A Cure For Wellness (2016)

A Cure for Wellness opens with a hook straight out of Apocalypse Now. When a disturbing letter from the CEO of a major company arrives, indicating that the man has lost his mind, and all when his signature is needed to complete an important merger his company in is the midst of, the board of directors decides to send up-and-comer Lockhart to retrieve him from a spa in the Swiss Alps. You see, they have some dirt on this Lockhart, played by a squeaky-clean Dane DeHaan, and so basically have to threaten him into taking the job, but take it he does indeed. Lockhart isn't very likable early on, though they do their best with Nicorette gum and totems from his widowed mother, whom he frequently clashes with. A sticking point for many an audience member is that he sticks her in a retirement home, though I'm not quite as quick to judge. As the film goes on, though, his circumstances become so harrowing and uncomfortable that I couldn't help but find myself rooting for him. And that's without mentioning that he spends most of the movie on crutches, which gives DeHaan a lot to play with and adds a lot of character to simple acts of stealth and subversion when they become necessary, not to mention increased tension. Plus, their creaking makes spooky scenes with slow build-ups so much more white-knuckled. He has a streak towards the end of the film where I felt he went along with the suggestions of a doctor he was accusing of deception and subterfuge not one scene prior a little too quickly, but hey: I guess it wouldn't have done to have him kicking and screaming by the point in the film. Still, it hardly makes sense that he isn't once they lower him down into that huge, spooky isolation tank. No fucking way would I have ever agreed to and then allowed such a thing to happen without twisting a few orderly nards or leaving claw marks on their arms.

The most important thing is that Lockhart doesn't belong in this place. He's young, immaculate, and always preoccupied. He doesn't have time to sit around and 'rest.' He's got money to make. Things to see and people to do, that's him. And that's pretty much the whole of the film's theme: ambition is a dangerous thing. Not only does Lockhart's father kill himself when Lockhart was but a child all because of a stock market crash, but everyone at the institute is old and rich yet without anyone in the world to care for them or love them, which is especially cutting considering what Lockhart did to his mother. And then there's the man behind it all, Dr. Volmer, a man with a vision; one that initially seems quite benevolent but is eventually revealed to have extremely personal reasons for it all. There's this cyclical aspect to the film as well: Lockhart's father was scapegoated by Pembroke, the CEO that Lockhart is searching for at the start of the movie, and the board of directors that sent Lockhart on his mission in the first place likely foresee some kind of issue on the books when the merger is to take place, and so are planning on scapegoating him as soon as they can get their hands on him. If anything, his sudden madness is all too convenient for their purposes. For those of you out there that can't make sense of the ending, pay attention, as I just told you everything you need to know to realize what you're supposed to be getting from it. You're welcome. And speaking of everyone that's not me seemingly hating and misunderstanding this quite disquieting little gem, the film also has a touch of that classic nihilistic "people are shit" flavor about it and its narrative, culminating in the best line of the film: "Do you want to know the cure for the human condition? Disease." There's more to the line, but I prefer to leave it that way.

