A surrealistic look at what it means to hurt the ones you should care for

Rating: 10/10 (4 January 2020)

First and foremost, let me start off by saying that this film will definitely not be for everyone. Most people who see this film will more than likely not understand what it's saying, which is fine. That's part of the beauty of cinema, it's subjective. And people are entitled to their own opinions.
In my personal experience with this film, Midsommar effected me greatly. The first time I saw it I found it bizarre and grandiose, surreal and visceral. The kind of film that is saying something, but not so loudly that it overwhelms you with it's themes. In fact, it more so invites you to discover what it's saying. And it says a lot. I saw the film 3 times in theaters and I feel like I still haven't grasped entirely what the film means because much of it is very ambiguous. Ari Aster is smart in the regard that he knows what we don't see is much more terrifying than what we do. With that being said, I don't know if I would necessarily categorize this film as a horror movie. It's more of a psychological drama with elements of horror. But genre is merely a pigeonhole that we place films in based on how they make us feel. Regardless of genre, Mr. Aster has made a supremely effective look at a victim's complicated response to those who have hurt her.
Visually, this film is a feast for the eyes. I don't think I've seen a better looking film in 2019 (besides The Lighthouse but in an entirely different fashion). It's use of color and lighting pretty much engulfs the viewer in this strange world that our protagonists have entered. It's some of the finest cinematography I've seen all year. The camerawork is very seamless and vast, as if painting a picture for us. Revealing things through use of imagery is no small task, but Aster and his cinematographer, Pawel Pogorzelski, pull this task off almost flawlessly (which is why I recommend multiple viewings of this film. It has a lot to say through its use of imagery. I'm sure there are some things I still haven't noticed and I've seen the film about 5 times now). This is awards-worthy work from this cinematographer, and I hope he gets the recognition he deserves.
The costume and set design also thoroughly impress, with the small commune appearing to be a world uncorrupted by the outside. We're meant to be fascinated and fearful of this place and the design of the buildings and structures as well as the way they're presented evoke these responses effortlessly. It makes us wonder what's going on behind the walls of the sacred temples that appear so strange to us.
The script for the film is also impressive, though I will say it is definitely not to the magnitude of what Aster did with Hereditary. But Hereditary is entirely different monster altogether. That film was what I would call claustrophobic. This film is vast and wide. Sparking our curiosity while also simultaneously alerting us that a certain danger lurks just beneath the bright exterior. One critic commented that this film is staged more like an opera than a horror film, and I wholeheartedly agree. This is a very well written film but instead of assaulting us with its themes it asks us to look for them ourselves. To interpret them in our own way, which is one of my favorite things about this film (though I can understand why some audiences will be turned off by this).
Now let me get to my favorite aspect of any film: the acting. I'll start off first with the woman at the center of it all, Miss Florence Pugh. I've been watching her ever since I saw her impressive debut in 2016's Lady Macbeth, where she delivered one of the most unnerving performances I've ever seen given by an actress. Here she delivers one of the most vivid performances of the year. In every scene she's in in this film, she is open and vulnerable. As if she has no where that she can hide what she's feeling. And in a way, she doesn't. She's a fountain of emotion, sometimes bursting with an energy that fills the entire screen. It's a mesmerizing performance that allows her to put her full range on display. The supporting players are also very good, with Will Poulter in particular being a standout for providing much needed comic relief (making this film actually surprisingly hilarious at times). Jack Reynor also holds his own as the manipulative boyfriend who doesn't know when to leave well enough alone. Vilhelm Blomgren as their native Swedish friend, also impresses, his performance being sympathetic while also being entirely enigmatic. And William Jackson Harper (of Good Place fame) gives only what I can call a driven performance, advancing the plot towards the insane finale that we all know is coming.
Some people have said that they have found the film tedious and with a few plot holes and I can see why. Some things are left ambiguous, but not outright unanswered. And I think that's the point. It's all part of what your interpretation is.
Regardless of it's flaws, Midsommar is a complex study on grief and trauma. It will effect many viewers (some more than others), and will more than likely be a film that will be talked about years from now as a cinematic phenomenon that people will always be entranced by (similar to Kubrick's The Shining). And though it's not outright scary, it will unnerve you. Which is almost better than being scared.