Immaculate (2024) | a Review
originally published on 01/05/2025;
Hello everyone, I am the god-fearing, god-loving fellow, G.E.M.Simov, a person very far removed from any desire to perform illicit biological experiments on unwilling subjects, here to tell you about the movie “Immaculate”.
Simple review details - I rank films on an out of 10 basis, granting up to 3 points in 3 categories, as well as a last, single point from my own self, depending on my experience with it.
A disclaimer - the terms 'movie' and 'film' will be used interchangeably in this review.
Presentation
Immaculate markets itself and even attempts to be a horror movie, of the most unimpressive, unmemorable variety, which is also of the most disappointing and uninteresting. It presents itself as the average horror flick, which might have an interesting premise, but ultimately winds up being a meek sequence of loud noises and rapid movements, the goal of which is exclusively to strum up a momentary fright within the viewer.
It even attempts at being such - what with the presence of the three varieties, or perhaps pillars, of ‘the horror film’ - but at the same time it fails… Upwards?
First, the three pillars of the horror film - Immaculate manages to get a hold on all three, but in a very particular manner. Naturally, the one that comes before all others is the ‘jump-scare’, the cheap, stinky startle that relies on a drawn out sequence of very quiet, very slow movement, followed up by as loud a pang as possible, coupled with a sudden lurch, performed by a grotesque character, towards the camera.
Immaculate features a number of those, but they are all, for better or worse, middling at best. In a sense, that is a good thing - because none of them was actually startling and frightening, which could indicate that the folks behind the film purposefully made the audio pangs quieter or subtler, or that they were simply so incompetent at making that variety of schlock that it ended up being passable, in the sense that it lacked the ability to produce a heart-attack in an elderly person.
As stated, there are a fair few scenes that lead up to a jump-scare, though they are all so incredibly obvious, so perfectly well telegraphed, that the scare itself is almost unable to make the viewer experience fright, or even a measure of discomfort. The use of cliches is also very present - there is a bird that, for some reason, flies at a window at such speed that it kills itself right off, with said scene being a jump-scare. There are also many subversions of the jump-scare, which are better than the jump-scare, but, alas, fall into the jump-scare, because they act as a means of making the jump-scare that actually occurs more impactful.
So, Immaculate fails at jump-scares, which actually makes it a far more pleasant watch than it would otherwise be. What happens is that, due to the middling quality of the startling scenes, there’s an overwhelming effort at building up tension, which ultimately never gets resolved in a satisfying manner. That could be a problem, however what the movie does with its conclusion - which is an inconclusive one - is that it leaves things without a clear resolution. It appears as though the unsatisfying, unresolved tension throughout the many scenes preceding jump-scares is, actually, mirroring the entirety of the film.
There is tension, it is present, and there are times when it appears as though the tension will finally be released, but, ultimately, it remains barred from dissolving. That made my viewing experience better, for the holistic view of the film that I was provided was reinforced by the parts, in a very poetic manner.
Then comes the second pillar of horror films - that being disgust. Whereas Immaculate fails at frightening the audience, I would be willing to argue that it succeeds at presenting a disgusting viewing experience. It features gore, it features unsettling themes that easily make one queasy, and it makes great use of a particular sound that a particular section of people simply can’t stand - the screams and pained moans of women.
If I had to rate this movie, basing my rating on the discomfort it brought men, it would be the perfect movie. For, not only does it feature women moaning and screaming in anguish - it also features a depiction of birth. And it is not a funky-wunky, “grit your teeth and pop the baby out” type of birth, no. It’s a strained, painful experience that makes use of an incredibly long, still shot that compels the audience to look at the face of the actress ‘giving birth’ in what is, essentially, agony.
There are other fantastic sections of disgusting gore - a tongue gets cut off, a nail gets ripped off (coupled with very unsettling sound effects), there are malformed shapes coupled with incredibly bothersome implications, and there are brandings, but not just any branding - brandings of a variety that aims to cripple the brandee for a prolonged period of time.
