So, what is a washed up true crime writer supposed to do when it’s been years since the last bestseller, the previous two books were poorly researched and poorly received, bills keep piling up, and the wife uses the threat of leaving and taking the kids with her as a cudgel? Well, in 2025, this would never be a problem, as this film’s protagonist, Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke), would already be on season three or four of his true crime podcast. But, back in the distant days of 2012, when this film was released, Ellison would have packed up his family, moved them into a house where an appalling mass murder occurred, and tried to bang out a new career and family-saving hit. That’s the premise behind Sinister, from director Scott Derrickson, and written by Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill.
The film opens with a terrifying sight. A Super 8mm film rolls, showing four hooded figures noosed to a tree limb. Ropes are arranged such that all four are attached to another, heavier limb, that is being sawed away. As the limb falls, the four are lifted into the air and strangled. The color, the graining, the pops and crackles, the sound of the projector, and the creepy music, establish this movie’s horror bona fides right alongside the death.
Next we see Ellison and his family moving into a suburban ranch home, much to the chagrin of the local sheriff (Fred Thompson). No one comes out and says it, but it’s clear Ellison is moving his family into a crime scene, and the crime, which we saw in the opening, is the subject of Ellison’s next book. The crime happened the previous year. The area is still 
traumatized by it, and the sheriff is concerned about what Ellison’s presence will do to the community, and very concerned about how the book will portray the local police. After all, the crime remains unsolved, and Ellison has used local police as whipping posts in his previous books. Ellison brushes off the sheriff’s, and his wife’s, concerns, and gets to work.
While moving in, Ellison discovers a box in the attic, seemingly left behind after the murder victims’ effects were removed. Inside is a Super 8 projector and a number of film reels, all labeled like innocuous family events, such as BBQ ’79 and Pool Party ’66. Ellison sets up the projector and spools in the reel named Family Hanging Out ’11, and sees the same footage as the movie’s opening. He realizes he is watching the murder of his book’s subjects. A look at other reels reveals that they are all scenes of grisly murder. What Ellison seems to have discovered is a record of serial killings going back decades. What their connection is to each other, he does not know. How the footage ended up in the house, he also does not know. The mystery is what drives the movie.
Alongside this, the house is haunted. As Ellison looks deeper and deeper into the mystery, ghostly shenanigans occur, ratcheting up in intensity as the movie goes on. Ellison has become obsessed with his book and the murders, leading him to rationalize the paranormal goings on. The strain on his family is causing them distress. The more resolute Ellison becomes, the more tattered and frayed is his family. Finally, the mystery and the paranormal are explained, in satisfying and horrible fashion, and then denouement. Going into more detail would ruin a first time viewing experience, so that’s all I have to say about the main plot.
What I can write about is this film’s atmosphere. Having seen countless horror movies, it’s a rare experience to see something that manages to frighten me these days. Writing about film can also ruin a person’s suspension of disbelief, as an appreciation of the craft of filmmaking is like pulling the curtain back on the wizard. This is a horror flick that makes it easy for the viewer to let go and be pulled in, however. Derrickson’s sense of atmosphere is quite unsettling, even if it does rely much on Ellison’s phobia of light switches.
The vast majority of this film takes place in the house, especially in Ellison’s office, the hallway, and the attic. A function of budget or not, Derrickson makes the house so oppressive that viewers will be thankful for the occasional respite. As with other haunted house flicks, the tension is better maintained when the spooky stuff is heard and not seen, with spectral appearances being a little hokey, but not overused.
Sinister has a 110-minute running time, and Derrickson packed a lot of story in there. So much so that there is very little in the way of character development for Ellison’s family. His wife, Tracy (Juliet Rylance), has a life outside of the house viewers never see, and her life inside the house is being in a permanent state of anger towards Ellison. He has a son and daughter as well, played by Michael Hall D’Addario and Clare Foley, who are accessories to the story, despite some importance in the final act. It seems as if there was a lot more screenplay to this film, and much had to be cut to keep a reasonable pace and running time. If so, I have nothing but praise for that kind of ruthless efficiency. Other filmmakers could learn a thing or two about trimming fat from this film, both for good and ill.
Reaction from audiences has been mixed for Sinister. Some viewers are probably put off by the pace, which is deliberate. Others will notice that this is a film which lends itself to endless nitpicking over the small details. And some viewers don’t feel any twitch of fear or tension in a ghost movie. That’s not what scares them. For those who respond to a film with this kind of atmosphere, meant to evoke not just fear but dread, Sinister is damn scary. Except for the jump scare right before the credits. It’s stupid and should have been cut.