Not perfect, but very good for a modern horror film

Rating: 8/10 (5 August 2013)

The Ring (both original and the remake), The Conjuring and Insidious are one of the best modern horror movies for me. Most of them with plenty of flaws and tired clichés, but the good outweighed the bad in such a fashion that I was impressed. It was probably natural that I enjoyed this one too.
There are enough jump-scares for people who see horror films for that kind of material, but luckily Sinister doesn't rely solely on them. The atmosphere just gets more and more tense as the movie goes by. There are just enough lighter moments to keep you from getting overly nervous but also not too much to let you lose that sense of horror.
The "real crime author in a house of murder" - type plot is executed surprisingly well, and besides supernatural horror there's a little detective side to the story as well. Most people probably guess what the ending will be like, as I did too. It falls a little flat. Some things are handled a little poorly and the bar is lowered a little. If you're like me and usually give horror movies some slack, you probably won't be bothered too much.
There is an element to this movie that is absolutely handled with utmost skill and care. "Sinister" is built around a certain gimmick. Our main character (played by Ethan Hawke) finds mysterious film reels, which are basically snuff films. We get to see them, and they are disturbing in a way that is rare for horror movies today. It's almost like taking the best out of the whole found-footage genre, and putting bits of it inside a "real" movie. It doesn't feel like a gimmick, even though it probably is, and it works amazingly well. Not only is it genuinely creepy, but it sets up the mystery plot nicely as well.
At times the filmmakers stop relying on the atmosphere and shove a few really idiotic jumpscares or senseless tropes in the film. I like scares, but I also like it when they compliment the story itself and not take you out of it. It's certainly clear that with "Sinister", less would've been more. Either the script wasn't that great or the filmmakers wanted to please the dumber ones in the general audience or the production company demanded more stupidity in the name of lowest common denominator. We may never know. That is a shame, because for me this could've been a modern classic. There, I got my gripes out of the way.
Cinematography, use of sound and lighting all work very well and compliment each other. Technically, very well made.
Ethan Hawke delivers, no worries there. I'm really glad they cast him, he just fits. I've always found him enjoyable to watch, even if he doesn't always choose the best movies to work on. His character has that certain edge that doesn't make him bland or too perfect.
8 out of 10 might be too much because there are some things that bother me, but then again I was truly scared and really immersed - the film just worked for me. Watched it on blu-ray at night, and I even had to take breaks because of the tension. Modern horror movies can be really bad but when there are exceptions like this one, I rejoice (and soil myself in the process).
If I had to compare this to ie. "The Conjuring", I'd say that both are very well made, and while "Sinister" didn't have the tightest script or the balls to rely on its wonderful atmosphere enough, it still scared me more. Both are recommended.