Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Hush (2016)


Don’t confuse this movie with Hush that came out in 1998 with Gwyneth Paltrow. This movie comes for the director of Oculus and the disturbingly dark Absentia. It moves away from the supernatural character based horror of his previous films. Instead we get a thriller that can sit along proudly with other recent takes on the genre like Grand Piano and Passion. You may want to get the edge of your seat ready for some use.

Maddie (Kate Siegel) is an author working on her latest novel. She figured the best place to do this is in her isolated cabin, where her only companion is her cat. Her nearest neighbors are Sarah (Samantha Sloyan) and John (Michael Trucco). Sarah has become good friends with Maddie’s and the two spend time talking about her work.

Well Sarah is also practicing her sign language, because Maddie is deaf and unable to speak. This makes things especially problematic when a masked stranger (John Gallagher Jr.) arrives in the night and decides to add Maddie to his escalating kill count. But has this over-confident killer taken on more than he bargained for, or will Maddie’s silent death be the climax of this tale.

Good Points:
  • Kate Siegel gives an excellent performance in tough role.
  • Director Flanagan knows just how to ratchet up the tension
  • Excellent use of a single location to drive the isolation fear

Bad Points:
  • Anyone looking for a movie with lots of gory kills is going to be disappointed.
  • Fans of supernatural horror will be disappointed – no monsters here
  • I can see a few people finding this boring.


While I wasn’t the biggest fan of Oculus I really did like this movie. Sigel does a great job in the role. You really like her and fear for her. Gallagher is menacing, and the script does a good job keeping him creepy but smart. Yes, the movie is a reimaging of Wait Until Dark, but I think this film does a fine job building suspense and thrills in equal measure. Well worth seeking out if you are looking for a good thriller.

Scores (out of 5)
Visuals: 4
Sound: 5
Acting: 4
Script: 4
Music: 3
Direction: 4
Entertainment: 4
Total:  4

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.

Enjoying the content? Click and ad before you go and support this blog.


  1. Yeah, pretty good horror movie, though I think Wait Until Dark has more class. The added violence is probably from newer directors thinking more violence or whatever is better. Though it didn't bother me, sometimes they do cross the line as with profanity in the scripts or whatever. They go beyond certain points just to get a more popular rating. I have friend that have said, they don't like PG ratings for similar reasons, which I find ridiculous and to a certain degree a bit infantile. Really, you've got to have buckets of blood and a bunch of foul language to constantly grab your attention? The plot alone isn't enough? Oh well, enough soapbox.

    1. Well, I think class is something we've kind of lost as a society. I'm sounding like an old fuddy duddy, but everything seems much more crass and in your face even compared to when I was a kid in the 1980s.

      So I kind of expect a modern film to fit that modern environment. "Hush" is certainly bloodier than anything made int he 1960s, but I found it refreshingly straight forward with its gore compared to some of the over the top slasher antics we've seen in the past.

      The horror genre is a strange one when it comes to ratings. Some studios feel that a PG-13 rating is best, because you can get more butts in the seats. They all forget how R rated movies will get butts in the seats whether they are supposed to be there or not. How much money did "300" make again?

      I know a few critics that say you can't make a good horror movie unless it is rated R. I disagree with that too. Blood, boobs and swearing do not a good horror movie make (not that they hurt either). You can have a perfectly terrifying movie without any blood, nudity or swearing. "Ringu" is a perfect example of that. But it boils down to the mass audience, what do they want to see in their horror film. Well blood, boobs and swearing seem to carry the day.

  2. I actually prefer suspense or horror without supernatural elements. More credible = more scary. Films like Kalifornia or The Girl Next Door (not the comedy of the same title) are far more unsettling in my book. The paranormal is not necessarily a deal-killer for a movie but I give points for doing without it.

    I saw the 1967 Wait Until Dark in the theater. I liked it then and still do. I haven't seen this but it sounds promising.

    1. I lean toward liking supernatural horror. But that goes back to my love of the fantastic. However, I appreciate a good thriller and even a fun slasher movie. No supernatural elements isn't a deal breaker for me.