Spoonful of Sugar (2023) Review – A Bitter and Ill-Conceived Psychedelic Mess
Spoonful of Sugar: Quick Verdict
The Verdict: A structurally flawed and tonally confused psychological thriller that squanders its psychedelic premise on repetitive tropes and questionable characterisations. Spoonful of Sugar attempts to channel the “outsider horror” energy of cult classics like May, but fails to provide the necessary depth or empathy to make the journey worthwhile. The plot relies on a series of illogical decisions, most notably the hiring of the visibly disturbed protagonist, and treats its neuro-divergent characters with a troubling lack of nuance. While the cinematography offers some interesting abstract shots and a unique aspect ratio, the film is weighed down by unnecessary eroticism and an over-reliance on abrasive foley work that prioritises annoyance over atmosphere. This 2.5 star effort is partially redeemed by a surprisingly clever twist ending that subverts expectations, but the payoff isn’t quite enough to justify the laborious and often farcical buildup. It is a movie with interesting ideas that unfortunately lacks the execution to be anything more than a mediocre and forgettable Shudder original.
Details: Director: Mercedes Morgan | Cast: Morgan Saylor, Kat Foster, Myko Oliver, Danilo Crovetti | Runtime: 1h 34m | Release Date: 2023
Best for: Fans of “eccentric protagonist” horror who have a very high tolerance for slow-burn plots and don’t mind a lack of traditional scares.
Worth noting: The film’s use of hyper-amplified sound, often referred to as ASMR or misophonia-triggering foley depending on your persuasion, is a deliberate stylistic choice intended to mirror the protagonist’s sensory overload.
Where to Watch: Shudder, Amazon🛒
Rating: 2.5/5 Stars
(A conceptually interesting but poorly executed horror that relies on shock and repetition, though saved slightly by a strong final twist.)
Welcome to Knockout Horror. Today we are taking a look at Mercedes Morgan’s Shudder original Spoonful of Sugar.
Table of Contents
A poorly thought out plot
In this movie, a woman, Millicent, who has been through the foster care system begins working as a carer for a child with specialist needs. Millicent believes the child’s problems may actually be rather treatable. Having been prescribed LSD to treat her own psychological issues, she thinks the potent psychedelic drug can help him, too. Little does she realise the spiral of events that she will unleash.
I am not a huge fan of this movie. It really didn’t do anything for me and features some questionable depictions of neuro-divergent people. We have actually explained the ending though, so if you need answers, click on the link – Spoonful of Sugar Ending Explained.
Spoonful of Sugar reveals itself to be rather poorly thought out almost immediately. We are going to be seeing a lot of plot holes and things that make you just roll your eyes.
Who would employ this woman to care for children?
We are presented with our main character Millicent. A twitchy, somewhat bizarre, person that stands out for how atypical she is. As mentioned earlier, she is employed by the family here to look after their child. She kicks off her tenure by immediately challenging the views of the child’s mother. That’s the very first hint that this movie is going to be full of logic fails.
“Millicent is a twitchy, somewhat bizarre person who stands out for how atypical she is. The viewer is expected to buy into increasingly more unrealistic scenarios one after another.”
As time rolls on, things only become worse. The viewer is, again, expected to buy into increasingly more unrealistic scenarios one after another. From psychologists prescribing strong psychedelic drugs, to the reveal of Millicent’s ridiculous history with her foster parents. All for the sake of pushing along a story that is mildly dull at best, and completely farcical at its worst.
It’s eye-rolling. Sure, the ending of the movie might tie some of the loose ends up but it takes so long to get that context. The journey there is woeful. On top of that, the cast are pretty unlikable and the oh-so-common presentation of a potentially autistic person as violent is troubling.
Dollar store Lucky McKee
Spoonful of Sugar is a movie that wants to play out like a modern version of May. From Morgan Saylor’s propensity to gurn her way through an Angela Bettis-lite role to the Lucky McKee rip-off style of story and direction, this is a film devoid of originality. Copious amounts of B-roll focusing on irrelevant details highlights the movie’s opening, only to be replaced with a repetitive obsession with the mundane. As Millicent sits spitting watermelon seeds into the void, I felt a distinct sense of déjà vu wash over me.
Morgan uses dollar store tactics to impart feeling onto the viewer. One good example is her almost compulsive desire to record every single disgusting sound before blasting it directly into the ears of the viewer. It proves to be hell for misophonia sufferers and simply curious for everyone else.
“Spoonful of Sugar wants to play out like a modern version of May, but it is a film devoid of originality. It is reminiscent of Lucky McKee but without the relevance and clever focus.”
Again, it’s reminiscent of Lucky McKee but without the relevance and clever focus. McKee used these techniques to highlight May’s obsession with certain characters as well as her obsession with certain body parts. Here, it is used simply to annoy the viewer and get under their skin. Like screamer scares of old, this is becoming all too common in horror and hints at a director lacking in ideas.
Tired eroticism and lacking horror
Spoonful of Sugar is woefully slow-paced. Again, Morgan loves to engage in the repetitive and mundane. The movie forgoes plot and character development, instead choosing to emphasise the quirkiness of our boring and unlikable lead. When that isn’t enough, Morgan resorts to tried and tested sex scenes – as boring, awkward, and unnecessary as they are.
It’s hard to shake the feeling that this movie was made with a specific audience in mind. I complained about Don’t Kill Me feeling like a softcore skin flick. Well, Spoonful of Sugar is even worse. These characters are horny beyond belief.
