NOTE IMDb
5,8/10
14 k
MA NOTE
Une femme opte pour une procédure de clonage après avoir reçu un diagnostic terminal, mais lorsqu'elle récupère, ses tentatives de déclassement de son clone échouent, ce qui conduit à un due... Tout lireUne femme opte pour une procédure de clonage après avoir reçu un diagnostic terminal, mais lorsqu'elle récupère, ses tentatives de déclassement de son clone échouent, ce qui conduit à un duel à mort mandaté par le tribunal.Une femme opte pour une procédure de clonage après avoir reçu un diagnostic terminal, mais lorsqu'elle récupère, ses tentatives de déclassement de son clone échouent, ce qui conduit à un duel à mort mandaté par le tribunal.
- Récompenses
- 2 victoires et 5 nominations au total
Kristofer Gummerus
- Tom
- (as Kristofer Gummerrus)
Avis à la une
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
I would like to meet writer/director Riley Stearns. His films have a very unique sense of humour about them and I would like to know if that's how he naturally is. They are very dry and quite dark. You never quite know if you're supposed to be laughing or not. I think most of the time you are.
The film begins with a very intriguing opening scene featuring a duel. At this point I was wondering if the title of the movie had been misspelled. It soon became apparent however that it had not. The film went in a very different direction to what I was expecting and I really enjoyed it.
This was a film where I had absolutely no idea how it was going to end. There were dozens of different conclusions it could have gone with. I really liked the one they picked. It was dark, thought-provoking and interesting. I really enjoyed 'Dual' and would recommend it. 8/10.
The film begins with a very intriguing opening scene featuring a duel. At this point I was wondering if the title of the movie had been misspelled. It soon became apparent however that it had not. The film went in a very different direction to what I was expecting and I really enjoyed it.
This was a film where I had absolutely no idea how it was going to end. There were dozens of different conclusions it could have gone with. I really liked the one they picked. It was dark, thought-provoking and interesting. I really enjoyed 'Dual' and would recommend it. 8/10.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesFilmed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tampere, Finland was chosen as the filming location because of the Finnish government's successful effort to curb corona cases.
- GaffesAt the start of the film when Robert Michaels is trying to kill his double, his double can be seen sticking his arm out from behind the table, but then a split second later the arrow misses his arm and hits him just above his heart. Given the double's body position and the fact that he's turning away from the arrow when it is being fired, it would be physically impossible for the arrow to strike him where it did.
- Crédits fousIn the end credits, the credit for "Police Officers with Dog" lists the dog, Taika, first, and the trainer, Katja Kontu, last.
- Bandes originalesGrand March - Aida
Written by Giuseppe Verdi (uncredited)
Arranged by Cornelius Oberhauser and Ferdinand Oberhauser
Courtesy of APM Music
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Dual?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 4 500 000 € (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 185 212 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 118 254 $US
- 17 avr. 2022
- Montant brut mondial
- 425 909 $US
- Durée1 heure 34 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant