- Messages
- 6,064
- Rating
I've always had a soft spot for the coast. Me and my whole family actually, so when I heard about this movie, I immediately wanted to see it and avoided all spoilers about it like the plague until I was able to see it now. And after having saw it, it definitely impressed me. This is a movie with fantastic execution through and through, and the cinematography decision to film this with a 1.19:1 aspect ratio in full monochrome was an incredible decision. The acting here is 10/10 and the sets were constructed with a lot of attention to detail with brilliant angles.
It's said that the film crew begged the director to shoot this movie in widescreen because the shots were so beautiful, but he did not relent. Honestly, I can see both sides of this equally. The aspect ratio does a ton give it that antique feeling while also making the movie feel more strained and compressed, but if this was in widescreen, it would definitely have captured the raw beauty of the environment so much better. (On that note, the town nearby where the set was located also petitioned the studio, hoping that they would leave the whole set standing once shooting had wrapped and give it to the town to take care of, but the studio sadly though understandably denied their request as the set was only made of wood and, in time, would become quite unsafe.)
All that being said, I might be missing something here, but despite the movie having a stand-out execution and very rock-solid plot, it's all just... Missing one thing. A point. Or is it?
But what should I rate it then? After thinking about it some, I might just give it five stars for now. I was kinda confused as to that aforementioned point of the movie, but the movie has grown on me the more I think of it and the point did become somewhat clear with some thinking. Or... Maybe there is no point and it's utter foolishness to try to derive meaning and truth from delusions. But then, isn't that itself a point... ?
It's said that the film crew begged the director to shoot this movie in widescreen because the shots were so beautiful, but he did not relent. Honestly, I can see both sides of this equally. The aspect ratio does a ton give it that antique feeling while also making the movie feel more strained and compressed, but if this was in widescreen, it would definitely have captured the raw beauty of the environment so much better. (On that note, the town nearby where the set was located also petitioned the studio, hoping that they would leave the whole set standing once shooting had wrapped and give it to the town to take care of, but the studio sadly though understandably denied their request as the set was only made of wood and, in time, would become quite unsafe.)
All that being said, I might be missing something here, but despite the movie having a stand-out execution and very rock-solid plot, it's all just... Missing one thing. A point. Or is it?
As the inhabitants of the island slowly drive themselves insane (Or, I guess, technically just Thomas Howard since Thomas Wake was already insane.) and the movie finally ends with both of the inhabitants thoroughly dead, one is left wondering... What kind of point the movie is trying to make with all this. Is this a commentary on isolation? No. It's clear that Thomas Howard was already harboring some demons when he got to the island, and that may, in time, drive anyone insane, even under ideal circumstances. Is this a commentary, then, on insanity itself? No. It only tackles just one facet of it. It's not broad enough for that. I guess if I was pressed to answer, it's a story about the dangers of simple self-delusion, though that seems a bit too simple of an explanation for me to back 100%. Or maybe it's a story about karma and how the evil we do has a way of catching up to us in the end. Actually, I really like that explanation now that I think about it.
If that is the point of the story though, then I think it could have been written to serve that point just a bit better. Specifically, the more fantastical elements should probably have taken much more of a backseat. Or, even more specifically, the death of the seagull causing that almost ceaseless storm. When the evil we do catches up to us, it's very usually not going to come in a fantastical package, but in much more mundane elements that, sooner or later, all link together to effectively bring about comeuppance. But is that nitpicking? Eh, I might give you that. If the fantastical elements of the movie were removed, I definitely concede that it would sacrifice a bit of its charm in order to achieve a more grounded telling. Maybe we can simply just have our fantastical cake and eat it too.
If that is the point of the story though, then I think it could have been written to serve that point just a bit better. Specifically, the more fantastical elements should probably have taken much more of a backseat. Or, even more specifically, the death of the seagull causing that almost ceaseless storm. When the evil we do catches up to us, it's very usually not going to come in a fantastical package, but in much more mundane elements that, sooner or later, all link together to effectively bring about comeuppance. But is that nitpicking? Eh, I might give you that. If the fantastical elements of the movie were removed, I definitely concede that it would sacrifice a bit of its charm in order to achieve a more grounded telling. Maybe we can simply just have our fantastical cake and eat it too.
But what should I rate it then? After thinking about it some, I might just give it five stars for now. I was kinda confused as to that aforementioned point of the movie, but the movie has grown on me the more I think of it and the point did become somewhat clear with some thinking. Or... Maybe there is no point and it's utter foolishness to try to derive meaning and truth from delusions. But then, isn't that itself a point... ?
Last edited:
