Dual

Dual has an intriguing (albeit not entirely original) concept with a lot of comic and dramatic potential.

But the film is stuck in tonal limbo, being neither really funny nor especially poignant.

Dual's setting is its greatest strength. Its world always feels a little off-kilter and subtly dystopian.

But the storytelling is simply not engaging.

The writing feels bland and lazy.

The actors look mostly bored.

Riley Stearns is an interesting filmmaker. His first (and best) film Faults struck the right balance between absurdity and realism.

Since then he's gone on to adopt a more Lanthimos-ish tone, which seems overly self-conscious and gimmicky.

While that may have worked in his previous film, The Art of Self Defense, it doesn't in Dual.

I hope he returns to his earlier style for the next one.

Imagine there's a clone, who's now living in your home, an almost perfect doppelganger, taken straight from the lab's hanger. It's a sympathetic swap, as your time has come to drop, all your family need to know, is you'll never let them go.

Though your clock continues ticking, while your feet are all still kicking, and the one who thinks they're you, has made an impressive debut. But the law has made a rule, to remove one in a duel, when your name is on the roster, you can fight your own imposter.

Not that original and with little reflective value.

I loved this film and it deserves much better ratings.

My only criticism is that it's trying too hard to emulate Jorgos Lanthimos's style, 'The Lobster' in particular. Still, since the original Lanthimos has somewhat ditched the avant garde with 'The Favourite', then I can forgive director Riley Stearns for filling the gap.

I get bored easily, but I found this film enjoyable from start to finish, and don't really understand all the negativity in the reviews. I guess it's not for everybody, but if you liked 'The Lobster' or 'Killing Of A Sacred Deer' and are looking for something new along those lines, then I don't think you'd be disappointed.

I wish I'd have known it was the "Art of Self-Defense" guy going into this. I was expecting something vey different from the trailer. Something more interesting or exciting. Even knowing that now I still dont think it comes close to measuring up.

The premise is true to the synopsis. Sarah is dying and decides to get cloned, but upon learning she wont be dying, in order to live she has to kill her clone in ritual combat. Sounds really cool. Its not. It's drab and boring, not accidently, intentionally. Everyone talks like robots and you're supposed to be only amused by the general absurdity of it all. Its barely longer than a short film, so that is literally all of it.

The problem is that it's just not funny or interesting. There's no highs or lows here. There's no humor in 90% of the film. Theres exactly 2 gags and the rest is played painfully straight. It's hard to describe but imagine a wes anderson movie except theres nothing hipster, bizarre or ridiculous. Its very very subdued, cloyingly desperate for you to think it's funny because of that. It reminded me of the Monty Python sketch "I came for an argument", except played straight and there's no punchlines or audience surrogate and you're supposed to laugh at the idea of such a facility. You get what its "trying" to do, but instead of laughing you just roll your eyes and feel bored.

Whats really disappointing is that I liked the "Art of Self-defense". It was pretty wacky and out there. There was some tension, hilarity and twists. Remove all that and this is what you have.

I assume this wes anderson-esque monotone absurdist comedy is this writer/director style otherwise Id say this movie would have worked better if the characters all acted like real people. If it "needs" to have this tone then it needed to be much more interesting or ridiculous. Like have them hunting each other throughout the movie instead of it mostly being people sitting around being awkward robots.

I'd give it a lower score but theres a few scenes I briefly found "fun". Especially when Karen Gillian gets angry and actually shows some emotion. I wanted much more of that. Otherwise this doesn't rate slowburn. Its just boring.

This movie is NOT targetted at an audience to make money for shareholders, it's made for artistic reasons. It's not made to entertain you, but I do still think it is ONLY interesting for a niche audience of arthouse movie fans.

Any bad? What's most annoying to me about this movie is that the actors are lacking in charisma. Yes, I do understand that they (deliberately) speak their dialogues in a monotone, unnatural way. This whole story does not make sense. As is intended. But even then, I still do NEED CREDIBLE ACTING PERFORMANCES and those are not present unfortunately.

More bad: it's lacking spark and punch half way through. It kinda implodes and becomes a tedious watch, despite it getting quite devious during the second hour.

Better watch the director's first movie which is titled:"Faults" (2014) . THAT is the movie I would really like to recommend for anybody interested in a mesmirising, mysterious, fabulous story with superb acting performances. "Faults" (2014) blew my mind!