Je veux juste en finir

I can't even describe it. And I don't care if you need to read the book to understand it, you shouldn't.. It doesn't explain anything at all from start to finish. It just gets more and more confusing and when you think it's something it really isn't. Just a complete waste of time.

Strange, bewildering & full of misgivings, I'm Thinking of Ending Things only gets more awkward & confusing as it progresses but it still creates enough intrigue for the viewers to stick around and see if the whole ordeal of sitting through the film is worth it in the end. Now I don't know about the others but my answer to that is a plain & simple no.

Written & directed by Charlie Kaufman, it's only sensible to expect the unexpected when journeying into one of his stories but unlike the clever ideas & concepts that he came up with to explore existentialism in his earlier works, there is no structure to this story. It is just a hotchpotch of thoughts & impressions thrown into the mix and presented without consideration.

The film still brims with a sense of foreboding for the most part if not all and is at its most interesting during the farmhouse scene, thanks to the remarkable talents on screen. David Thewlis & Toni Collette easily steal the show while Jessie Buckley & Jesse Plemons do their best to keep things running. One might expect the story to unfurl its mysteries in the end but this one simply refuses to.

Overall, I'm Thinking of Ending Things is a tedious, frustrating & convoluted mess that defies any logic & understanding and unfolds like a series of thought process simultaneously going inside a troubled mind that doesn't know how to stop them. A bizarre, surreal & confounding experience that keeps getting weirder as it nears its conclusion, Charlie Kaufman's latest film may dazzle his fans with its allegories but it sure isn't for me.

Sure - after reading the helpful review on imdb that explains the plot, some of the film makes sense. And if you have read the book, Kaufman's surreal approach may be somewhat interesting. If you haven't, this is just a fevre dream that goes nowhere, and is clearly trying very hard to be intentionally incomprehensible. The acting is very good, but that's where the positives end.

Important note: this is not like watching David Lynch at his most weird, where the paranoia is genuine and tongue-in-cheek and the search for meaning a lost cause, but more like a deliberate attempt to confuse the viewer, by withholding information and concealing (WHY) a story that is actually there. And that just feels like vain self-indulgence

The hardest part about watching this movie was trying to figure out why I was watching it. At the end, I had to look up interpretations, which I think took a lot of the magic and reflection out of what a movie should be. I wish it would've been a little less abstract, for those of us who watched it independently from the book, and aren't abstract minded enough to pull meaning out of thin air.

Other than not knowing what the hell was happening, the acting was phenomenal, and so was the dialogue. Now off to the library to try to get something useful out of this story.

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."