Thus, gore and disgust is covered. Lastly, the third pillar of horror, and the one truly important and indicative of what is or what is not a good horror film, is dread. It is like that tension that gets built up during the scenes preceding a jump-scare, only it occurs naturally. There’s something unsettling, unsatisfying about dread. It remains with the viewer even after the movie ends, it is so intensely unnerving and sticky that it is reminiscent of bloody snot that’s stuck down one’s throat and is really, really unwilling to get out.
Dread is an incredibly difficult thing to pull off, and so Immaculate, naturally, fails to do that. It attempts it, yes, but it fails, though not upwards, like in the case of its attempts at jump-scaring the audience, but, rather, in an entirely ordinary manner. The film just goes away after one watches it, and the fright that might have come from it is completely washed away as soon as the credits roll.
That is, in part, associated with the way the movie resolves its plot - more on that later - but it can also be associated with the entirety of the movie itself. The concepts that are explored, the approach it takes to handling its climax, the type of movie it is, overall - all of those meld together and wind up transforming Immaculate from an admittedly shitty horror flick into a very entertaining and even enticing variety, or rather blend, of “psychological horror”, “thriller” and “mystery”.
Immaculate presents a character who is incredibly foreign to their surroundings. A character who is lost, not physically, but mentally. That character goes to a country in which a different language is spoken. That character is then taken from that already foreign space and transported into another, even more foreign space, wherein the sense of alienness is empowered by an addition of adversity and even fear.
The main character, through whose lens the audience gets to experience the film, is a stranger in a strange land, and that only deepens. Others know much more than they let on, and than the main character. They have motives and there is a conspiracy afoot. Even as the main character starts getting into the swing of things, the sensation of exclusion and the lack of belonging remains incredibly powerful, thanks to a certain change in the character - one that is outside of their control.
That feeling - of being a stranger, of being unable to fit in no matter how hard one wants to, of being unable to belong to a community to which one desperately wants to belong - permeates this film so incredibly richly that I am impressed at just how well it handles it. ON top of that, it is amplified by the fact that there are no captions for the things said in Italian - and the audience relies just as much as the main character on someone translating for them. That was a very, VERY nice touch.
In addition to that, there are also two other things I would like to mention about this film. It features a number of incredibly beautiful, picture-sque shots (that I’d argue follow the motto of “every frame - a painting”) which I appreciate greatly. On top of the presence of those shots, the movie is quite competently shot - surprisingly, there’s a great reliance of long shots that do not get cut up that often, which is a very good thing - the fewer cuts in a movie, the better, frankly.
What I appreciated most about this movie, however, is that there is a particular scene in it, which scene I assumed was going to be a jump-scare, only for it to be a subversion of the jump-scare… Only to then produce the most dread out of any scene in the movie, courtesy of an inexplicable addition of echo to the voice of a particular character who was, already, the most unsettling and even frightening character in the entire film, whilst also being an enigma that carries so many revelations with itself that the film was made better just because of that character’s presence in it.
And the best part of it all is that a large part of the dread produced in the scene was owed up to the ability of an actor to change their expression, and expressed emotion, to an incredible extent. There’s also something about the quality of the effects used in the film - nothing stuck out, nothing struck me as being off or thoroughly CGI, which, nowadays, is actually impressive.
I digress - the movie is competently made. With the obvious failure on the front of being a horror film, it did a few things very well - such as deciding not to treat the viewer as a fool and giving them the ability to… Well, piece things together by themselves.
Overall, it is better than it is worse, though it could have been better. 2/3
Acting
While I must admit I am no great recognizer of an actor’s brilliance, I was left with a very good impression of the performances given by the actors in this film. The main role, performed by Sydney Sweeney, featured the opportunity to show off a number of emotions and reactions to situations that are rarely put to film, and, while I was not able to suspend my disbelief, I still thought to myself, as I watched the scenes, that the performance was not bad at all.
There was also Álvaro Morte, who has an incredibly metal name, who played his part quite convincingly and even managed to bring a bit of the required vibe for it - which, frankly, I appreciated greatly.
Another performance that I think was crucial to the film, I would attribute to that one old lady nun who was very crazy, and is introduced to the audience as looking for her father. Unfortunately, I can’t figure out which one of the performers played her - though I’m guessing it might have been either Giulia Heathfield Di Renzi or Betty Pedrazzi. Regardless, that particular crazy nun might have won the movie an entire point by herself.