So yes, let's get into the meat of this thing, shall we? This is a horror film, and by golly, does it horrify. That's what you come for and truly, that's what keeps you sticking around for all two hours and twenty-some minutes worth. A Cure for Wellness isn't a gory film by any means, but it excels in getting under the skin of its audience, even those who give it low marks often admit as much. I've heard comparisons to Cronenberg, but I don't think I agree: this is firmly in the 'medical horror' style, and it's a very different beast than the body horror of something like The Brood (Not to mention, Cronenberg would have never used CG where a simple gross-looking mask would have done but we'll get to that later.) It is remarkably dedicated to unsettling and creeping out the audience rather than jump-scaring them at every possible moment. Quite a few quiet scenes of lingering dread that were so intense I could barely bring myself to look ended without any kind of sudden start or burst of violence, and I admire that kind of consideration. Then there's the standout scene in the steam baths, where magical water turned into a gaseous form causes our hero to hallucinate the layout of the building warping around him and at one point even trapping him with no way out. This is also the scene in which we first meet Lockhart's mark, and to say it's an effective introduction would be an understatement. As the film approaches its climax, however, things become decidedly more distressing. One review I stumbled upon seemed to think this was a failing of the film, as it began as 'fun horror' and ended up 'genuinely disturbing,' but for me, I couldn't be happier. The pure terror the film dabbled in during its second half was a perfect payoff to the rather slow buildup in its first. Once Lockhart's tooth falls out, in one of the more nightmarish scenes in the film, all bets are off and things become truly fucked from that point on. He soon wanders into places in the facility he wasn't meant to and discovers unspeakable horrors, before being caught in the act and tortured in a million god-awful ways. This film uses so much imagination in its setpieces, but in a smaller-scale way that works well for horror. Lots of movies have torture scenes, and hell, some of them even have dental torture scenes, but mostly they involve having teeth yanked out entirely, not drilled right through the nerve without anesthesia. THAT'S how you do it. It's specific pain, and one very few people would recognize, but it's not hard to imagine either. And then, there's the ultimate terror, something so horrible I just can't spoil it here. Suffice to say, those of you that have an irrational fear of surgery, and in particular the way you're rendered helpless by restraints and drugs and left at the whims of the surgeon, will likely find it hard to unsee afterward. It's incredibly upsetting, and I loved every frame of it. The dingy setting, the invasiveness... It's just perfect nightmare fuel.

I have heard it said again and again about this movie that it was incoherent, or even incomprehensible, and I hate to be that guy who's so insecure about his own opinions that he has to take other writers to task over every little thing they've ever said (even though I just did it a moment again) but I am baffled, BAFFLED I say, by their conclusion. If anything, my main complaint throughout the whole thing was how easy it is to predict where the film is going. It seems to always be ten paces behind the audience. Its major twist, the one people said was total nonsense, was made extremely obvious in an early scene with Dr. Volmer showing off historical trinkets from a baron that lived on the plot of land the institute was built on nearly two hundred years ago. This is in a plot that features supernatural water that people come from all over the world to drink. It's not hard to figure out where that's going. Hell, one of the first lines in the first scene set at the Institute is about the baron and his sister and a fire that killed both of them, and you just instantly know that all of that is going to end up becoming super important by the end. How these professional film critics couldn't keep up, I don't know, but that still doesn't account for those who consider the film too ludicrous or outlandish despite the fact that it's a supernatural horror film; One that leans heavily towards old gothic horror novels that came out around the same time the all-important baron of the film's mythology was floating around. True students of horror will be able to appreciate what the film is trying to do, but the more close-minded in the audience may end up disappointed that the main character is an able-bodied young man of wealth and taste and not, say, a psychologically-fragile governess. I like psychological horror as much as anyone, but there's a time and place for everything, and the horror genre is better for gonzo films like A Cure for Wellness. 

And besides: nightmares aren't realistic, or believable. There's a fine line, yes, I know, but let me point you to a Washington Post article sparked by the film that said it was time to 'retire' the creepy asylum trope. You see, all these stories are making asylums look bad, and so the human race should just stop being frightened of them and pack that shit in completely for the rest of time. BUT IT'S A HORROR MOVIE. IT'S A NIGHTMARE. It's not supposed to make sense, it's not supposed to be politically correct. It's supposed to draw on real fears people have and frighten, and for a myriad of reasons, people are scared of asylums and especially of being locked up in one against their will, and I doubt that fear is going away anytime soon. It may be irrational but that's how fear works, and it's a work of fiction after all. Please do away with this attitude towards art, if you don't mind. Tropes are not bad, they're only bad when they're overused, and it isn't like a film like this comes out every month or even every year or anything. It's just one of many horror tropes that is only as good or bad as the artist wielding it.

