Skinamarink

????? ?????? Don't even know what to say Some loved this movie. Some hated this movie. I fall inbetween. It's less a movie and more of an abstract art piece of different (very dark) shots and clips of things happening (or not happening) around a house where the windows and doors mysteriously vanished leaving 2 young children trapped inside with...something. It's extremely boring, nothing happens on screen, but I do have to say the jump scares got me GOOD. Some parts were very creepy and it had great atmospheric potential and I could see the vision they had, but it felt more like a grad school project with a budget of $10. It's Paranormal Activity's less formed, visually darker, weirder, younger sibling. Art is great - but when a movie relies too much on being abstract, they forget to actually create a film.

I went into this movie completely blind (as I try to do with most movies) and can say without question this is NOT a movie you want to go in blind. This movie is extremely experimental and abstract and will not be to most people's taste. The entire film is shot with a grainy vhs type look and is comprised of deliberately off center shots of the interior of a house. There is virtually no plot to speak of and most of the 1 hour 40 minute runtime is composed of random shots.

I love films that challenge and are demanding to the viewer. I love independent cinema and slow burn films. But this film expects WAY too much from the viewer and becomes very irritating as a result. Even to the hardened art house viewer this movie expects too much. This would have made a brilliant 40 minute short as there are moments of true horror but they are surrounded by random repetitive imagery. At no point does this movie pick up pace or have any sort of narrative.

This movie feels like a nightmare ASMR or a full length creepy pasta. If you suffered from night terrors or sleep paralysis or experienced childhood trauma I think you could become extremely invested in this film and that is the only way this works. I didn't feel connected or engaged in the story (I've never been through any of the above) and the only film I can compare with regards to the pacing and somnolent effect this movie had is "Beyond the Black Rainbow".

Five points for originality.

I did not dislike this movie. It was more or less exactly what I expected. As a fan of the creepy aesthetic of David Lynch and movies that challenge the audience I wasn't too disappointed. I love the concept and appreciate the approach but ultimately if you are going to ask an audience for 90-120 minutes of their time I think a film should give them more than Skinamarink delivers. Still, from a first time filmmaker it's an admirable effort.

I far prefer slow burning horror films that play to the fear of the unknown and an have an underlying sense of dread (The Witch, Hereditary, and The Blair Witch Project are personal faves). Skinamarink tries to play in this arena but doesn't effectively use any cinematic tools to build tension or make the viewer anxious. No soundtrack, very little camera movement, and not enough dynamic use of light and shadow. All things that I think probably could have been achieved, even with a miniscule budget. Thematically it starts in a very minable vein but then doesn't actually develop what amounts to a fairly universal experience of fear (i.e. Being a defenseless child abandoned by caregivers). We feel isolated and alone with the children but are distanced from the sense that anything frightening is happening I think because so little of the film takes place from the children's perspective. It did get me thinking about how to make a horror movie driven by fear of the unknown. If you want to make something universally scary how much do you need to show the audience to prime them to be afraid and how much can you leave to their imaginations? In the end Skinamarink asks the individual viewer to fill in too many blanks for it to be an effective horror movie in my opinion. Truly neurotic people will probably find it unnerving and anxiety inducing but aside from a couple of cheap jump scares nothing particularly interesting happens. My impression was that the vast majority of people will most likely find the movie a waste of time and for that reason I cannot recommend it. But if you like a challenge, are home alone on a stormy night, and/or are capable of letting your imagination run wild then, sure, give it a shot.

Like I said in the review title, if you're like me, you're 15-20 minutes into the movie, and you're wondering if 1) you should turn it off, and 2) if anything ever happens. So you're checking IMBD reviews. My answers to those questions are 1) maybe, and 2) kind of. About 45 minutes in, there is a scene that is legitimately scary. Past that, there are a few scenes that are scary as well, but more than scary, the movie is just creepy and disturbing. You can feel reassured that yes, it does ratchet up in intensity.

If you like movies that are "abstract" or "artistic", where there are many interpretations, and simultaneously they're all correct, yet also none of them are correct, then you should finish the movie. If that doesn't sound interesting, and you prefer movies that provide clear answers, then turn it off.

This movie is not overly concerned about plot, though there are hints of plot in it. It is more concerned with style, and creating a specific dream/nightmare-like feeling.

I would say it is quite effective at accomplishing that, though I ultimately found the movie somewhat unsatisfying. The plot summaries about children in a house with disappearing doors and a monster sounds like the book "House of Leaves", which I loved. But there isn't nearly as much plot as in "House of Leaves". You barely see any characters, you barely understand any plot.

I can't say that I liked it, though ultimately I think it was a "good movie".

The reason I ultimately gave this movie a somewhat positive review is because it gave me something to think about. I read some articles and posts about it afterwards. I read two different articles like "Skinamarink Ending Explained", and they both provided very different summaries of the events that happened in the movie, let alone the ending. The movie is very open to interpretation, and I liked that aspect. There were a few scenes and images that are hard to forget. But the movie is also too long and repetitive and boring a lot of the time. I appreciate the movie, and what the creators were trying to accomplish, and I'll be curious to see what the director can do with more than $15,000.

Well, there are three types of viewers that come out of a viewing of Skinamarink. First we have the people who praises it as the next best thing since sliced bread. Then we have the people who absolutely detest this movie. And lastly there are the people who respect the effort and the new approach but felt that there is a lot lacking. I'm leaning towards the latter. Yeah the movie has an interesting presentation and some neat sound engineering. But like others said before the 100 minutes runtime is stretching the goodwill, even for people who are familiar with arthouse movies.

The movie has a lot of gaps in it's narration and it's up to the viewers imagination or personal experience to fill those gaps and ultimately enjoy the movie. For some people it hits very close to home and they have no problem doing so. Others are bored to tears. So I have to admit, it is a unique movie in it's own right and I highly respect that, although I personally didn't enjoy it as much as I wanted.

It shares certain similarities to a videogame called Gone Home. It also plays in an empty house with missing parents and you have to figure out the story by pure observation and patience. But it had a decent story and an interesting ending. For people who are disappointed by this movie for the lack of a coherent story but like the ambience, I can recommend at least this game.