Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueWhen Simon, Rich, and Eva head out on an eagerly anticipated road trip, they bring along a video camera to record their journey. What starts out as a carefree adventure slowly becomes a desc... Tout lireWhen Simon, Rich, and Eva head out on an eagerly anticipated road trip, they bring along a video camera to record their journey. What starts out as a carefree adventure slowly becomes a descent into the ominous as unexplained events threaten to disrupt the balance between the thr... Tout lireWhen Simon, Rich, and Eva head out on an eagerly anticipated road trip, they bring along a video camera to record their journey. What starts out as a carefree adventure slowly becomes a descent into the ominous as unexplained events threaten to disrupt the balance between the three close friends. Each one of them must struggle with personal demons and paranoia as frie... Tout lire
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 4 victoires et 3 nominations au total
- Simon Lacey
- (as Robert Scattergood)
- Convenience Store Clerk
- (as Chadderton Thornton)
- Cop 2 in Station
- (as Ken Mackenzie)
- Cop at Motel
- (as Simon Hussey)
- Radio Voice
- (voix)
Avis à la une
The movie starts off with three friends, Simon and cute couple Eva & Rich, going on a roadtrip. The fact that Simon's girlfriend refuses to join them already sets the tone for some tension which just increases as the trip goes on. One thing is for certain, Simon has issues. Those issues revolve around an unhealthy obsession with a video camera.
The video camera is always running. And while Rich and Eva start running out of patience with their obsessive friend, Simon, evil events start to ruin their roadtrip.
First off, let me start by saying that the acting was great. It felt very real and authentic. They captured that feeling of initial excitement and then inevitable annoyance from being around the same people day in and day out. Especially with Simon due to his paranoid behavior.
The story is simple enough, yet what is happening with the video camera is much more complex. I was trying to figure out what was going on during the entire screening and while I definitely had my own theories, the film does an excellent job of explaining it without knocking you over the head with the answers.
The director gives the audience a lot of credit for being smart. If you don't pay attention the whole time, you just won't get it. The ending will not make sense or it might even make you mad. A second viewing might definitely be necessary for dummies who didn't pay attention the first time. I would love to see it a second time to just make sure that everything pays off correctly.
Though there aren't a ton of scares, the caliber of these scares was good. Especially one certain one which I will not give away (but you'll know it as soon as you see it). The sound and visual effects of the camera were very inventive and while I've seen some of them recreated in other movies lately, it says a lot that since Skew was made in 2005 (not to mention without the Hollywood budget), that this director wasn't copying anyone, but using his creative flair to make a true indie movie.
A valiant first feature debut and I hope to see more from this guy soon.
Told at a very leisurely pace, with the camera even resting on inanimate objects or total blackness for minutes on end, Skew is definitely a test of one's patience at times; however, commendable performances and sporadic moments of well-handled weirdness keep the viewer watching, as does the hope of a satisfying denouement. It's rather frustrating then that, by the end of proceedings, several issues are still left unresolved, most notably the true nature of the supernatural phenomenon and the fates of several characters.
On occasion, a little ambiguity can work in a film's favour, but in this instance, after such an arduous and often uneventful haul, it only serves to irritate.
N.B. A little detective work here on IMDb has since enabled me to better understand the director's intentions, but when an in-depth explanation from those involved is necessary in order to appreciate a film, then it only seems fair to call it a failure.
The plot is centered around a camera which seems to be able to mark people who are about to die. Only the film's protagonist and cameraman, Simon, can see the blotches which obscure the faces of those about to be killed. Once it becomes apparent to Simon and his friends that something is terribly wrong with the camera, a considerable portion of the rest of the film are just scenes where Simon's friends try to get him to stop filming and Simon makes really lame excuses to keep filming.
The film isn't even 90 minutes long, but I wasn't even half way through it by the time I started to feel like it was just dragging on way too much. To cap it all off, there's a lame plot twist at the end which most people will see coming from the start of the movie. Yes, it's that predictable.
The only thing that I find interesting about the film is that fact that it's quite short yet drags on and on, making it seem like a much longer movie. I don't know if this originally started off as a short film project, but I feel like that's the only way it ever could succeeded. Cut out a solid 50 minutes and make it a short film. It might be more watchable then.
It's also a very boring film like so many lost footage movies . One can understand low to no budget producers using this format since it requires little money for expensive cameras , film and a star cast but many of us consider the art of cinema as telling a visual story and these type of movies usually revolve around realist situations that are so realistic you could easily make the same film on your I-pod
In short this is very banal seen it all before stuff with guerrilla film standard production values . Unless I missed something it's not a horror movie and I'm very sceptical about other comments stating that you have to watch a couple of times in order to get it . I strongly doubt if I'll be watching this again
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesFollowing test screenings of Skew, it was decided that additional scenes would need to be filmed. This decision was complicated by the fact that Amber Lewis (who plays Eva Hansen) was eight months pregnant at the time. Reshoots involved filming Lewis behind open car doors, placing objects in front of her baby bump, and shooting her reflection through the car's side view mirror. The new (pregnant) footage made it into five different scenes of the final film.
- ConnexionsReferenced in Peelers: Behind the Scenes (2017)
Meilleurs choix
- How long is Skew?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Durée1 heure 23 minutes
- Couleur
- Rapport de forme
- 1.33 : 1