‘Death of a Unicorn’ Review: A Lifeless Horror Comedy

In horror films, it’s often beneficial if the characters are less intelligent or seemingly unaware, as this can enhance suspense rather than create problems. When a film invites audiences to enjoy the gruesome deaths of its main characters, it is advantageous for viewers to feel minimal empathy towards them. Moreover, it becomes challenging to support a character who consistently makes foolish decisions that lead them towards their inevitable doom.

In satire, it can be challenging to create engaging “dumb” characters; they require sharp writing both within and surrounding these characters to truly bring them to life effectively. However, in the novel “Death of a Unicorn“, the author fails to accomplish this balance. The characters are predominantly detestable and, at times, alarmingly unintelligent, making it difficult not to hope for their downfall – which is ironically brought about by the mythical unicorns in the story.

It seems that unicorns, contrary to the adorable plush toys we often gift to our kids, are not tame and fluffy creatures as one might expect. Instead, they are the fearsome beasts from ancient folklore, possessing immense strength and ferocity. If anyone were to accidentally run over a baby unicorn and flee with its lifeless body, the unicorn would not rest until it retrieves its offspring, much like the relentless Michael Myers, but armed with a jagged, glowing horn instead of a kitchen knife.

In this imaginary world, unicorns are depicted as beasts, but it’s often the human characters who exhibit more monstrous behavior. The exception is Ridley (played by Jenna Ortega), a teenage girl with a melancholic demeanor, who is reluctantly accompanying her father Elliot (Paul Rudd) on a crucial journey to meet his bosses, the Leopolds. Odell (Richard E. Grant), the patriarch of the family, is battling an incurable form of cancer and wishes to maintain the family business after his demise. The movie doesn’t provide clear reasons, but Odell has chosen bumbling and anxious Elliot to manage the board that will secure the opulent lifestyles of his wife Belinda (Tea Leoni) and son (Will Poulter) following his passing. The Leopolds profess a strong emphasis on family values, which is why they bring Ridley to their estate, a vast nature reserve in Northern Canada, for the signing of final paperwork.

Almost straight away, an accident occurs as Elliot, momentarily distracted, crashes into a baby unicorn during his journey from the airport. Despite his efforts to conceal the mishap, the Leopolds swiftly become aware of what transpired. Once they comprehend that the unicorn’s blood could have supernatural healing abilities, they act promptly, exploiting the unfortunate creature by poking, shaving, and carving it up for their personal gain and profit.

Ridley, who seems to have an enigmatic bond with the creature, searches online questions like “are unicorns harmful” and subsequently attempts to alert her father of the necessity to flee before the repercussions of their actions surface. Elliot is so reluctant to take actions that may risk his job and so eager for a slice of his superior’s wealth, that he disregards all the numerous indications that Ridley is on the right track until it becomes too late to prevent the consequences.

It’s clear that Ridley won’t be able to sway the unscrupulous Leopolds, and this is a significant issue. In Death of a Unicorn, everything unfolds just as we anticipate, from start to finish. There isn’t a single unexpected moment in Alex Sharfman’s directorial debut script. Moreover, the characters’ actions and poor choices are as foreseeable as the plot itself.

If “Death of a Unicorn” aimed to be an endless bloodbath without concern for subtlety or suspense, its lackluster storytelling could have been forgiven. However, the film primarily focuses on social critique against stagnant capitalism in its first hour, with the Leopolds serving as prime targets. Unfortunately, the satire’s impact is as soft as a baby unicorn’s bite, and while it escalates the action towards the end, most of the unicorn-versus-human violence remains off-screen.

The actors strive to bring depth to their roles using the limited complexities offered by the characters in the script. Will Poulter stands out among the group with his portrayal of a remarkably clueless and servile character. It’s refreshing to see Rudd step away from his usual fast-talking, charming characters, and I appreciate his ability to make Elliot appear weak and cowardly.

As a movie enthusiast, I can’t help but ponder the missed comedic potential of Grant and Leoni in a flick where the most unpleasant individuals on earth face off against a horde of madcap unicorns. Meanwhile, Ortega is at risk of being stereotyped as eternal teenage angst personified in the 21st century. At 22, she needs to take on a role that demonstrates her versatility before Hollywood ages her into the narrow mold they seem to believe is her only acting capacity.