Okay, okay, I'll dispense with the critical analysis of others' critical analyses for good now and get back to the crux of the matter. You may leave this film with questions, I won't argue against that, but I feel that most if not all can be answered just by going back over the film, and most of the questions will be over small details, not the entire conclusion, unless, of course, you watch this with low volume to avoid waking up the neighbors, or while your kids are screaming in the next room or while you're on your cellphone, making excuses for yourself the whole time. The character of Hannah, who we've not mentioned at all up until this point despite being very important, is fascinating, but one of the more mysterious parts of the film that maybe could have done with a bit more illumination before the ending. 

And what an ending it is. This is the one part of the film I could take or leave. An overuse of CG where an articulated mask or even makeup effects would have looked SO much better, and an overall loud and busy feel isn't particularly welcome, but as a capper to a rather lengthy horror film, I guess it's not exactly unearned. That's the one criticism I came here thinking I would have to parrot, but honestly, I'm fine with the length, and I'm certain you couldn't easily chop out an hour or even forty minutes of the film without diminishing its spell, unlike popular sentiments at the time the film was released. Hell, I was feeling under the weather the day I watched this, and it was past my bedtime and I STILL powered all the way through and felt all the better for it. As a gothic horror film, I feel the length was appropriate, and in a practical sense, I imagine it made the moments of balls-out horror hit harder when you have to wade through so much to get to them.

Visually, there's not much I can say that others haven't already said time and time again. I think the visuals are the only thing we can all agree on, which is to say: they're fantastic across the board. Creative cinematography, real locations, (mostly) practical effects, and those signature Gore Verbinski moments where we get a Ring-style montage of horrific imagery all go a long way towards keeping us engaged in the slower first half of the film. And that's before we get into the soundtrack, which, while a little broad, is slick, understated, and textured. I love the layers of chimes and Thomas Newman-esque moments of beauty, and the way they make the opening moments that take place in the city feel unique with plucky modern synths that never again reappear in the score. And once we get into total horror depravity, the score becomes appropriately dissonant, discordant, and just generally ugly to match its accompanying visuals. The only real flaw in the presentation is an early moment, a car crash actually, that did not leave a great first impression. Firstly, it's unintentionally hilarious: the car hits a deer, which propels it into the windshield, at which point the deer and the driver meet eyes and let out a synchronized scream. Then, another bump, and the deer is catapulted from the hood of the car. Just imagine a mixture of Adam Sandler and Tom Green, and you'd be pretty close to how this whole ordeal comes off. The deer is obviously going to have to be CGI for such a scene that can't be content with a less graphic incident, but this is some of the worst I've ever seen. The movement of the deer is extremely unconvincing. 

Performances are strong across the board, with the clear standout being Mia Goth, who turns in a performance as captivating as it was unique. Jason Isaacs does a great job as a classic horror villain without ever slipping into camp. He inhabits a sort of ridiculous character archetype, and I love that he takes it so damn seriously. Dane DeHaan has been the subject of much mockery ever since his performance in The Amazing Spiderman 2, not really due to his performance in particular, but because it was just such a disaster of a film, and the fact that his character is similar in lots of ways has led to no end of snark, but rest assured: this isn't The Amazing Spiderman 2. No, A Cure for Wellness is a real movie, and if, like with DeHaan's performance, you just give it a chance, you'll find it consistently surprising you as it goes along.

So after all that rambling, what did I think of this film? Well, it should be obvious by now that I liked it rather alot, enough that its polarized-trending-towards-negative reception has left me feeling somewhat put out. Is something wrong with me? That I would enjoy a film that everyone else seems to regard as trash? That I was able to read the oodles and oodles of foreshadowing and guess every twist before they happened? That I found the horror to be both shocking and entertaining in its horridness? I don't know, but it certainly feels that way. Perhaps I should give more films with horrible review scores a chance in future, and trust my instincts more often. Or perhaps I should take it all as a sign that I have no taste and that I should just go ahead and hang up my hat already. Either way, I can at least say that this film sparks discussion and heated debate, and thus, whether loved or hated, is definitely worth everybody's, and I mean everybody's, time, though it's far from a perfect film. It simply must be seen to be believed.