The Racked Focus Review: Sinister (2012)

There’s nothing better than watching a movie that you quite enjoyed and going to The Racked Focus to read a review of that movie from months before.  This was the case for me this week when I watched a movie called Sinister, then saw a link to the review that Maxwell Haddad did for The Racked Focus.  I thought “This is perfect timing!” and read the review.  Now, as you can see, I’m writing my review this week on that review of that movie.

Maxwell’s review of Sinister was put up on The Racked Focus on October 12, 2012.  This is the perfect time, not only because it was when the movie was released, but because it was October, the month of Halloween when horror is abundant.  It was the exact right time for Max to put up a review of Sinister that delved into what makes it scary, and what does not quite work.  That’s the entire review.  Don’t be surprised.  Every review is about what is good and bad in the movie, according to the writer of the review.  Except for in the case of this review, where I’m writing about another review.  Why don’t I get to actually reviewing the review now.

The flow of the entire piece is nearly flawless.  It feels as though the whole thing could be one long paragraph and the integrity of the review would not be compromised.  This feeling is essential when getting into a review as it keeps the reader invested in the material.  They become hooked and continue to read beyond skimming for key notes about the movie.  Max is an expert at making a focused sort of stream of consciousness throughout his review writing.  His review of Sinister is no different.  With all of his different points being centered on the performance of Ethan Hawke, they all feel like the same idea, with slight variations that make them noticeably different.  This is something that isn’t found too often in reviews that I see.  Most reviews, mine included, shift from one point to another without good connective tissue between the points.  Maxwell has that tissue and it is what makes his reviews stand out.

Speaking of standing out, what stands out in Maxwell’s review of Sinister is how he feels about the character work in the film.  (Look at that segue!)  He criticized the snuff film side of the horror due to a lack of character, and got deep into the character of Ellison.  It is quite interesting that the deepest part of the review comes hand-in-hand with the deepest character in the film.  It might be expected because that is going to be the part of the film about which the most can be written; however, it seems inspired that the deepest writing in the review comes from writing about the deepest part of the film itself.  It seems oddly fitting, yet obvious when writing about Sinister.  Kudos to Max for the stylistic choice that he made, whether or not it was intentional.  It worked well for what he was writing.

One thing that I have criticized in previous reviews of Maxwell Haddad’s reviews has been the endings.  Sometimes I find that the end of his reviews are abrupt and bring up ideas that don’t get any insight brought to them.  In the case of his Sinister review, I did not find any of these issues.  Maxwell stuck the landing very well this time around.  The final paragraph concludes any remaining points that Max wanted to make about the movie while tying all of the ideas together.  He brings it all around to give some final overall thoughts on the film which summarize what came before in the review.  It’s a nice and neat ending to a well written review.  It was a job well done.

I don’t have anything really negative to say about the review.  This was one of the best ones that I have read from Maxwell Haddad.  It is easy to see how much he improved with his own style over the year or so that The Racked Focus had been on line previous to the uploading of the Sinister review.  This review seemed like a culmination of how much improvement Max made, and I hope that future reviews are even better as he gains more experience.

Maxwell Haddad’s review of Sinister gets five broken branches out of five.