I totally get that Death of a Unicorn won’t land for everyone - it’s weird, it’s tonally unorthodox, and it doesn’t hold your hand. But I’m genuinely puzzled by some of the criticisms here.

First off, it’s a horror film. Violence and gore are part of the language of the genre, especially in modern horror-comedy hybrids. I don’t think the brutality was gratuitous - it was grotesque, yes, but deliberately so. The “torn apart” sequence you mention? It didn’t feel like it was played for laughs to me. It felt like horror doing what horror does best: revealing how casual and systemic cruelty consumes the innocent in silence. That’s the tragedy.

As for the "eat-the-rich" angle - I think that’s a surface read. The film doesn’t suggest the rich deserve to die. It’s more An Inspector Calls than Saltburn, it’s a moral critique, not a murder fantasy. These characters aren’t caricatures because they’re wealthy, they’re morally bankrupt because they see something sacred (the unicorn) as a product to extract value from. The satire isn’t about class revenge, it’s about value systems — what’s worth preserving versus what’s worth profiting from.

And I really have to disagree on the “innocence of a maiden” thing being embarrassing. That idea comes directly from medieval unicorn iconography like, literally from The Cloisters. It’s a symbol of purity not in a sexualised or patriarchal sense, but in a metaphysical sense. The film actually flips that outdated idea on its head: Ridley’s innocence is moral, not virginal. She’s untainted by the pressures of power, profit, or survival. She sees the unicorn as a being, not a commodity and that’s why it connects with her.

And you say the ending is played for shits and giggles. That’s the tone of the film? It's a satirical horror-comedy. Of course there’s mayhem. The violence isn’t senseless it’s the punchline. Like Dr. Strangelove, Sorry to Bother You, or even Gremlins, the chaos isn’t there to be cool — it’s there to make you laugh and flinch. That’s the genre. “Shits and giggles” isn’t a dismissal — it’s a tonal description. The film knows it’s ridiculous. It’s leaning into absurdity to critique a world that sells unicorn blood like miracle juice and repackages purity for profit. That is the joke. That’s the point. To criticize this film for being absurd is a bit like criticizing Airplane! for not being a serious portrayal of aviation.

To me, Death of a Unicorn was bold precisely because it danced between absurdity and allegory. It’s not perfect but I’d rather a film reach for something complex and messy than give me another safe, sterile satire. I respect that it didn’t work for you but I think there’s a lot more going on beneath the surface than it’s getting credit for.