Overall, I am very satisfied with the performance on display. I can’t think of anything that might be problematic with the actors’ play, though, I reiterate - I’m… I’m not proficient in telling when a person is being a good actor or not. I can tell when someone is being a very bad actor, but aside from that, it’s all just gut feeling, I suppose. 3/3
Story
This is where Immaculate manages to procure most of its interesting elements - the premise itself, as well as the execution of the premise are both relatively interesting… And I find myself in a predicament. I both want to talk about the story, so in a way that would uncover some of its secrets and would spoil the twists and surprises, but I also want to avoid doing that, because the story was very entertaining, primarily based on the reveals that occur.
Thus, I will first talk about the story without spoiling anything, and I must say that it does a very competent job at setting things up. There are things that are mentioned and, at first, they seem almost inconsequential, until, at a later point in the story, they become understandable. Suddenly, more information is revealed to the audience, at which point they get to not just say “Okay”, they get to say “Oh, that makes sense!” as they make associations with events that have transpired previously or concepts that were established earlier on in the story.
At the same time, however, the presence of such moments is somewhat lessened by the fact that there are also odd such events. There is a scene in which something is shown off to the audience, and later on a revelation is made. However, that revelation winds up being problematic, in the sense that it implies something, and very heavily, which implied thing is contradictory or even nonsensical in the context of the story being told. There are also other moments that leave me a bit confused at times, which moment are made such due to the fact that things are revealed to the audience, yet the system and the logistics behind those things remains obscure… Or perhaps missing outright.
Regardless, those are relatively minor gripes. The movie makes good use of setting things up and then giving the audience good payoff. It happens a number of times, and each time it is done is relatively satisfying.
One of the best things that the film does, I'm regards to its story, is that it allows it's main Character to go through some sort of growth, and she does so in a manner that is, actually, ambiguous when it comes to religion. As ought to be known, this is a film in which religion plays a big role, and most of the characters are either nuns or priests. Religion plays a central role in their lives.
However, it has a different meaning for different people. Some understand it in one manner, others - in an entirely different way. Here comes the well-known subjectivity of thought, and the oddity of how the canon does not really mean that much. What's most interesting is that the movie does not go out of its way to make itself anti-religion.
It presents many of the bad that can come of religion, but it also presents a decent amount of the good that can come of it. In particular, the religion in question is Christianity, and one of the main conflicts relates to readings of the Bible.
With that said, before going into spoilers, I'd argue that the story is competent and interesting enough. Uncovering the mystery is very entertaining, or, rather, having the mystery get uncovered is entertaining. There are a number of things that just make no sense - which is incredibly baffling, considering that this movie attempts to remain as plausible and, in a sense, rooted to reality as it can.
It's good, but not excellent.
Now, spoilers. The Main Character’s journey is most intriguing - she starts off as an incredibly meek young woman, almost a girl, going to a particular monastery in Italy. There, she conceives immaculately. No sex, still a virgin, she winds up pregnant. Naturally, that's big, but things get odder.
Odder, because they were already odd in the first place. Crazy nuns, taking care of old women who are about to die, weird nail from Jesus' cross, weirder “suffering is love” claims, even more bizarre birds slamming into windows and unjustified demeanor from colleagues.
After becoming pregnant, this gets even more messed up. A colleague tries to kill her, screaming that it should have been her - that raises far more questions than it answers, and than are answered over the course of the film. Said colleague winds up flayed and dropped off a roof - now that's wild.
Another completely inexplicable event is the Main Character puking (as one does while pregnant) one of her teeth out. That's never explained, and, as far as I know, pregnancy doesn't cause people to just puke up teeth. There are some other weird things that don't get explained - such as where does the nun that starts being doubtful go? Sure, she gets her tongue cut off - but does she die? Does she live? There's a resounding amount of “huh?” in a number of the film’s scenes.
