Bummed to hear it, but it’s not unreasonable. I don’t know why Barbarian put me off but this one worked for me. I guess it felt like the abrupt jumps (which reminded me of those books that always jump to a new perspective in a new chapter when the first hits a cliffhanger) were building to something. Maybe that’s just a different way of saying the same thing as you, which is that the ending is the best part of this one.

“I wouldn’t be astonished if something about this puts you off”

Then, brother, you will not be astonished. It’s a little better than Barbarian, mainly on the basis of having its effective thirty minutes being at the end, which is obviously preferable to its effective thirty minutes being at the beginning. Am going to have trouble expressing just how much I think the structure and narrative dog’s ears ruins it.

I realize I sound exactly how so many of the reviewers and podcasters sounded about Barbarian, so maybe take my rec with a grain of salt, but I’d say give it a try.

Now, this is what has me interested. What put me off Barbarian in a big way was all the structural futzing around; Cregger’s great at staging a scary-basement set-piece, but the jarring shifts in perspective and tone just made it feel to me like he was larding up a stock horror scenario with a lot of extra steps.

I don’t think it really requires Barbarian, though for me it was instructive in Weapons showing the way the impulses behind Barbarian can be done much better. I never can quite predict what you’ll like or not like, though, so I wouldn’t be astonished if something about this puts you off. It’s a big win for me, though — it would take a really amazing run of films during awards season to keep it out of my top 10.