Skinamarink

I did not dislike this movie. It was more or less exactly what I expected. As a fan of the creepy aesthetic of David Lynch and movies that challenge the audience I wasn't too disappointed. I love the concept and appreciate the approach but ultimately if you are going to ask an audience for 90-120 minutes of their time I think a film should give them more than Skinamarink delivers. Still, from a first time filmmaker it's an admirable effort.

I far prefer slow burning horror films that play to the fear of the unknown and an have an underlying sense of dread (The Witch, Hereditary, and The Blair Witch Project are personal faves). Skinamarink tries to play in this arena but doesn't effectively use any cinematic tools to build tension or make the viewer anxious. No soundtrack, very little camera movement, and not enough dynamic use of light and shadow. All things that I think probably could have been achieved, even with a miniscule budget. Thematically it starts in a very minable vein but then doesn't actually develop what amounts to a fairly universal experience of fear (i.e. Being a defenseless child abandoned by caregivers). We feel isolated and alone with the children but are distanced from the sense that anything frightening is happening I think because so little of the film takes place from the children's perspective. It did get me thinking about how to make a horror movie driven by fear of the unknown. If you want to make something universally scary how much do you need to show the audience to prime them to be afraid and how much can you leave to their imaginations? In the end Skinamarink asks the individual viewer to fill in too many blanks for it to be an effective horror movie in my opinion. Truly neurotic people will probably find it unnerving and anxiety inducing but aside from a couple of cheap jump scares nothing particularly interesting happens. My impression was that the vast majority of people will most likely find the movie a waste of time and for that reason I cannot recommend it. But if you like a challenge, are home alone on a stormy night, and/or are capable of letting your imagination run wild then, sure, give it a shot.

Like I said in the review title, if you're like me, you're 15-20 minutes into the movie, and you're wondering if 1) you should turn it off, and 2) if anything ever happens. So you're checking IMBD reviews. My answers to those questions are 1) maybe, and 2) kind of. About 45 minutes in, there is a scene that is legitimately scary. Past that, there are a few scenes that are scary as well, but more than scary, the movie is just creepy and disturbing. You can feel reassured that yes, it does ratchet up in intensity.

If you like movies that are "abstract" or "artistic", where there are many interpretations, and simultaneously they're all correct, yet also none of them are correct, then you should finish the movie. If that doesn't sound interesting, and you prefer movies that provide clear answers, then turn it off.

This movie is not overly concerned about plot, though there are hints of plot in it. It is more concerned with style, and creating a specific dream/nightmare-like feeling.

I would say it is quite effective at accomplishing that, though I ultimately found the movie somewhat unsatisfying. The plot summaries about children in a house with disappearing doors and a monster sounds like the book "House of Leaves", which I loved. But there isn't nearly as much plot as in "House of Leaves". You barely see any characters, you barely understand any plot.

I can't say that I liked it, though ultimately I think it was a "good movie".

The reason I ultimately gave this movie a somewhat positive review is because it gave me something to think about. I read some articles and posts about it afterwards. I read two different articles like "Skinamarink Ending Explained", and they both provided very different summaries of the events that happened in the movie, let alone the ending. The movie is very open to interpretation, and I liked that aspect. There were a few scenes and images that are hard to forget. But the movie is also too long and repetitive and boring a lot of the time. I appreciate the movie, and what the creators were trying to accomplish, and I'll be curious to see what the director can do with more than $15,000.

What happens when you get a community college film maker an 8mm Snapchat filter and a near sighted toddler as a cameraman? This. Hope you like ankles, muffled dialogue with subtitles, closeups of door frames and other pseudo artistic shots of doorknobs and corners of televisions. I'd rather watch the emoji movie for 24 hours straight than ever see this again. I'm a huge horror fan and have been for my entire life, ad never been so disappointed. Currently seeing a 60 second closeup of shredded wheat in a bowl with no milk. Literally...that's a scene. But, it does transition to a single power outlet for 15 seconds after that. And, as a bonus, you get one line of dialogue every 3-4 minutes like "dad, I'm going to go to sleep" while focusing on a linoleum tile for 24 seconds. Wait! I just saw a calf AND a foot! Do NOT waste one second on this "film"

Although the title of this review may appear unkind, it is nevertheless, apt.

I really wanted to like this film but ended up bored and angry. Angry that the filmmaker had been so self-indulgent as to presume the audience would be able to withstand 100 minutes of this punishment.

I admire what he did, the execution is excellent and I was immediately drawn into the atmosphere that the film exudes. However, as other reviewers have noted, this would have made a decent short film, maybe 20 minutes. As it stands, it overplays it's hand dramatically and had me begging to be relinquished from the monotony of the long takes which comprise the film's bloated runtime.

My hope is that Shudder cuts it down significantly before it has an official on-line release. It's too bad. It really does tap into something visceral and primal.

All the people saying this film is plotless are wrong. There is a plot here, although it is extemely vague and thin. Might be one of the thinnest plotlines I've ever seen and that is what caused the film to be at times unbearably boring for me. I actually enjoyed the aesthetic for the film, the faceless characters, the low light, lofi camera work. It's a style that could present a high creep factor with the proper story to go along with it. This is not that story.

I will say this is much better than the director's previous effort 'Heck', which is basically the short film that started this one. It feels like the director has a better grip on the style he's presenting here. That still doesn't make up for the lack of story here.

The film opens with one of the children falling down the stairs and this starts the chain of events that make me believe the child actually died when this happened and he is living in some purgatory or hell. What follows after this could only be described as mean spirited and harsh, but it unfolds so slowly that you feel like you're just watching paint dry. There are some suitably creepy moments but they are few and far between. Actually there is maybe about 3 or 4 creepy scenes in the entire film, the ending being far and wide the most uncomfortable. Had me looking over my shoulder as I was leaving the theater.(I had the whole theater to myself, I'm assuming due to bad weather, but it was probably the best way to watch this film as isolation is a major theme.) The ending felt like I was being personally talked to by the faceless, out of focus boy and I hated it, but in a good way.

All in all, I still couldn't call this a good movie and it will only appeal to a very niche horror crowd. I commend the director for creating something so different. I just wish there was as much thought put into the story as there was in the shooting style.

2 portals out of 5.