As I wrote in the title, I appreciated this film more than the subsequent Midsommar, even though it is perhaps a more "canonical" horror and therefore only allows us to glimpse at times the grotesque and surreal style of the young director, much more evident in Midsommar. For some of the public this may be a flaw, but for me it is a point in favor of the film (while on the contrary it did not allow me to fully appreciate the otherwise excellent Midsommar). 

It is an excellent horror that is not based only on the usual jump scares (still present, but used with remarkable maturity for such a young director) but on the construction and maintenance of a deep and visceral tension (a a characteristic that Aster shares with the other “child prodigy” of A24 horror, Eggers). 

The family theme that acts as a frame and background to the film adds depth to the story, which can be seen as a drama with notable horror and splatter overtones (in this Aster is very different from Eggers: as the latter has a refined and elegant approach to horror, as the former tends to insert rather gruesome scenes without warning, obtaining an even more extreme effect), but also on the contrary as a horror with a story that fascinates as much as the scary aspect, if not even moreover. Just as in Midsommar Ari Aster shows a remarkable talent in the representation of pain and mourning, presented in a heartbreaking and visceral way.  

The story, although quite linear, must be followed carefully and I am not ashamed to confess that I searched online for some explanations on some points that were not clear to me, not due to the screenplay but simply due to the complexity of the story, which lends itself to multiple interpretations, although some elements remain without a real explanation and give the impression of being put there just to create atmosphere, but in any case they are consistent with the story. Story, feelings, family: it's an approach to modern horror that I really like and which has become a trademark for A24. 

The only flaw I found in the film is perhaps the ending (as it was for Midsommar), fully in the style of Ari Aster (in the sense that the grotesque and surreal element is much more obvious)  and perhaps not fully developed. Just as the supernatural aspect is, in my opinion, only hinted at and perhaps a little confused.

What I liked

• It's a film excellent in both its horror elements (although perhaps calling it one of the scariest films ever made is an exaggeration) and its dramatic elements. Aster is very good at both scaring and telling drama and pain
• The technical aspect (acting, direction, photography, etc.) is excellent
• It has been defined as "L 'Exorcist of the 21st century” (or something similar) and I would say that the definition fits quite well, even if Friedkin's  film remains an unsurpassed masterpiece. It is certainly one of the best horror films of recent years.

What I didn't like

• The ending didn't fully convince me, but if, unlike me, you love the style very personal and surreal of Aster could be the best element of the film 
• The story has supernatural nuances that deserved to be developed much  more
• Some elements of the story are not very clear and have not a real explanation

Who might like it

• Who likes mature and modern horror, which mixes history and fear without shooting jump scares in bursts (although some scenes are particularly strong and not suitable for everyone)