Movie review: Backrooms

I never really had an interest in the lore that followed after the original photo of “The Backrooms” circulated the internet.

In fact, I was completely unaware that there was lore — it makes sense, since the online community itself was divided on its true background.

With how split the fandom was, I was unsure of what direction the Backrooms movie was going to take — the original, isolated photo or the expanded 100-level creepypasta tale.

Turns out it was neither, but another alternate interpretation by 20-year-old director Kane Parsons, also known as Kane Pixels online.

Before watching the film, my main concern was whether the film would scare me, as many prior films have failed. Critically acclaimed horrors like The Shining and Midsommar never left me on the edge of my seat. If anything, I got bored. They were artistic and innovative, but far from memorable to me. I approached Backrooms with an expectation to critique, rather than indulge.

I left with my expectations satisfied — for the most part.

The most unexpected part was the subversion of expectations, specifically who the true main character was.

From the official trailer, viewers thought the lead was Clark, played by Chiwetel Ejiofor. After all, he had the most screentime in the trailer. The beginning of the movie makes the viewers believe that, too.

We follow his story around his failed relationship with his wife and empty furniture business before he discovers the backrooms in the basement of his establishment.

It’s after Clark is taken by the creature that inhabits the backrooms that the perspective switches to another person — his therapist, Mary Kline, played by Renate Reinsve.

There was some foreshadowing in the beginning where we see her standing before a broken house, highlighting some form of plot relevancy, but the perspective shifts back to Clark right after.

I’ve never seen a film that seemingly changes the main character halfway through, so this was a pleasant surprise.

I also appreciate that this film did not rely on its script alone to tell its story. The main way to understand Backrooms is to search for context clues in the background, pick up on the characters’ expressions, and look past the words audibly said.

In a world where corporations are demanding filmmakers’ make characters tell the plot through dialogue, the choice to do otherwise is a great one.

I’ve seen praise for the film’s visuals, which I don’t deny. I can see the inspirations from video games like Portal and Silent Hill. The locations in those games are empty, eerie, and uncomfortably familiar. That is the point of liminal spaces.

However, I can’t help but be nitpicky here. Many times throughout the film, I just couldn’t buy the idea that it was the 1990s. Shaky handling and a simple VHS filter isn’t enough. It still looked very obvious they used a modern camera. Everything looked too HD — it wasn’t liminal enough.

What makes media scary is when the quality is low enough to feel familiar, to mimic the feeling of being a little kid sitting in front of the square TVs we once had.

Even then, the only remotely terrifying part was the short chase scene, which leaves little impression after.

It is a psychological horror, but there is no lingering feeling of dread after I left the theatre.

Still, it’s a great film — especially for Parson’s theatrical debut. Backrooms serves its purpose, just not on the fear factor, ironically enough.