At this moment, you could find few movie experiences more tedious than “Death of a Unicorn,” although there are certainly more engaging options available. The gruesome murder scenes are well executed, and some of the casual humor provides a few laughs, such as when Leoni tells her guests that her butler is preparing her signature dish, moussaka, for dinner. However, much of the film mirrors its title – it’s lackluster and uninspiring.

Additional Thoughts:

In the movie “Death of a Unicorn,” Jenna Ortega’s character is named Ridley, which seems like a tribute to the “Alien” series. However, Elliot refers to her as “Rid” and she roams the woods near the Leopold estate in a red hoodie. It’s unfortunate that the rest of the film didn’t live up to the cleverness implied by the potential “Red Riding Hood” reference.

RATING: 5/10

Remakes That Were Drastically Different From the Original

A Star Is Born (1976)

Originally, “A Star Is Born” was first released in the 1930s, with roots in an earlier melodrama called “What Price Hollywood?”. This film told a romantic story set in the movie industry, experiencing its highs and lows. The 1954 version introduced musical elements, but it still focused on two movie stars, portrayed by James Mason and Judy Garland. It wasn’t until 1976 that the film evolved into a tale of two musicians, one rising in fame while the other was nearing the end of a tumultuous career. Starring Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson, this version was successful and won an Oscar. The latest remake, starring Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper, followed closely behind. It’s speculated that in the future, perhaps around 2042, a new “A Star Is Born” might center on a pair of TikTokers, one who has just gone viral and the other whose last major video was from the late 2030s or so.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)

In the 1950s and again in the 1970s, I found myself drawn to a chilling tale called “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.” Although both films share a common premise about extraterrestrial beings who can flawlessly imitate human forms, their interpretations and underlying messages are strikingly distinct. The original movie served as an allegory for McCarthyism and conformity in the ’50s, while its 1970s counterpart targeted blind consumerism and self-help gurus. Interestingly, the initial film didn’t offer a particularly uplifting ending, but the 1970s version boasts one of the darkest conclusions seen in Hollywood sci-fi.

The Thing (1982)

A Fresh Take On: The Thing From Another World (1951)

Two adaptations of John W. Campbell’s ‘Who Goes There?’ share a common theme: human crews battling for survival against an extraterrestrial threat. However, the menace in the 1950s version was more of a conventional movie monster with a large bald head and clawed hands. John Carpenter’s ‘The Thing,’ on the other hand, more accurately portrayed Campbell’s vision, where the alien had the ability to imitate human forms, similar to those pesky Body Snatchers. (It occasionally transforms into grotesque, fleshy body horror terrors as well.) The key difference between the two films is that the original story takes place in the Arctic, while Carpenter’s version unfolds in Antarctica, a distinction that might matter quite a bit to geography enthusiasts.

Scarface (1983)

Originally released in 1932 as “Scarface” by Howard Hawks, the movie gained immense popularity after Brian De Palma’s remake in the 1980s. This iconic crime film adorned countless dorm rooms and was referenced in numerous TV shows, movies, and songs. Interestingly, many people who use this cultural reference may not realize that De Palma’s “Scarface” is actually a reinterpretation of an early gangster movie. The original Scarface was an Italian immigrant who rose to power as a crime lord in Chicago; however, in De Palma’s version, the protagonist, Tony Montana, emigrates from Cuba and ascends to become a kingpin in Miami. Although it is a loose adaptation, the essence of the story remains captivating and influential.

The Bachelor (1999)

In a surprising twist, Chris O’Donnell proved to be the ideal contemporary actor to emulate Buster Keaton’s comedic prowess in a remake. This was evident in 1999’s “The Bachelor,” where O’Donnell played a character who learns he stands to inherit a substantial fortune, but only if he can tie the knot within a short span of time. As for the Robert Downey Jr. film “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows,” while it may not be widely recognized, it was actually a reimagining of Keaton’s 1924 classic, “Sherlock Jr.” (Although, I must admit, I took creative liberty with the last one.)

