Je veux juste en finir

The cinematography is stunning: every frame feels carefully composed, the shifting color palettes and claustrophobic camera angles create an unsettling atmosphere, and the performances are just as powerful, with Jessie Buckley and Jesse Plemons delivering subtle, tense acting while Toni Collette and David Thewlis move between absurd and disturbing with ease.

Still, the film can be frustrating. It clearly wants to be very deep, but sometimes that effort shows too much. The philosophical and psychological layers are so heavily packed with references, long monologues, and surreal touches that the core message gets buried. The story about loneliness and regret is meaningful, but the movie demands a lot of patience and background knowledge from the audience. On a first viewing, it's especially hard to connect emotionally with Jake.

The ideas and messages are placed so deep that they start to wear the viewer out, making the film feel harder to follow than it needs to be. It aims for something profound, but in trying so hard it occasionally slips into obscurity, which makes connecting with Jake even more difficult.

This was such a struggle to get through, and very unrewarding for doing so.

Since I've read the book, I knew what was going on. I also had no idea what was going on. Kaufman's adaptation was so bizarre and unforthcoming that it had me constantly checking how much time was left (too much was the answer)..

The first 20 something minutes are PAINFULLY slow, and the chemistry between the two main characters is so nonexistent yet they supposedly have this super deep connection. The character of Jake was so flat and mumbly - nothing like the sophisticated intellectual he was in the novel, but I tried to push that out of my mind. I was rapidly losing interest when the two finally arrived to Jake's parent's house, and there was a moment where I truly thought this movie was going to be incredible. Suddenly I was questioning what I was seeing, the unnervingly strange exchange between characters was unsettling and dread started creeping up in my chest. It stirred up the kind of uneasy feelings I got during my first viewing of Hereditary.

I'm a huge fan of strange movies that feel like a bad dream, not a nightmare necessarily, but a dream where things make sense but don't at the same time, and you have a pit in your stomach but don't know why. I like subtle strangeness, enough to pique your interest without beating you over the head with it. Unfortunately there quickly came a point when this movie catapulted over that fine line and became so frustratingly bizarre. It felt like it was trying to be Mulholland Drive. I am all for a strange trip of a movie but it has to be coherent enough to make sense in some way. If I didn't read the book I would have no idea what this movie meant or what was really happening, it just became too ridiculous for me to enjoy.

I presume people will talk about how bizarre it is on social media which will make people curious enough to watch it, but it was so unsatisfying and an overall waste of time.

The story gets increasingly more bizarre. There are no explanations or closures either. I honestly don't know what I watched.

Charlie Kaufman channels David Lynch in this eerie, creepy relationship drama that really knows how to get under your skin.

Jessie Buckley, who gave an award-worthy performance in "Wild Rose" last year, does so again here, as a woman meeting her boyfriend's parents for the first time. Much of the film takes place in his car, as they travel to and from his childhood home in an Oklahoma blizzard. These scenes give Buckley and Jessie Plemmons, also giving a terrific performance as her boyfriend, long exchanges of dialogue that tease out the dynamic of this particular relationship, and the dynamic between men and women in general, and a dissection of the film "A Woman Under the Influence" (Buckley recites Pauline Kael's review of the film in character as Gena Rowlands), and includes a stop at an isolated ice cream stand, the film's most Lynchian moment, where a girl with a rash gives Buckley a vague warning. Much of the rest of the film takes place in Plemmons' parents house, where David Thewlis and Toni Collette play versions of Plemmons' mom and dad at all ages, from perky housewife to doddering dementia to dying in a hospital bed, and host perhaps one of the most awkward dinners ever to appear in a film. Then there are the scenes set in Plemmons' old high school, where a janitor (Plemmons as an old man?) roams the halls and doubles of Buckley and Plemmons reenact the ballet scene from "Oklahoma!" in the school corridors.

What is "I'm Thinking of Ending Things" about? If that's the first question you ask before deciding whether or not to watch a movie, you won't like this one. I imagine different people will think it's about different things. Certainly it's about getting old. It's also about getting old without the comfort of believing that life has any purpose, or that there's anything waiting for us in the great beyond. It's about women and their relationships with men. It's about Jessie Buckley's character. Until it's not and it's instead about Jessie Plemmons' character, who gets the final scene of the film all to himself, a rendition of the song "Lonely Room" (again from "Oklahoma!") during which he comes to the conclusion that the fantasies on which we build our lives don't exist and we have to take whatever we can to most closely approximate them. It's a claustrophobic and deeply unsettling film, as much because of its aesthetics as because of its enigmatic mysteries.

Is it a good film? I think it's very good, but I will admit that it didn't linger in my head as much as I thought it would while I was watching it. It kind of made my skin crawl in the moment, but it left me feeling like I was going to get all there was to get from it on a first viewing, and it didn't leave me wanting to watch it again to untangle its riddles.

Grade: A

This movie cannot stand alone. It is meaningless if you have not read the book. Kaufman spectacularly fails to bring the book to life as an independent story.

But the "spectacularly" in that sentence is not entirely about the failure... rather that he fails while presenting something rather spectacular. The film is gloriously beautiful in the way he brings symbolism and metaphor to life. It is gorgeously filmed and very well acted, although the pacing and editing could use a little less ego and a little more attention to flow. Other directors may have made some different choices in presenting those things that were more grounded in reality as opposed to those that were surreal. Instead, the whole thing was presented in such a state of hyperreality that finding the kernels of truth were impossible.

The biggest failures come in the stark omissions: Kaufman's refusal to share what question is being referred to in those phone calls where the disembodied voice says "there is only one question..." That question is critical and is specifically laid out in the book. It is the entire meaning and motivation. He also fails to ever tie back that question, and the titular phrase, to the only character to whom they actually matter. He also fails to show or explain explicitly what happened to that character in the end, and without that ending, there is no meaning. The film just becomes a very beautiful companion piece to the novel, highlighting some scenes and lending new imagery to them. It is not, in itself, a complete story. It's more of a "mood."