My fiancée and I ended up laughing, repeatedly exclaiming “What the hell? Another sex scene!?”. It’s all a bit sad to be honest. I really think sex scenes don’t have a huge place in horror. Whereas nudity can be important and impactful to the story, sex rarely feels like it fits. It can be implied; we don’t need to see two actors awkwardly dry humping each other.
“Presenting itself as a straight-up horror movie, I am left to wonder which parts are actually horror? It feels a lot closer to a simple and straightforward erotic thriller.”
Presenting itself as a straight-up horror movie, I am left to wonder which parts of the movie are actually horror? There is very little here for horror fans to hold onto. It feels a lot closer to a simple and straightforward erotic thriller. The movie’s obsession with the drug LSD could have led to some interesting psychedelic horror, ala Without Name or Gaia. Instead it simply results in awkward scenes featuring terrible CGI. It’s really just an afterthought.
Substandard acting
Acting is, generally, bad. I am sure some people will buy into her performance but, for me, Morgan Saylor doesn’t quite hit the mark. I am a huge fan of quirky women in horror movies, its probably my favourite type of character, but I was pretty disappointed by Saylor, here. Aside from looking far too old for the role, she chews the scenery too much and it is hard to buy into her eccentricities. They feel very forced, particularly some of her physical quirks and tics.
Myko Oliver seems fairly checked out and his performance seems a bit phoned in. He seems oblivious to the gravity of the situation, feeling, somehow, like the token “sexy gardener” character from a sitcom more than an actual well-developed character. Kat Foster is probably the best member of the cast. She manages some decent emotion in a few scenes and really tries. She also captures that preoccupied, career-driven, mother type of character pretty well. To be perfectly honest, Leah Saint Marie’s terrible script does nothing to help the actors, here. It is legitimately remedial at points.
Surprisingly decent ending
Cinematography is fine. I’m always a fan of the 1.66:1 aspect ratio. It looks, generally, quite nice here and offers a somewhat unique feeling to the picture. Lighting is a bit of a problem, though. This is a very dark movie, at times, which wouldn’t be so much of a problem but many of the dark scenes feature backlighting making characters difficult to see. Some of the more abstract shots are quite interesting. This movie doesn’t do nearly enough with psychedelic imagery, though. It falls quite flat given the potential of the theme.
I actually loved the ending. It was, by far, my favourite part of the movie. I actually bumped the score by a point as its nice to see something unexpected. The build-up leads to a very nice twist that feels quite refreshing. I wouldn’t suggest sitting through the movie just for the ending.
It is however, the best part of the movie and shows that the writer wasn’t completely devoid of ideas. One thing it does do, however, is undermine much of the movie’s plot. Still, it deserves praise for subverting expectations. I’m happy to say Morgan’s follow up effort Bone Lake was a much better film.
The Good, The Bad & The Ugly
The Good
- The Ending: Features a genuinely surprising and refreshing twist that subverts the audience’s expectations and provides the film’s only real moment of cleverness.
- Cinematography: The 1.66:1 aspect ratio and some of the more abstract framing choices give the film a distinctive, high-quality look.
- Kat Foster: Delivers the most grounded and believable performance in the cast, effectively capturing the stress of a preoccupied, career-driven mother.
The Bad
- Illogical Plot: The narrative is riddled with logic gaps, from the initial hiring of Millicent to the ludicrous medical scenarios involving psychedelic prescriptions.
- Problematic Tropes: The film engages in damaging characterisations of neuro-divergent individuals, portraying them as either inherently violent or sexually obsessed.
- Abrasive Foley: The “dollar store” misophonia tactics feel like a cheap way to unsettle the viewer and quickly become grating rather than atmospheric.
The Ugly: The Erotic Bloat. The excessive and often unnecessary sex scenes make the film feel more like a substandard erotic thriller than a meaningful piece of horror cinema.
Should You Watch Spoonful of Sugar?
Probably not. It is a 2.5 star film that struggles to find its identity. While the ending is a highlight, the journey to get there is slow, repetitive, and often irritating. If you are looking for a trippy horror experience, there are much better options available that handle their themes with more responsibility and creativity. This one is for completists only.
You might also like:
- Better Watch Out (2016) Review – A Wickedly Mean-Spirited Holiday Treat
- Unfriended: Dark Web (2018) Review – A Sinister and High-Stakes Sequel
- The Isle (2018) Review – A Dull and Drowning Siren’s Song
- No One Gets Out Alive (2021) Ending Explained – The Aztec Box & Ambar’s Fate
- The Invitation (2015) Review – A Tense and Methodical Descent into Paranoia
Our Scoring Philosophy: A Fair Fight
Horror is a genre that thrives thanks to indie film makers and low budget creators. At Knockout Horror, we firmly believe that every movie that we review deserves a fair fight. That's why we grade on a curve. Our star ratings are all about context, judging a film on what it achieves with the resources it has.
A 4-star rating for a scrappy indie horror made for $10,000 is a testament to its ingenuity and raw power. A 4-star rating for a $100 million blockbuster means it delivered on its epic promises. We don't compare them side-by-side; we celebrate success in every weight class, from the back-alley brawler to the heavyweight champion. Please keep this in mind when considering star ratings.
Support the Site Knockout Horror is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. Basically, if you click a link to rent or buy a movie, we may earn a tiny commission at no extra cost to you. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. This helps keep the lights on and the nightmares coming. Don't worry, we will never recommend a movie purely to generate clicks. If it's bad, we will tell you.
Disclaimer: Images, posters, and video stills used in this review are the property of their respective copyright holders. They are included here for the purposes of commentary, criticism, and review under fair use. Knockout Horror makes no claim of ownership and encourages readers to support the official release of all films discussed.