When a Stranger Calls (2006)

Originally titled “When a Stranger Calls” in 1979, this movie was renowned for its chilling opening sequence, where a babysitter is haunted by mysterious phone calls originating from within her own house. The remainder of the story unfolded years later, focusing on a detective pursuing a murderer. In 2006, the captivating 20-minute opening scene was expanded into an entire film, keeping the chilling essence of the original’s first part that resonated with viewers. So, can a 20-minute sequence be stretched into a full 90-minute movie? Apparently it can! However, whether this extended version will stand out in memory like the original remains to be seen…

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call – New Orleans (2009)

In a slightly rephrased manner:

Re-imagining of: Bad Lieutenant (1992)

While some may contend that Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call – New Orleans is not a remake due to its vast differences from Abel Ferrara’s Bad Lieutenant, such as the change in setting, characters, and director (Werner Herzog), it can still be considered a remake. After all, the movie revolves around a police lieutenant engaging in unlawful activities – a concept that falls under the definition of a remake, albeit one with significant creative liberties taken.

RoboCop (2014)

Originally Based On: RoboCop (1987)

It’s no easy feat to match Paul Verhoeven’s unique touch in a franchise, as evidenced by those who attempted RoboCop 2 and 3. However, this peculiar remake attempts to do just that, smoothing out all of Verhoeven’s distinctive rough edges. The character of RoboCop, portrayed here by Joel Kinnaman, undergoes a humorous redesign that is hard to take seriously. Moreover, the remake significantly alters his character development. In Verhoeven’s interpretation, RoboCop was an almost empty slate with little recollection of his family, and the film revolved around his slow journey toward regaining his humanity. José Padilha’s version of RoboCop interacts frequently with his wife and son, even using them as hostages during the climactic action sequence. Yet, the remake fails to convey a clear purpose for these changes.

Pete’s Dragon (2016)

A revamped version of the 1977 film titled “Pete’s Dragon” is one that I usually approach with caution, as most Disney live-action remakes tend to be financially motivated and lack originality. However, there are exceptions like David Lowery’s “Pete’s Dragon.” This updated version eliminated the musical sequences and the more lighthearted humor found in the original for a more serious and immersive children’s adventure. The cast lists of both films offer a clear contrast: The remake boasts Bryce Dallas Howard, Wes Bentley, Karl Urban, and Robert Redford. In comparison, the original featured Mickey Rooney, Red Buttons, Shelley Winters, and Jim Backus.

The remake stars Bryce Dallas Howard, Wes Bentley, Karl Urban, and Robert Redford; the original film featured Mickey Rooney, Red Buttons, Shelley Winters, and Jim Backus.

The Mummy (2017)

In a new take on the storyline: Reimagining of: The Mummy (1932/99)

The Mummy is an intriguing film series with each remake bearing little resemblance to its predecessors, despite the consistent presence of a supernatural mummy. The original 1932 Mummy was rooted in the classic Universal Monsters genre, filled with eerie suspense. The 1999 Mummy, on the other hand, drew inspiration from adventure films such as Indiana Jones. In 2017, The Mummy transformed into one of Tom Cruise’s most peculiar roles, portraying a soldier who is revived after being killed by an ancient Egyptian princess’ spirit. This film also served as the foundation for Universal’s “Dark Universe,” a failed endeavor aimed at creating a multi-faceted franchise similar to the MCU using classic Universal Monster characters. The Dark Universe never produced a second film, making the strange subplot about a clandestine organization that manages supernatural beings (with Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll!) even more absurd.

Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank (2022)

The title of the movie “Paws of Fury” was originally “Blazing Samurai,” a nod to the 1974 film “Blazing Saddles.” Instead of an African American sheriff in the racist Old West, this time it’s a dog (played by Michael Cera) who takes on the roles of both law enforcer and samurai. His mission is similar to that of his predecessor – to fight against the wrongdoers (cats). Despite not receiving the same level of critical and commercial success as Mel Brooks’ classic Western comedy, there are indeed similarities if you know where to look.

Road House (2024)

A fresh take on: “Road House” (1989)

The original “Road House”, unique with its blend of rugged bar brawls and somewhat philosophical ponderings, was remade. Instead of focusing on the world’s top-notch bar enforcer (an unusual profession, I suppose, to quantify), the 2024 version revolves around a disgraced former UFC fighter (Jake Gyllenhaal) who takes up bouncing as a desperate financial measure. He engages in a confrontation with a local business tycoon, but this time it’s filled with more mixed martial arts and less philosophy. Surprisingly, the outcome is still surprisingly entertaining, much like the original “Road House”! Perhaps that makes it a loyal remake after all.

2025-03-25 22:25