Like “The Shining”, Dusty Mancinelli and Madeleine Sims-Fewer’s “Honey gang“Begins with their characters on the way deep into a rural area that immediately suggests isolation from the wider world. Its central pairs, Homer (Ben Petrie) and Diana (Grace Glowicki), is on their way to an experimental therapy institute where they hope that the latter memory and engine control will disappear from a poor car accident can be healed.
Not before the couple arrive at this Backwoods facility yet film adopts the aesthetics of the Throwback 70s Madhouse -Thrillers as Gore Verbinski’s “A Cure for Wellness” and Peter Strickland’s neo-gay. Homer and Diana come out of their car to a disassembled pov that shot and stared down at them from a window and zoom slowly in with supervision paranoia. One of the institute’s medical personnel, Farah (Kate Dickie), greets them with the type of clinical cordiality that undermines its outward soothing with nervous release.
For the first hour of the film, “Honey Bunch” moves in a deliberate creep and sinks into the simultaneously soothing and foreign characteristic of the Baroque mansion that the institute reused into a therapy center. Slow cooking vessels and zooms take in large corridors within and plenty of land surrounding the building, the placement pace does not really hide the subtle emphasis on the center’s total insulation from the outside world and the many places within its walls where it can hide secrets. The rooms are filmed in golden shades of sunlight that radiate through windows, which does everything in a light, Gossamer DIS that presets Diana’s increasingly full visions of recovered memories and other, less personal hallucinations of mysterious, distorted figures in various diseases that haunt the corridors and parlos.
While these worrying details gather, actors use the time to expand their characters from simple genrity types to more complicated people. Glowicki initially has a bit to do as Diana other than fighting through therapy sessions involving hypnosis and other techniques, but when Diana recovers more of her lost memories, she begins Chafe against her previously compatible, docile nature. To a greater extent, both her doctors and her husband still find Diana finding moments to connect deeper to them when her curiosity extends to basic human interaction along with Sleuthing for clues. Diana, who is already struggling to regain her full mental faculties, is disgusting to pay attention to these anxiety, and Glowicki stands out to submit to the type of role that tends to go down to expressionist shows of madness in favor of subtle clues – a darting other look – a forced tone of innocent curios
Similarly, Petrie strikes a thorough balance between the spotting, paying attention to husband who tries to help his wife healing and blinking off a darker side to his personality. Homer’s constant floating can be strenuous, and there are hints that his suffocating intense focus on Diana’s recovery masks a debt over some previous difficulties in their marriage. In the same way, the serious heat that Homer tries to help Diana prevents the character to come over as a controlling husband too quickly. Both joints are leaning into the uncertainty of history to explore the contours in a long -term relationship and the ways that a large trauma complicates it in ways that can be as positive as they are frustrating.
In the halfway brand, the film moves away from a slow burden Madhouse-thriller towards a more grotesque entry into the latter today’s horror life when the real nature in the plant’s treatment is revealed. This transition initially throws the rhythm, losing the accurate package of character details in favor of a series of plot complications and turns and largely replaces a set of film reference points for another. To the film’s credit, it is one of the few of the recent rounds of body horror images to recognize the genre’s ability to tragedy over allegorical statement and shock value.
Nevertheless, the directors are side -tracked over all the weak mutations suddenly on the display to the disadvantage of both the storytelling and the leaders’ nuanced performances. Glowicki and Petrie spend a longer part of the second half losing their naturalistic body language and ambiguous behavior in favor of explicit confrontations that too boldly emphasize what had been left unsaid to that point. Diana, Homer and supportive characters like Farah repeatedly say about the film’s themes or, worse, gives extended relapses and explanations of turns as they happen.
Only during the last minute, the “Honey Bunch” recovers the foot and brings together its various stylistic and plot elements into a coherent and thought -provoking ruminator on the hazy line that separates the moral imperatives for lifelong commitment to another person from selfishness who can ultimately undermine care for that person. Around all the way back to Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein”, insoluble issues arise in the ethical imperatives born of embracing technical breakthrough for debris. Unlike many of its obvious influence, “Honey Bunch” is built on a basis for its characters’ true love and desire to help, but in some ways it makes their actions even more terrible and disturbing.
Rating: B-
“Honey Bunch” premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival 2025. It is currently seeking US distribution.
Want to keep you updated on IndieWire’s movie Reviews And critical thoughts? Subscribe here To our recently launched newsletter, in review by David Ehrlich, where our main film critic and Head Review’s editor rounds off the best new reviews and streaming choices along with some exclusive Musings – all only available for subscribers.
