{"id":9738,"date":"2026-06-20T22:34:05","date_gmt":"2026-06-21T03:34:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/?p=9738"},"modified":"2026-06-20T22:34:05","modified_gmt":"2026-06-21T03:34:05","slug":"leviticus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/?p=9738","title":{"rendered":"Leviticus"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>Directed By Adrian Chiarella<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Starring &#8211; Joe Bird, Stacy Clausen, Mia Wasikowska<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Plot &#8211; Two teenage boys (Bird, Clausen) must escape a violent entity that takes the form of the person they desire most: each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Rated R for bloody violent content, adult language, some sexual content and teen drug use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=gfkLVd23T64\">LEVITICUS &#8211; Official Trailer (2026)<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>POSITIVES<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Whether or not you&#8217;re someone directly affected by gay relationships, the one thing that we can all agree on is that the queer population face the merciless kind of prejudicial ridicule that aims to deplete someone&#8217;s euphoric need to taste the kind of love that caters to their specific needs, and while Leviticus is far from the first film to approach gay dating realities from an allegorical outlining, it is a hauntingly heartbreaking psychological slow-burner that devastates accordingly with the kind of unfiltered honesty that Chiarella feels inclined to deliver on an unsuspecting audience. For a directorial debut, what Chiarella conveys here is nothing short of breathtaking, where on one hand he preheats the atmospherically ominous oven to its limits, in order to articulate an environmental isolation and murky dread of religiously misguided figures, while on the other an invigoratingly insightful delve into the horrifying realities of those perceived as different, which helps to bring its horror elements to life in ways that are every bit relatable as they are empathetically enamoring, and while the horror itself limits carnage candy to not only enhance its appeal long-term in the expanse of its sporadic usage, but also allows Chiarella to maintain such an undeterred focus on the metaphorical profoundness that never sacrifices honesty for elaboration, instead conjuring a first-person perspective that immerses us in the overwhelming task that Joe Bird&#8217;s Naim overwhelmingly faces in attempting to suppress his love for Stacy Clausen&#8217;s Ryan by distancing himself from the empowering way that he makes him feel. As a result, the gimmick at the forefront of the narrative certainly brings elemental sensibilities of It Follows, in that it metaphorically manifests sexuality as an uncompromising antagonist whose motivational purposes derive from the actions of those involved, but unlike that aforementioned predecessor, Leviticus values the specificity of this menacing force&#8217;s identity to not only cut the deepest in requiring Naim to confront the air of his feelings with a toxic confliction for survival, but also offers justification in the many questionable actions that the character makes in his elusion of Ryan, and considering it corroborates with the religious flock&#8217;s initial need to utilize conversion tactics of the most morally depraved egregiousness, taking the audience on the kind of roller-coaster of emotions required to take the elaborateness of this idea to the next level. On top of this, Chiarella makes up for in atmospheric tuning what he lacks in guiding experience, particularly in the dynamic combination of some expressive camera angles and motions, which help to illustrate the uplifting emphasis of Naim and Ryan&#8217;s love in a revolving documenting during intimacy, that makes time surrounding them feel like it quite literally stands still, but also a grippingly intense synth score from Jed Kurzel, the very same composer who gave teeth to the compositions in The Babadook. While the music is used refreshingly minimal throughout, instead opting to revel in the insecure vulnerabilities of Naim&#8217;s dreaded disposition in attempting to decipher responsibly between Ryan and his devious doppelganger, when it is enacted with gritty and manically persistent tones, it brings a sequence to life with the kind of dire urgency and nagging persistence that mirror accordingly what&#8217;s transpiring throughout these physical confrontations, with Chiarella&#8217;s instincts as a visual storyteller effectively conveying the restless uncertainty that revels remarkably in lingering shots of unidentifiable shadows and detectability over emotionality, which gifts us an indulging insight into the mentality of characters without the need to squander them abrasively with dialogue wiping away the nuance of a duo of poetically raw performances from Bird and Clausen. Considering this is only the second time that I&#8217;ve experienced Bird&#8217;s brilliance as an actor, after his criminally underrated utility work in Talk To Me, his naturalism as a guiding voice permeates front and center here, with Bird effortlessly appraising empathy by ocularly elevated opportunities that zero in on his connective relationship with the lens, in order to mediate over the intensity of anxiousness that permeates breathlessly over the dire helplessness of his suddenly souring situation. Bird is balanced accordingly by a physically demanding turn from Clausen that helps transpire the duality of his double duty, where the sensitive tenderness of his lustful exploits as Ryan casually give way to the stoically stern conviction as the entity, that feels like the immovable force that can only be slowed down, instead of stopped, and with each of these conductive components clamoring to a compassionately natural brand of chemistry that typically requires multiple movies in a franchise to effectively articulate between actors, we&#8217;re given this magnetic allure between them that feels practically therapeutic in the drunken desire that each implement on the other, surmising palleted passion in droves aplenty. Beyond the stunning work of Bird and Clausen, we&#8217;re also treated to a malevolent supporting turn from Mia Wasikowska, who as Naim&#8217;s irresponsibly distant mother, wields a quietly upsetting emphasis in the candidness of her portrayal, resonant of the worst kind of super-religious apologists who spew