I've been watching his movies the last two days. I had already seen X which I thought was good. I watched The Innkeepers and The House of the Devil, which I thought were good, but very slow. I haven't seen Pearl, it looks a too comically odd for my taste, but I'll probably watch it next.
shareDecent director, but the movies themselves aren't great.
sharePearl is no more comedic than X, probably less so.
He likes to craft an aesthetic. The House of the Devil, X & Pearl are what typify him as a director. MaXXXine (sequel to X coming out next year) with be conjuring up another vibe, this time the 80s. He loves to recreate a period. Robert Eggers (The Witch, The Lighthouse, The Northman & the upcoming Nosferatu) is another like this. Fond of history over contemporary entertainment movies.
It's clear that is his M.O. as Pearl was originally meant to a black and white 4:3 movie, a homage to the silent movie era but A24 shot it down and he pivoted into making a technicolor 2.35:1 movie instead.
His movies are slow and methodical. He edits them himself! The only movie he had a co-editor was X, which funnily enough is his most entertaining movie and his best edited. I respect the hustle but think he should maybe try get an experienced film editor to work with to give his movies a bit more oomph. He's a good director, decent writer (yeah he writes his movies too!) and there is no shame in not mastering film editing on top of that.
Overrated.
share