Combs’ presence intrigued me with Would You Rather, and indeed, I don't think I would have enjoyed the movie as much if he weren't in it. He plays such a wonderfully loathsome and nasty villain and carries the movie on his back.
Plenty of movies start off interesting and become disappointing by the end. Would You Rather works in the opposite direction. It begins fairly uninvolving. I was disappointed the filmmakers took a great, schlocky idea and played it seriously, which drained out a lot of potential fun and humor. But, by the end, I confess the movie had me hooked, creating genuine tension and unpredictable moments.
Combs plays Shepard Lambrick, a rich guy who pulls together a bunch of people to his mansion. Each person he has called is desperate: a young woman whose brother has leukemia, a recovering alcoholic, a gambling addict who lost everything, etc. These people need money, and Lambrick is willing to help one of them. The catch: they must play Would You Rather, a game in which participants select between two choices.
Lambrick creates some awful scenarios for his own amusement. For example, in round one, each player must decide: will they be electrocuted or the person next to them? Even before the game begins, it’s evident he enjoys destroying people's spirits. At dinner, he offers Iris (Brittany Snow), our main character and a vegetarian, $10,000 to eat a steak; he pays up when she does but mocks her.
It only escalates, and part of the thrill is seeing what tasks Lambrick will come up with next for the players. You can see how this might have worked a fast-paced, Saw-like gorefest.
But Would You Rather's approach is more psychological, slowly accumulating tension along the way. There is violence, but compared to where it could have gone, it's more subdued and realistic. The ghastliest stuff is suggested, but certain ideas -having your head held under water - don't require blood to be uncomfortable. The movie mostly takes place in one dining room, adding an element of claustrophobia.
The tension builds by seeing how the participants crack. When they begin, most seem fairly nice and willing to work together to get out of the situation they've found themselves in, but the longer the game goes, the more desperate they get to survive, even if it means turning on each other. By the climactic round, the film has turned the metaphorical screws tight.
The movie almost doesn't get there. The slow burn of the narrative ultimately pays off, but the first third of the movie is painfully slow before it gets to the mansion and the game. There's a subplot involving a doctor with knowledge of Lambrick's game that doesn't amount to much, and early scenes are chopped up, seemingly finished before the movie jumps back to show more, which feels unnecessarily convoluted
There's also the inherent repetitiveness of the game. Each round goes through each player, with Lambrick using a timer to count down how much time the players have to make their choice. The game begins with eight players, and at times, I was like, “Yeah, I get it. Move on.”
No comments:
Post a Comment