Movies shot and finished during the pandemic are seemingly becoming all the rage, and Safer at Home was actually written, produced, and directed during that period (it also found a distributor in Vertical Entertainment). That's an incredible feat, and it's just a shame the movie fails to similarly impress. Set two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, we find a group of friends catching up via video chat to play games, have a drink...and take ecstasy. It’s a novel concept which makes good use of the “Zoom” format, and one which starts strongly when a domestic between two of the participants concludes with one of them falling and dying after hitting their head. It’s a freak accident (at least it looks that way on the surface), but no one on the call is quite sure what happened, and how these friends decide to deal with the aftermath often makes for compelling viewing.
Unfortunately, it’s at a surprisingly early point in proceedings that Safer at Home makes it near impossible to buy into what’s playing out on screen(s). A natural reaction to what’s happened would, of course, be to call an ambulance or the police. Instead, these friends seem oddly accepting of the fact one of them just killed his pregnant other half, and are strangely supportive (and helpful) when he goes on the run...still on the call, of course. It’s not that it’s far-fetched - "found footage" movies are commonplace enough that a Zoom take on that is easy enough to play along with - but asking us to accept the actions of these characters is just too big of an ask. Had these friends decided to cover up that potential murder or found themselves losing control due to the drugs they’ve taken, we might have had something really special on our hands, but the story never really works.
On the plus side, the mostly unknown cast - Jocelyn Hudon, Emma Lahana, Alisa Allapach, Adwin Brown, Dan J. Johnson, Michael Kupisk, and Daniel Robaire - do a great job, and it’s easy to buy into them as real people even if their actions feel anything but.
There’s no denying that making this movie in the midst of a pandemic was an achievement, and director Will Wernick (who penned the screenplay with Lia Bozonelis) deserves praise for that. From a filmmaking standpoint, the visuals are also solid, and it’s worth noting that Safer at Home still has a cinematic feel despite the format. The score helps to add some tension to what we’re seeing, and if you’re a little more forgiving, then you may be able to get invested in how events play out. Despite its shortcomings, it’s definitely difficult not to want to keep watching to see how it all ends. In fact, the ending is, in many ways, just as strong as the beginning, so there’s that.
The decision to jump a couple of years into the pandemic is also interesting, but revealing that the pandemic has worsened - meaning you’re put in a detention centre if you’re caught out after curfew - just feels tasteless, and a needless way to turn COVID-19 into some sort of science-fiction movie pandemic. Given what’s happening in the world right now, and the huge amount of deaths which are still occurring on a daily basis, it’s far too soon to be making light of real-life events like this.
A compelling concept for a movie based on, and shot during, the pandemic, Safer at Home strains credibility too often, while its handling of COVID-19 feels tasteless and is unlikely to resonate with viewers.