Tusk: A Genuinely Frightening Satire, or Just a Bad Film?

Guy LaPointe provides us with a welcome escape back into the ridiculous nature of the premise, which by the midway mark is a good thing by me.

The day before I started school again I decided to spend the afternoon watching Tusk with the boys, you know how it goes, watch a horror movie, don't get scared, have a good laugh. I distantly remembered the trailer of this playing when I was just a fat thirteen-year-old, and being intrigued by the premise of a man being turned into a walrus but hearing nothing after that. No joke, that's literally the plot. Well let me tell you, there were few laughs to be had watching this. It's a harrowing tale, that is possibly the only film to have ever made me feel even somewhat nauseous, and yet people hated it. Is it really just a bad movie, or is it some sort of subtle satire?

Though I hated Wallace with every fibre of my being, it was painful to watch this guy be reduced to a whimpering animal. Not even he deserves that.

So in terms of plot, Tusk is already feeling like some sort of satire, or at least a horror-comedy. I mean the plot, as stated above, is basically that a man is kidnapped and forced to be a walrus. But wait, there's more. The man in question is a guy named Wallace who travels around the world meeting strange people and coming back to LA to describe them to his friend (who for some reason won't travel) on their 'travel' podcast, 'The Not-See Party'. Get it? It sounds like Nazi, how hilarious. It definitely doesn't help that we're told this joke at least four times throughout the film. This also really tells you everything you need to know about our protagonist. He's an unapologetic, serial-cheating, gleefully offensive, and just an all-American asshole. In retrospective, he's essentially the picture of fragile narcissism, whose day is ruined because his reluctant girlfriend won't blow him before he goes off to Canada to interview a stand-in for the Star Wars Kid (He actually curses the kid for committing suicide before being interviewed. He's just trash, and you couldn't pick a better guy to experience a terrible fate. The other characters and their roles are far more entertaining though, and actually make this a fun film to watch. The villain, an old ship's cook, carries great malice and threat, despite the ridiculous premise. This guy is great to watch, and his intro scene feels like two different movies every time the camera goes back to Wallace (the jackass). Through Wallace's girlfriend and friend we get to see the subject of emotional cheating (I mean, at this point it's kinda fair) be explored a bit, which isn't something you see often. Johnny Depp was in this, as Quebecois stereotype and bounty hunter Guy LaPointe, and turns the portions he's on screen into some sort of Wes Anderson-seeming tale. Really, this film's story, while on paper very solid and seeming like a satire, is in execution all over the place. Was this intentional? Were we supposed to hate Wallace and only feel bad for him when reduced to a cowering animal, scarred and deformed as opposed to simply murdered? Besides what we see, there's really no indication, and on top of this, the film ends on such a downer. Wallace is saved, but he's so scarred and mangled that he can only live as a walrus. Why?

Wallace's friend is a case study in emotional cheating, and that there are times when you should really put your foot down to your friends.

It's hard to make up my mind about how I felt regarding the acting in Tusk. The writing was so strange that it was hard to tell if this strange case of confused genre was just the writing, or each actor trying to salvage it. Seriously, literally every character that speaks in this makes this movie a different genre. From Wallace we have a mean-spirited comedy, Howard Howe makes this a mad scientist movie, the border agent makes this an SNL sketch, the convenience store clerks bring some sort of Edgar Wright weirdness, and it goes on. There's just no consistency. I liked what each of the actors did (except Wallace, for reasons that shall not be enumerated), but there's no constant thread, until the end, and it really doesn't work. There's interesting performances, but it's just baffling.

Howe is a treat to watch, and there are several instances where he shows, not tells, information, such as his ability to walk, which as you know is my favorite thing.

Technically, I loved what this film did, especially with practical effects and camerawork. Wallace as Mr. Tusk was possibly the most horrifying practical effect I've ever witnessed. The stuff of nightmares, seriously, do not watch this film if you have anything short of a cast-iron stomach, you will want to throw up. It's here where the ridiculous premise loses its amusing nature, and I'd argue that that was their mission accomplished. Here's a gold star, take it goddamnit, now get that monstrosity out of my sight. Now earlier I mentioned that I had an issue with the never-settling tone/genre of this film, but it's in the camerawork where it actually is done well. In Wallace's meeting with Howe, we get to see this in full display, with a more generic camera shot on Wallace paired with a slow and intense shot of Howard. Guy LaPointe scenes really feel like a Wes Anderson film, and Wallace's girlfriend and his friend feels like we're watching a mysterious romantic drama, complete with concealing shots and off-screen dialogue, and so on. It all comes together in the climactic scene, where the boon companions finally find Wallace, and the film finally settles on a tone and style of cinematography. Unfortunately it chooses abject despair. I thought these were supposed to be escapism, right? Apart from this there isn't much to be said about how this film looks. The mansion looks amazing, and we actually witness the process of being drugged over the course of a scene, which is the first time I've ever seen this in any media. You don't pass out immediately, it's a gradual process that might seem like you're drunk, and I absolutely adored it for its realism.

Wallace meeting Howard is probably the best scene in the film, and actually succeeds in doing the contrasting genre act really well.

So there it is, Tusk, probably the most unenjoyable film that I at least somewhat liked. I still have yet to make up my mind as to whether this was just a shitty horror film or if it was a poorly-executed satire (making me not want to throttle the victim would help loads). Would I watch this film again? Most likely never. Would I recommend this? Never. On top of just being pretty freaking unenjoyable (as in zero catharsis, only pain), it's also just unpleasant to watch. Before being taken, Wallace was physically painful to watch, he just made me so mad. If you like body horror and are looking for something that isn't The Thing, I'd say that this might be up your alley, but you could honestly skip the first maybe ten minutes to get to where Wallace gets somewhat interesting (or not). Watching this, I can say one thing though: I've finally found a movie that I wouldn't ask anyone to watch with me, and I mean it.