scripture while carrying the hateful brand of deceit from within. Her limited capacity on the influence of the film certainly has no problem eliciting the necessary hatred from an audience repressed to find a single redeeming quality about her selfish actions, but even as a secondary antagonist of sorts, Mia brings a shameless assertiveness to her deliveries that grounds her with the kind of realism and honesty that are weaponized during the most sensitively opportunistic times against her son, offering what is easily her most influential work of a past decade spent meticulously picking the kinds of projects that she attaches her name and legacy to. Lastly, while Leviticus is anything but a big budgeted blockbuster, there is a firmly effective balance between practical and digital effects work that make the most of the sparingly utilized gruesome gore that the movie occasionally renders for itself, where a healthy balance of both make sequences involving lacerations or spewing blood beguiled by the burdening of believability, with regards to which is being used at any particular moment. It certainly helps that Chiarella&#8217;s direction isn&#8217;t driven by exploitative gore on a grander scale, but rather the desperately dire opposition of those oppressed by their own inevitabilities, and with the director maintaining a comfortable distance in his documentation of these aspects, it leaves their appearance void of any glaringly evidential transparency, allowing the audience to get lost in the actions instead of the consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>NEGATIVES<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While the detracting elements are few and far between in such a compelling slow-burn of a story, there are some unfortunate aspects that do occasionally speak volumes to Chiarella&#8217;s inexperience as a guiding hand, particularly the limitations in the consistency of rules and exploits of his gimmick, which feel direly limited, as a result of the movie&#8217;s 81-minute runtime keeping us from the kinds of gripping answers towards fleshing out its most important questions. In maintaining a spoiler-free dissection, I will instead assess that the religious arc of the engagement feels slightly less significant the longer the film persists into its second hour, and the ins and outs of its supernatural gimmick feel underwritten in their connective language to the audience, and while I typically appreciate ambiguity in horror movies containing elaborate gimmicks from supernatural circumstances, the desire to leave them unaddressed presented more dejecting speed bumps than necessary, especially in the limited scope of purely addressing this exploration from Naim&#8217;s perspective, while leaving Ryan entirely out in the cold. Ryan&#8217;s glossing over is mirrored by the spontaneous disappearance of an important character whose whereabouts go unaddressed from the final draft of this script, as well as some developments that get abruptly resolved almost as quickly as they&#8217;re enacted to the engagement, and with the addition of 10-20 minutes on the project, a deeper sense of attainable knowledge could&#8217;ve been grasped in the distinction of this world-building, even if the aforementioned ambiguity allows it to maintain the mystique of the entity that&#8217;s conjured. Beyond some tight restrictions in the exploitative outpouring of this movie&#8217;s creativity, my only other problem with the film pertained to some of the pacing issues during the opening act, that required a bit of patience before the integral beats of the storytelling took shape during the start of the second act. This is not to say that the first act feels like a tedious waste of a weakness on the finished product, as it indulges accordingly in the loneliness and anxieties of gay characters tasked with living freely in a conservatively strict and detached community from society, just that the beats of Naim&#8217;s arc don&#8217;t feel like they gel compellingly until he receives first hand knowledge of the initially invisible force that attack those closest to him, and while the second half of the movie endeared me exceptionally to the point that I was faithfully invested, I would be lying if I didn&#8217;t mention that those first few scenes never find a comfortable rhythm that settled me in seamlessly, instead requiring a bit more time than expected for a movie that doesn&#8217;t even reach the hour-and-a-half mark in its expectations of an audience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>OVERALL<br>Leviticus is not only a psychologically subversive allegory on queer dating, but also an auspiciously fearless directorial debut for Adrian Chiarella, whose depiction of young gay love is every bit empowering as it is terrifying for two people burdened by the fear and paranoia of living by someone else&#8217;s outdated wishes. While the expansion of the film&#8217;s supernaturally unique gimmick feels constrained by an inopportune runtime, the coming-of-age narrative at the forefront of the movie&#8217;s journey grounds its haunts in the haunting haze of real-life horrors, summoning the kind of insightful social commentary and situational urgency that beats relevantly for a world incapable of allowing others perceived as different to explore the kind of love that sets them free<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>My Grade: 8.1 or B+<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Directed By Adrian Chiarella Starring &#8211; Joe Bird, Stacy Clausen, Mia Wasikowska The Plot &#8211; Two teenage boys (Bird, Clausen) must escape a violent entity that takes the form of the person they desire most: each other. Rated R for bloody violent content, adult language, some sexual content and teen drug use. LEVITICUS &#8211; Official [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":9739,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[6,20],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9738"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=9738"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9738\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9740,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9738\/revisions\/9740"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/9739"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=9738"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=9738"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=9738"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}