If you were under the age of thirty and even vaguely online anywhere from 2014 onwards, you know about Markiplier. And if you’ve been online and even vaguely aware of anything about Markiplier, you’ve probably already heard about “Iron Lung”.
“Iron Lung”- directed by, starring, and bankrolled by Mark Fischbach- aka Markiplier- is a movie adaptation of David Syzmanski’s game of the same name, in which you play as an unnamed protagonist welded inside a rudimentary submarine (the proverbial iron lung) and plunged into an ocean of blood on an alien planet. Hyped by Markiplier and well-known to his fanbase, but with a relatively small advertising budget otherwise, the movie had its in-theater release January 30th.
Unlike other movies airing, “Iron Lung” doesn’t have a studio distributing or coordinating its release, making it an indie film working on a truly massive scale. (4,161 theaters and counting across the world are showing “Iron Lung”.)
“Iron Lung” is fundamentally a cosmic horror film, and oh boy does it deliver. Slow descents into madness, incomprehensible and alien terrors, and a fine line between reality and hallucination- “Iron Lung” has all of these in spades. As a slow-build horror film, the concepts are unique and genuinely compelling. Meanwhile, its underwater aesthetics and terror of a blood ocean (like a normal ocean, but twice as bad!) only compound this. Eat your heart out, Lovecraft— “Iron Lung” is coming for the terror of deep waters and the eldritch in their depths.
However, where many viewers and critics are tripping up is on “Iron Lung”’s technical execution, rather than its basic premises.
To carry the entirety of a two-hour movie on their shoulders is a lot to ask of any actor. To carry the entirety of a two-hour movie, shot in one incredibly small space with practically no other actors ever onscreen is a nigh-impossible task to ask of one. Fischbach makes a solid effort, but it’s hard to say how well it lands. (I’ll leave that to someone who didn’t spend their youth watching five-hour livestreams of the guy.)
My real issue is instead with the script: instead of talking, much of the acting involved here is simply pacing around while looking bedraggled and horrified, cut with desperate shots of frantic eyes. For a movie with such killer, bleak worldbuilding, “Iron Lung” doesn’t allow the audience much glimpse into it. The most we get is an opening monologue and oblique references to warring factions that leave a first-time viewer confused rather than intrigued. The monologue isn’t original to the movie, either- the same one plays at the beginning of the “Iron Lung” game. It’s a nice callback, but I expected more.
On another note, the cinematography and design is remarkable. If an audience is going to spend two hours staring at the inside of a metal room, the metal room had better look good, or at least acceptably atmospheric- and this is where “Iron Lung” shines. The game submarine is polygonal and clunky. The movie submarine looks like a place you die in. Every shot is gritty, metallic, and claustrophobic enough to drive the point home. And despite my issues with the script, “Iron Lung” is achingly physical; a contrast to the ever-rising prevalence of CGI over practical effects. There’s no items that magically disappear and never have to be thought of again by the audience. Every piece of tape is precious. Every flicker of light is dearly paid for. The special effects (by which I mean the 80,000+ gallons of fake blood) are insane, cool, and gory as hell.
Okay, actually, I have to pause just to say: holy fuck, the amount of blood in this movie is insane. The trailers were absolutely dripping and this movie delivers. Evil Dead (2013)’s previous record (an estimated 50,000-70,000 gallons of fake blood) is GONE.
The sound design reviews are mixed. A genuinely excellent soundtrack composed by Andrew Hulshult is one of “Iron Lung”’s best features, but many viewers are complaining that the actual dialogue is poorly mixed- a complaint I unfortunately have to agree with. The entire movie made me wish for subtitles.
A complaint I do not agree with, however, is critics’ complaints that the movie is “slow” and “a drag” to watch.
This may be just personal taste. Extreme slow-burn horror, rather than in-your-face action, has always been my preference. I’ll never forget showing one of my all-time favorite horror movies, “Skinamarink”- which I literally covered my eyes at the ending of- to a friend, only to hear them call it “basically just a series of creepy hallways.” “Iron Lung” doesn’t follow a stereotypical pattern of in-your-face action scenes- the entire thing is a slow, exponential build of tension, with elements building on each other as the circumstances just continue to get worse and worse. When you watch a movie, you engage with it on its terms. “Iron Lung” ’s terms are simply that you have to wait for the real crazy shit. Sorry. L. Skill issue, even.
Despite critic’s negative reviews (which I am disinclined to trust, considering “Emilia Perez”’s 71% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is a lie so massive they probably got tips from the Trump administration), “Iron Lung” is clearly beloved by fans. The movie was number one in the US for two days following its release, temporarily topping Sam Raimi’s “Send Help”, and has grossed $18 million thus far. Word from Fischbach in a recent stream indicates that the director is working to release it on an even bigger scale.
While “Iron Lung” is far from perfect, it’s neither a “fail” nor a “slog”. It’s an indie film doing things that we haven’t seen in the film industry thus far, and what it does well, it does exceptionally well at. I look forward to seeing what kind of indie films and opportunities “Iron Lung” might open up…just like an eldritch monster slowly peeling open a submarine’s hull.
Image credit: Markiplier
Leave a Reply