Having read a number of positive reviews, I watched "In Fear" expecting a competent, low-budget genre exercise with perhaps some new twists. There is definitely some skill and creativity involved in this film, but ultimately I think it disappoints because it abandons genre conventions to strain for a psychological depth which it doesn't really have. As many reviews note, it starts off strong but loses focus about halfway through the film.
I just wanted to note a couple of points which I haven't seen discussed elsewhere. (Spoilers follow!)
1) Some of my favorite films deal with the problems that arise from ineffective communication (e.g. "Blood Simple"). "In Fear" touches on this theme, as Tom and Lucy bicker and talk past each other and fail to connect. But this never goes anywhere, and the dialogue is mostly just uninteresting. (Apparently most of it was improvised, which seems like a gimmick that should have been dropped in favor of a tighter script.)
2) The backstory/explanation for the film's events is left vague and largely unclear. I have no problem with films using ambiguity, mystery, and lack of resolution for effect or to suggest a deeper theme. This can work quite well in the horror genre (see the stories of Robert Aickman, or a film like "Kill List"). With "In Fear", though, we just have a very simple bad-guy-terrorizes-innocents-in-creepy-setting plot; and the vague hints and missing pieces come across as an unsuccessful attempt to suggest that there's more going on here than there really is.
3) Having said that, however, there does seem to be a motive to Max's madness buried in the hints. In the title credits we see an auto accident, and later on Max tells of a boy who was pushed into a road as a prank, which caused the oncoming car to crash, killing all passengers. The hotel/auto-graveyard and the final scene where Max encourages Lucy to kill him with her car suggest that Max was that young fellow who inadvertently took innocent lives; and perhaps driven mad by guilt, he's recreated the accidents over and over again (keeping the crashed cars at his "hotel") until finally he decides to push someone (Lucy) to the point where she will intentionally run him down. I think this explanation holds together given the clues in the film; but even so it's not much of a payoff. It doesn't do much to elevate the film beyond its genre and the cliché of a crazy guy in the country tormenting innocent city folk.
4) The aspect of the film which really killed it for me was its reliance on the horror/thriller cliché of the apparently-superhuman stalker, who seems to have the ability to know exactly where the victims will be & what they will do, and to transport himself from one location to another in seconds, so he can lurk menacingly in the background as our heroes pass by, or become invisible to pull Lucy's hair, or gain access to their car undetected when they are only a few feet away. When we realize that Tom & Lucy are being stalked by just one guy who moves hotel signs around to get them lost, the sense of menace drops considerably. Admittedly, Tom & Lucy wouldn't know this - but for the viewers it stretches plausibility past the breaking point. And how did Max manage to stage dozens and dozens of accidents (resulting in the many crashed cars piled up at the hotel) without anyone catching on over the years? This very human villain seems to be able to acquire supernatural powers when the plot requires it.
I just wanted to note a couple of points which I haven't seen discussed elsewhere. (Spoilers follow!)
1) Some of my favorite films deal with the problems that arise from ineffective communication (e.g. "Blood Simple"). "In Fear" touches on this theme, as Tom and Lucy bicker and talk past each other and fail to connect. But this never goes anywhere, and the dialogue is mostly just uninteresting. (Apparently most of it was improvised, which seems like a gimmick that should have been dropped in favor of a tighter script.)
2) The backstory/explanation for the film's events is left vague and largely unclear. I have no problem with films using ambiguity, mystery, and lack of resolution for effect or to suggest a deeper theme. This can work quite well in the horror genre (see the stories of Robert Aickman, or a film like "Kill List"). With "In Fear", though, we just have a very simple bad-guy-terrorizes-innocents-in-creepy-setting plot; and the vague hints and missing pieces come across as an unsuccessful attempt to suggest that there's more going on here than there really is.
3) Having said that, however, there does seem to be a motive to Max's madness buried in the hints. In the title credits we see an auto accident, and later on Max tells of a boy who was pushed into a road as a prank, which caused the oncoming car to crash, killing all passengers. The hotel/auto-graveyard and the final scene where Max encourages Lucy to kill him with her car suggest that Max was that young fellow who inadvertently took innocent lives; and perhaps driven mad by guilt, he's recreated the accidents over and over again (keeping the crashed cars at his "hotel") until finally he decides to push someone (Lucy) to the point where she will intentionally run him down. I think this explanation holds together given the clues in the film; but even so it's not much of a payoff. It doesn't do much to elevate the film beyond its genre and the cliché of a crazy guy in the country tormenting innocent city folk.
4) The aspect of the film which really killed it for me was its reliance on the horror/thriller cliché of the apparently-superhuman stalker, who seems to have the ability to know exactly where the victims will be & what they will do, and to transport himself from one location to another in seconds, so he can lurk menacingly in the background as our heroes pass by, or become invisible to pull Lucy's hair, or gain access to their car undetected when they are only a few feet away. When we realize that Tom & Lucy are being stalked by just one guy who moves hotel signs around to get them lost, the sense of menace drops considerably. Admittedly, Tom & Lucy wouldn't know this - but for the viewers it stretches plausibility past the breaking point. And how did Max manage to stage dozens and dozens of accidents (resulting in the many crashed cars piled up at the hotel) without anyone catching on over the years? This very human villain seems to be able to acquire supernatural powers when the plot requires it.