The 1st and 2nd Acts of “Backrooms” Were Incredible

I sat on this review for a few days, but probably a few too many days. It’s hard to write about something that’s so great in so many ways because it’s hard to pick and choose where to start and what to focus on, all without sounding like a shill. The film Backrooms was one of those movies.

Running it Back

There’s another issue too, when writing about something that so many people have watched. When it came to The Batman, there’s not many people who are unaware of the character or the movie. When I got into Project Hail Mary, I knew many people had already seen the movie and I didn’t need to worry about filling in too much background information before diving right into the issues I had with the movie. For something like Terminal, I had a chance to explain the film from the ground up which made for a lot of material that I could write.

Further, when I write about movies, I’m typically approaching it from ‘was this movie any good’, and also ‘should you watch this movie’. I’m usually thinking about who would consider watching the movie, what parts of it they’d enjoy, and if there’s enough of the good stuff to recommend the movie. I don’t actively include that type of language in every review, and let the rating provide enough of an implication of endorsement. But a movie like Backrooms? One where a bunch of people have already decided to watch it or not? I mean. What am I even doing here, y’know?

I remember when I watched Citizen Kane, and then sat to write about it. I did my best to talk about it without referring to others’ analysis of the film. I struggled to formulate an original thought or observation, but ended up falling back to just ‘oh this was cool!’ and overall glazing the movie. I am not a fan of that piece of writing. So in the future, I get a little nervous writing about big movies. Similar nonsense writing followed Casablanca.

With Backrooms, there’s not just a lot of people who have already seen the movie, but also a lot of people familiar with the lore- and also familiar with the fact that there’s many lores. So all I can say is if I had any issues with it. Did I? I mean. Only kind of!

Three Act Structures

The balance between Act 1, 2, and 3 is a fragile line. Most movies accomplish that mission. Some movies are ambitious enough to even get four acts. Some have a third act that’s too long. See: Terminal, The Batman, and Project Hail Mary for examples. It is rare to find a movie that skips the second act. I can think of movies that forgot about the third act, some that bungled the first act, but never the second act.

This particular omission from Backrooms is definitely one that people could argue doesn’t actually exist, but my argument comes in the form of Clark’s character. The first act introduces his situation in life, the store, and his relationship to it. He discovers the backrooms. People could argue that this is when the second act begins. Yes- but does it? Does Clark’s character progress, or are we just being introduced to him? He then goes to his therapist, the second of three total conversations in the film, and quickly runs out, feeling the need to prove himself. Was this not Clark embarking on his quest? Is him ensnaring the two kids who work at his store not him choosing to understand this structure at the beginning of his journey? Here’s another point where you could say the second act begins.

After that, we shift to the therapist, who follows Clark into the backrooms and is relatively quickly kidnapped to the dinner scene, one that clearly is the beginning, if not the beginning, of the third act. Clark is revealed to have succumbed to the backrooms and chooses to wallow in his life and behaviors rather than fight to be better. The chase follows, and the film ends. 

Where and how does Clark stop trying to get better? We only see fragments of his personality before and after. He has a desperation when he wants to explore the backrooms, but the genesis for this idea isn’t explored. That’s second act material.

That is my lone negative comment about Backrooms. That’s it. Because the reason this isn’t such a massive issue is because the rest of the movie, and even these gray areas, were so fantastic and engaging.

The Rest

I absolutely loved this movie. I was scared and tense and intrigued the entire runtime. From the moment San Jose was mentioned (which is a prime subliminal city) to the absolutely devastating ending (which, honestly, isn’t as sad if you think about it a little bit). I confidently rate Backrooms as one of my top 10 films of all time. The sheer tension, the visuals, the fear of emptiness, the claustrophobia, the grotesque visuals, the mindnumbing design of the backrooms. I have not felt a satisfaction from watching a film like this in a very long time.

People have gone on and on about Kane Parsons, the box office success, the marketing, the whatever. I don’t need to hammer on about those points, but I do acknowledge them, and I am simultaneously in admiration and envy that Parsons got to make this film, and that it came out so good.

I can confidently say that the movie Backrooms is

GOOD

I watched Backrooms in theaters, but it should be streaming somewhere in a few weeks.









It was almost as good as this scene:

Wondering how my rating system works? Let me explain!