REVIEW: “X” (2022)

Ti West’s “X” is an unashamed ode to slasher movies that manages to capture what makes the good ones good while still being hampered by what makes the bad ones bad. Written and directed by West and produced by A24, “X” tips its hat to several movies both from the horror genre and beyond. West pulls most from 1974’s “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” – the blue van, the Texas country roads, a stop at an old gas station, the remote farmhouse. Even camera shots are ripped straight from Hooper’s classic.

Let me just say “X” is a far cry from “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”. Perhaps that’s an unfair comparison. But for a movie that calls back as much as this one, it’s a comparison that’s kinda hard to avoid. “X” shows it has the setting, the atmosphere, and at times a filmmaker with the technical know-how to create something in the “Chainsaw” vein.

But West leans on the wrong things and wastes too much time spinning his wheels. Worst of all, it all feels like an imitation. And most of its attempts at “freshness” feel like gimmicks just to make things racier or edgier. It’s as if he’s trying to rekindle the feel of the old grindhouse movies. But aside from its steady dose of sleaze and its retro credits sequences, even the grindhouse comparison falls short.

Image Courtesy of A24

The best scene (and some of the movie’s best pure filmmaking) is the opening. West sits his camera in the doorway of a barn peering at an old farmhouse that’s bookended by two police cars. A third cop car comes into the shot driven by Sheriff Dentler (James Gaylyn). The camera then slowly creeps out of the barn and locks onto the Sheriff as he walks to the house. Dead bodies litter this blood-soaked crime scene. West’s camera and his reliance on ambient sounds enhance the unsettling mood and help the scene foreshadow what’s to come.

But then we jump to just 24 hours earlier (the timeline in this thing never quite adds up). It’s 1979 and a group of friends load into an old dodge van and leave Houston for the countryside to shoot an amateur porno movie called “The Farmer’s Daughters”. The project’s executive producer Wayne (Martin Henderson) has rented a cabin belonging to a sickly elderly couple, Howard and Pearl. It sits roughly 100 yards from the old couple’s farmhouse which should be enough privacy for their shoot. But there’s a catch. Wayne never told Howard they would be shooting a skin flick. Oops.

Joining Wayne is his coked-up girlfriend and aspiring porn-superstar, Maxine (Mia Goth). There’s the blonde diva wannabe Bobby-Lynne (Brittany Snow) and her boyfriend/scene-partner, Jackson (rapper Kid Cudi). There’s the porn film’s director and cameraman RJ (Owen Campbell) who sits under the delusion that he’s about to make a true piece of cinema. And then there’s Lorraine (Jenna Ortega), RJ’s girlfriend and boom operator who reluctantly agrees to come along. Nicknamed “church mouse” by Wayne, Lorraine represents some kind of moral hesitation that the movie does nothing with.

Image Courtesy of A24

After an uneven and sometimes yawny first hour where West’s infatuation with his porno movie-inside-the-movie chews up most of the screen time, the movie finally lets loose and delivers what slasher fans are there for. As you can probably guess, the old couple turn out to be geriatric psychopaths, especially Pearl who’s also played by Goth decked out in wonky looking prosthetics. It’s here that the already shallow characters make some of the same dumb choices we’ve seen countless times before (it’s no wonder they always die in these movies).

Throughout, “X” finds itself trapped between honoring slasher tropes and its aim to be “artful” or “elevated”. None of it is particularly convincing. The movie seems to want to say something about aging and sexual freedom. But it’s hard to take seriously when the characters feel so false. Even the jarringly abrupt attempts to humanize the killers are borderline comical. Like the film’s trite critique of religion which mainly comes through the blanket representation of a reappearing fire-and-brimstone TV preacher, none of it feels meaningful.

Yes it’s fun to see a nod to “Psycho”, a nod to “The Shining”, even a nod to 1980’s “Alligator”. Yes some of the gruesome kills in the final 30 minutes are well executed (pun intended). And yes I know the slasher genre is known for their collection of dumb people. But that doesn’t mean “X” gets a pass on its slew of missteps. In the end it simply feels like a trashy knock-off. And the things it does to supposedly freshen up the slasher genre are so minute that it’s hard to call anything about it “original”. “X” is now available on VOD.


17 thoughts on “REVIEW: “X” (2022)

    • It’s really not. It’s almost as if the film’s idea of “originality” is holding certain shots longer, shooting a movie within a movie, or doing something slightly different with the ‘last survivor’ trope. None of it felt new to me.

  1. I saw the foreshadowing comment you made a week or so ago, and for a moment I thought your first paragraph was revealing a change of heart. I’m a little disappointed that you came down on the side you did because my reaction to the film was so different.
    This is my favorite film of 2022 so far. I thought the way it was put together reflected both the horror and the porn tropes of the late 70s very effectively. There are three or four terrific shots in the film [you mentioned a couple of them], but you did not touch on the things that stood out for me.
    There are several subtext that distinguished the form from the usual horror film, and I particularly liked the lead actress in the dual role.
    That slow burn first hour is so much more of what I liked about old school horror films. I know many of your readers trust your opinion on films (I know I do, I’ve said it before, your reviews are consistently the best written that I look at), I just have to disagree with you this time and I hope some of your followers will see this response and give the film a chance, in spite of your low opinion of it. I think there is something more here.

    • I think more people are on your side than mine when it comes to “X”. I get what you mean about the 70s horror and porn tropes. But to me it felt more like an imitation rather than a recreation. I caught some of the subtext (it’s kinda hard to miss) and I probably would have liked the dual role performance from the lead if the makeup and prosthetics didn’t look so bad at times (to me). As for the slow burn, I’m with you. I like that about older horror films. I just didn’t buy much of anything that West was doing in the first hour. So that left me impatiently waiting for the inevitable killing to begin.

      But again, it should be noted that this is a highly praised movie. Lots more people love it than don’t.

  2. I liked this one more than you did. I had fun with it and I liked the actors. That makeup job on Mia was really good. I don’t think I would’ve realized it was her had I not read IMDB.

    • That’s interesting because I thought the makeup/latex was inconsistent. In some scenes she looked like an elderly lady. In other scenes (to me) it looked like someone in heavy prosthetics.

  3. I surprisingly chose to borrow this from the library. I liked the sound of the plot. You write a really well-articulated review on it here. I never saw the horror movies you say it is stealing from so I have no comparison. I also had no idea that Goth played both the young chick and the old geriatric psychopath! I really liked her in this, both characters. I don’t like to admit it, but I wanted to be more scared watching it than I was. For me it was more revulsion than fear. I think this movie could have been elevated to a much higher place with a little more time and a little more work.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s