendly he has ulterior motives and things start to turn sour soon after his arrival.
Let's start with this films biggest strength and that is its look. Both from a production design and cinematographic standpoint the film does an extremely good job. It is a period piece, seeming to take place in 1950s America, although it is never explicitly stated when the film is set. This is a period that has a look and aesthetic to it that I really like and the film captures the look very well. However, the mansion in which our characters reside, and in turn, our characters ourselves, seem to exist in a different period entirely, which is also shown well through the production design that gives the mansion and the Blackwoods a much older and upper-class look compared to the look of the town. This does not just create an interesting contrast visually throughout the film but also shows the two different worlds that exist within the film, the world of the town and the world of the Blackwoods. The film also has some good moments of cinematography. There are several shots within the film that are visually impressive and quite beautiful to look at. But there are also some weird choices in the cinematography. Several shots choose to focus the foreground and background while blurring the middle ground. Why they do this I do not know, but every time it happened it threw me and dragged me out of the film. Performance-wise the film is very solid. Both Farmiga and Daddario put in solid performances, both coming across as bizarre and recluse but in different ways. Farmiga is the stronger mentally of the two characters but this also makes her much more cautious and nervous which comes across very well in the performance. Daddario is much more naive and trusting, but also seemingly cannot anger or has any sense of anyone doing anything wrong. This is not a critique of the performance as this is written into the character and Daddario portrays it well. The two stand out performances come from Crispin Glover and Sebastian Stan. Stan is very good at being both suave and charming but also extremely dislikeable. You understand why Daddario falls for his act but at the same time, you dislike the guy. And then there is Crispin Glover who is just fun whatever he is doing and this role is no different. His character suffers from some sort of illness (seemingly amnesia but it isn't clear) and he portrays this well and in an entertaining way.
So the film is well made with good performances, some nice shots, and great production design. Unfortunately, however, all that is kind of wasted throughout the film. Do you know when you watch a film and you just know it is based on a book? I don't mean you go into the film already knowing that it is based on a book, but you work it out through watching the film. This is one of those films. Now, I have never read the book and so I don't know how accurate it is to the source material (I think accuracy to books in films is a hindrance on the latter but that's a discussion for another time) but I will say that the fact I knew it was based off a book within 15 minutes of it starting is a negative. The narration that is used throughout the film is a huge hint, but also the way the narrative plays out, and a lot of the dialogue feels much more like a novel than a film. This narration is my biggest issue out of these. This kind of storytelling works in books, but film is a visual medium so your aim should be to show not tell. This is especially annoying in this film as there are times where the narration describes something that they show perfectly fine with the visuals, making the narration itself redundant. However, none of this is what made me dislike this film on the whole. The reason I disliked this film is that I found it very, very dull. I never bought into the narrative or characters, which for a film focused heavily on characters is not great. I mentioned in my intro that a big reason I chose to watch this film was because of the running time, but it felt a lot longer than it was.
'We Have Always Lived in the Castle' is a film that is completely let down by its narrative. The production design, direction, cinematography, and acting are all very good throughout the film, but they are wasted on a story that had me falling asleep. If you can buy into the narrative of the film then I imagine you will enjoy it as everything outside of this narrative is very solid. For me, it was completely dull and I can't imagine I'll be watching it ever again.