John Hansen's Entertainment Blog

“Chernobyl Diaries” is a great launch to the summer horror movie season, a spooky journey through a ghost town, a blue-collar burg with bland government-style architecture that was quickly abandoned three decades ago in the wake of the next-door Chernobyl nuclear disaster. I don’t think it’s a spoiler to say that the town might not be so empty after all.

However, the emptiness when the “extreme tourists” — four Americans, two Europeans and their Ukranian guide — first explore the city is what’s really creepy and unusual about “Chernobyl Diaries.” The acting’s good enough (Jesse McCartney of “Summerland,” who was the next big thing a half-decade ago, is the only recognizable face), the character relationships are standard (bickering brothers, young lovers, bonding strangers) and the scare scenarios are guided by a deft hand. There’s only one “No, don’t go out there!” moment. Otherwise, the situation escalates in a tense, believable way. (Also, the little things are explained, such as why no one is wearing radiation suits: A couple hours of radiation won’t hurt them.)

The initial nothingness of the town is a big reason why “Chernobyl Diaries” works, but the absence of something else makes it great, too: This isn’t a “found-footage” film. Writer Oren Peli, who developed a reputation as a talent in this subgenre with his “Paranormal Activity” franchise, makes the right choice to shoot “Chernobyl” traditionally, with the camera not being held by a character. As I argued throughout his short-lived TV series “The River,” if it had been shot traditionally, it would’ve been much better. “Found footage” works (except for a questionable sequence at the end of the third movie) on the “Paranormal” films because the plot naturally allows for it, but anytime a viewer thinks “Why in the world is he still filming that?!,” it ceases to be effective.

There is one sequence in “Chernobyl” where a character finds a dropped smartphone that had been recording; it’s a nod to the writer’s “Paranormal” roots and also a nice storytelling device at that moment, but I’m glad I didn’t have to watch the whole movie that way.

Another advantage to traditional camera work — a mix of hand-held and mounted cameras in “Chernobyl” — is that the cinematographer (and later, the editor) can linger on a location longer, thus creating a sense of place and setting a mood. The movie, shot in Serbia and Hungary, really does give a sense of an eastern European ghost town that’s simultaneously vast and a bit claustrophobic (due to the radiation, the tourists mustn’t wander too far from the safety of the van). And I’m glad I got to see that with the characters, through their eyes, rather than through their video footage.

What are your thoughts on the first big horror flick of the summer?

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.