See, one of these “huhs” comes right at this point. A crazy nun, who was believed to only speak Italian, shows up, shushes the Main Character who gets to see the tongue being cut off… Then the Main Character says that she needs to get out, and the Italian speaking, crazy old nun lady goes “You'll never leave” in perfect, bass boosted, echoing, reverberating English as everything gets super spooky and her face, through sheer acting ability, starts looking very wrong. Just the expression on that lady's face was amazing, when combined with the context.
Well, following this, the Main Character - who is not feeling all that safe or well - devises a plan to get to a hospital, (because the conveniently present doctor in the monastery, who is also a gynecologist that helps give birth to babies every week) so that she can get a second opinion. Chicken killed, blood - miscarriage simulation. The doctor is out, getting babies born, so the priests drive off with her in the back of the car…
But a nun finds the dead chicken, and realizes that the Main Character is faking it. Ring-ring goes the phone, and boom - everything gets worse, very quickly.
The villains, who wind up being the priests, and in particular the main bad guy, a biologist/geneticist, explains the plan. There's DNA on the nail - Jesus’, obviously - so he has been trying to get a suitable host for that DNA. He's had a very large number of attempts, and the way the monastery operates is a very perfect cover - old women go there to die, you swear an oath when you go there so you never leave, they've got connections and money… Everything is sorted.
Turns out the Main Character is very, very good right now. - a perfect, fertile host. So he tells her all of this, revealing everything. She isn't happy, and still wants to escape. She's definitely getting an abortion, first chance she gets… But he's having none of that.
They brand the soles of her feet, crippling her for a few months and affecting her ability to walk for the rest of her life. The branding irons are another revelation that ties into the crazy nun, who had those marks… But she's very old. And the villain, apparently, has been doing this experiment for around twenty years. Why would this old lady, who's clearly past menopause, have had the soles of her feet branded? Did she get impregnated in a similar fashion?
In fact, there's something odd about this whole concept. There have been so many pregnancies, on account of there being so many fetuses in cats when the villain reveals his grand plan, but everyone acts as though the Main Character's pregnancy is the first time it has happened. The villains doing it makes sense, but everyone else? Quite odd. Sure, it could be explained away with them being in agreement with the plan, or having odd readings of the Bible, or something along those lines… But, well, it is still strange.
Alas, she gets crippled. Then, time passes, and she's almost ready to give birth, when she snaps, or makes a decision, or even just gets the chance. She clobbers the head nun, then strangles the head priest, then tries to burn the main villain alive, but he manages to make use of a fire extinguisher - which was actually very neat. In fact, the way plans get foiled is very plausible and realistic, it makes sense that it works.
Anyway, she starts running through the catacombs, he chases her, charred and bloodied. He catches her, starts performing a C-section on her without anesthetic (her waters having already broken) but she manages to stab him with the nail from the cross, which she procured a bit earlier.
With that, she crawls out of the catacombs, gives birth to a creature (that does not cry out), then crushes it with a rock. Movie over.
Overall, the story left me satisfied, but there was also something else that I found missing. These questions that I presented, and some that I did not mention, are problematic and bothersome. They remain unanswered and even inconsistent with the rest of the story, as a result of which there's an unpleasant taste in my mouth. 2/3
Legendary Point
Does this film get the Legendary point, so craved and wanted by all and none at the same time?
I am inclined to say YES, and there are two big reasons. Aside from those, there's the aforementioned scene with the old, crazy lady that suddenly speaks English and has such a striking change of expression that she generates enough dread for the entirety of the movie.
In addition, there are a number of very pleasant scenes, or rather shots. I've already said that there's an apparent adherence to the “every frame - a painting” rule, and I really liked it.
Lastly, and maybe most important, I really felt as though this movie was, in an odd manner, similar to “Under the Skin”, which is a colossal achievement. 1/1
Conclusion
8/10. A very good horror movie that actually does horror in a far more pleasant manner than almost every other horror film out there - barely any jump scares, everything is based on feeling uneasy, befuddled and bothered. That's grand. Still, though, it is a bit nasty, and it is a horror film, so I'd urge folks who like horror or thrillers to give it a look, while everyone else could pass.
I tuck it under my belt, another shining achievement that I proudly display!