The Autopsy of Jane Doe

Quality horror films are truly a scarce commodity these days, so I was excited like a child for a new addition to this genre. I actually don’t know why horror hasn’t been linked with an autopsy before, as it’s a damn good idea with high potential. The film’s plot takes place in a single location, which could be a drawback elsewhere, but here it fits perfectly. The atmosphere is masterfully crafted, leaving me breathless at times. The main duo was quite well-matched. The actual autopsy was technically flawless and looked very realistic. There were also a few fresh ideas, and I’d particularly highlight the one involving the bell, as the scenes with it gave me goosebumps. There were certainly a few minor errors or meaningless moments in the script, but I didn’t notice any significant mistakes. The best moment was the one with the axe (those who saw it know what I mean), and of course the ending, where things seemed hopeful, but Jane Doe just wouldn’t rest and had to take out the last survivor. We need more films like this. I give it 82%. (2017-03-10)

For a long time when watching a horror movie, it didn’t happen to me that I would be so terrible shocked by its atmosphere, which kept me at the edge of my seat, from the very beginning of the movie. This tension stayed with me for almost an hour. Not only was the atmosphere bombastic, but the disgusting premise of the film was also set in motion – an autopsy which didn’t really add to the impression of a nice and friendly horror movie. But maybe it was the fear of the unknown that made me scared out of my wits. Exactly an hour later, the point of all the events began to be explained and the whole atmosphere went to hell. There was just so much bullshit happening in the movie that I felt like going to the bathroom to think about what the creator meant by it. Quality actors, interesting premise, perfect adaptation, those were all positive. And in the end, the positives won despite the joke that was the last half hour. (2017-06-28)

The first "forensic" half in the style of "conversations at the autopsy table" is very fresh and exciting, the second begins to use on more familiar genre tropes and uses shabby jump scares. Exchanges of views between father and son are sometimes engulfed by rigor mortis, and the final revelation is not exactly from the "what you don't hear about every Halloween" category, but the rather skillful directing and good atmosphere push it through the kiln door with triumph. André Øvredal did not disappoint, just another crunchy story, this time sprinkled with formaldehyde and conducted in a sharp sagittal spirit. By the way, it's a movie that awakens the necrophile in someone. A little bit. (2016-12-27)

This is a filmed handbook for aspiring horror filmmakers. Øvredal sticks to tradition like a pathologist to a scalpel. He knows where the line between light and shadow lies, and at the same time he has a clear idea that even if you routinely cut into corpses for a couple of decades, you're still a person with a distinctive character at your core. We get all this for at least the first hour. The final twenty minutes are very clumsy, both in the denouement and in the presentation, where I would have cut down on the literalness of the images and the biblical quotations. It was still fairly decent, though. (2017-01-15)

I waited the entire time for the final ultra-shock, such as that I got from, for example, the Spanish movie [REC], but it never came. I waited for it because the director managed to delicately escalate the horror-like tension to the point that viewers could feel it in the marrow of their bones. The A-list acting duo gives the movie some prestige, you can smell the stench of dead bodies in the morgue from each shot, and the unmoving, soulful look of actress Olwen Catherine Kelly will haunt you for long hours after you’ve finished watching. It’s a pity that the logic of the plot suffered. With a better script, this could have been the best horror movie of 2016. (2017-01-10)