In my comments for that awful CARRIE remake I wrote, "I'll be surprised if we hear from Angela Bettis again outside late-night Cinemax." (Well, I did see MAY on late-night HBO, but that's not the point.) Her acting in MAY is so subtle, and so difficult, I was amazed she pulled it off. She could have easily given an over-the-top performance and reduced her character to pathetic histrionics, but she delivers an adroit, understated performance of a young woman filled with anguish and despair, which perfectly suits a horror movie of surprising depth.
I've read a few other comments here, and it's dismaying to learn that some complain that the movie's slow or that nothing happens for the first half. What's wrong with a movie taking time to establish tension? The opening shot in the movie is crucial in avoiding these traps; it establishes that something terrible will happen, which casts an ominous pall over the entire movie. It's arguable that nothing of significance occurs in the early parts of the movie, but that first shot compels the viewer to keep watching, allowing May's mental state to develop realistically. The movie wouldn't be the same if there were a lot of meaningless noise and action; it'd be just another slasher flick. When the inevitable happens, it's more disturbing and sad than it would have been without the calmness leading up to it.
Other comments referenced the teen-girl werewolf flick GINGER SNAPS. It's an apt comparison, but for me MAY brought back memories of Bill Paxton's FRAILTY. They're both quiet, intelligent portraits of mental derangement that are disguised as horror movies. And neither did much business at the box office. Are the derivative JEEPERS CREEPERS of the world more financially successful because the horror audience really doesn't want to be horrified? Do Freddy and Jason's brainless, fright-free rampages hold more appeal than a serious depiction of murder and madness? Or is it just easier to prefer bogeymen, since they don't live in your neighborhood or befriend you at the laundromat?
MAY might not appeal to people who think the TCM remake is, like, the best movie ever, but those who praise the psychologically effective BLAIR WITCH PROJECT will appreciate it.
I've read a few other comments here, and it's dismaying to learn that some complain that the movie's slow or that nothing happens for the first half. What's wrong with a movie taking time to establish tension? The opening shot in the movie is crucial in avoiding these traps; it establishes that something terrible will happen, which casts an ominous pall over the entire movie. It's arguable that nothing of significance occurs in the early parts of the movie, but that first shot compels the viewer to keep watching, allowing May's mental state to develop realistically. The movie wouldn't be the same if there were a lot of meaningless noise and action; it'd be just another slasher flick. When the inevitable happens, it's more disturbing and sad than it would have been without the calmness leading up to it.
Other comments referenced the teen-girl werewolf flick GINGER SNAPS. It's an apt comparison, but for me MAY brought back memories of Bill Paxton's FRAILTY. They're both quiet, intelligent portraits of mental derangement that are disguised as horror movies. And neither did much business at the box office. Are the derivative JEEPERS CREEPERS of the world more financially successful because the horror audience really doesn't want to be horrified? Do Freddy and Jason's brainless, fright-free rampages hold more appeal than a serious depiction of murder and madness? Or is it just easier to prefer bogeymen, since they don't live in your neighborhood or befriend you at the laundromat?
MAY might not appeal to people who think the TCM remake is, like, the best movie ever, but those who praise the psychologically effective BLAIR WITCH PROJECT will appreciate it.