Pearl (2022)
Pearl is a weird little movie — mostly good weird, although a couple of questionable choices keep it from realizing its full potential.
That it manages to work at all is impressive, considering it was made for two of the least promising reasons imaginable for a horror movie: it’s both a prequel and an origin story. Typically, those two modes exist to fill in blanks that were never meant to be filled, answering questions no one asked and draining mystery from monsters. Pearl, though, dodges some of these pitfalls by treating its title character not as lore to be explained but as a person to be inhabited.
Indeed, Pearl deserves to be taken more seriously than many of its genre kin. It’s not Annabelle or Hannibal Rising — films that lazily trade mystery for exposition. Even though Pearl doesn’t always explore its most promising ideas — namely, how societal pressures and public crises amplify personal madness — it’s still doing more than most horror prequels dare. It feels lived-in. Sad. Sometimes funny. Always a little off.
The film is set in 1918 during the influenza pandemic, a rich backdrop for horror and paranoia — at least in theory. In practice, the film mostly forgets about it. It gestures at the pandemic with brief mask-wearing and offhand mentions of illness, but never truly engages with the fear, misinformation, and social fracture that marked that historical moment.
That’s a shame, because Pearl had an opportunity to explore eerie parallels between that pandemic and our own. The “Spanish flu” wasn’t actually Spanish, just as modern conspiracy theories mislabel and mislead for political ends. And just like the Anti-Mask League of 1919 San Francisco, our century has no shortage of anti-science agitators. The film could have enriched its themes — isolation, mistrust, domestic tension — by leaning into that context, but instead treats it as more aesthetic than thematic.
On the flip side, Pearl deserves credit for not obsessing over its connection to X. This is surprisingly rare in the age of cinematic universes and origin prequels, where every scene seems designed to point a big neon arrow toward the future installment. For the most part, Pearl functions on its own. If you’ve never seen X, you won’t feel lost. If you have, the connections are clear but not intrusive — at least until the ending.
Then again, calling it an ‘ending’ may be too generous, because the film doesn’t end so much as stop. It hits a climax and then lingers for a bit, unsure whether it wants to conclude the story or just hand it off. This is where the movie’s status as a prequel catches up with it: it can’t really end, because it has to deliver Pearl to her starting position in X.
Despite this, there’s plenty to admire. For starters, the whole thing is beautifully shot, deeply stylized, and refreshingly light on CGI. More importantly, Mia Goth pulls off the Herculean task of making the title character somewhat relatable even at her most monstrous. Her performance keeps the film grounded even when the screenplay doesn’t always rise to the occasion. And Tandi Wright, as Pearl’s stern, quietly tragic mother, might just be the film’s backbone, her restrained pain mirroring her daughter’s unchecked desperation.
In fact, when stacked against recent prestige horror like Nope, Pearl often comes out ahead. Its scale is tighter, its style more coherent, its runtime mercifully leaner. Nope has ambition, but Pearl has focus — and, crucially, a sense of identity that doesn’t get lost in spectacle.
Still, you can’t shake the feeling that with a few more screenplay drafts, Pearl might have become more than a stylish sliver of a larger canvas. It could have stood taller on its own — not just as the origin of a slasher villain, but as a story that dared to truly examine the hunger, isolation, and madness brewing underneath. Instead, it mostly hints. Sometimes artful, occasionally frustrating, Pearl is a movie that knows how to linger — just not always where or why it should.
Works Cited
Pearl. Directed by Ti West, performances by Mia Goth and Tandi Wright, A24, 2022.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). “1918 Pandemic (H1N1 virus).” CDC, 30 Apr. 2019, www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html.
Geggel, Laura. “Why Was It Called the ‘Spanish Flu’?” Live Science, 27 Mar. 2020, http://www.livescience.com/spanish-flu-name.html.
Kale, Neha. “Pearl Is a Slasher with a Soft Heart — and a Terrifying Smile.” The Guardian, 16 Mar. 2023, www.theguardian.com/film/2023/mar/16/pearl-movie-mia-goth-review.
Pappas, Stephanie. “What Was the Anti-Mask League of 1919?” Live Science, 13 May 2020, http://www.livescience.com/anti-mask-league-1919-spanish-flu.html.
Sims, David. “Pearl Finds Horror in the Hunger for Stardom.” The Atlantic, 16 Sept. 2022, http://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2022/09/pearl-movie-review-mia-goth/671453/.
Related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfD6aRrEWTs&pp=ygUScGVhcmwgdHJhaWxlciAyMDIy
#miaGoth #movieReview #pearl #pearlMovieReview