Under the Silver Lake

Having heard very little about this film and but remembering its trailers, perhaps accidentally watched this film lesser on not so purpose.

Now this film has the feel of a neo noir type independent and lesser Hollywood atmosphere, and for those reasons it works. The atmosphere is very subtle and mysterious and there are a few things along the way which keeps are interest.

Unlike many films today, Under the silver lake is not so predictable which makes it a joy to watch. The runtime is quite length and at times may seem as if the film is about to end, then suddenly some other discovery occurs.

Enjoyable film simply for the adventure we see the character of Andrew Garfield goes through. Although the ending was somewhat of a letdown.

This movie has too much and not enough.

Too much length, too many plot threads, too many characters, too many wanna-be-argute references, too many unresolved nodes. Sadly, not enough meaning.

As other reviewers noted, it tries hard to be Mulholland Drive and Donnie Darko, but it falls short of expectations, especially in the uncompelling ending.

My son (who liked it) tried to convince me to see some deeper metaphorical level, i.e. One which would be delivering some harsh criticism of Hollywood's alleged many sins. Sorry, I don't buy it: if such was the intent, then arguably the implementation defeated the purpose, ending up guilty of these very same sins.

It's not all bad: the acting is OK, as well as the photography and the cinematography. Spotting the many references is fun at first, to quickly lose interest.

To me, the real problem is the erratic, self-indulgent direction, seemingly unable to convey a meaningful consistency to the movie, a compelling raison d'être that would and should have made this movie memorable rather than a disappointing sequence of fragments. Lots of dots, unconvincingly connected. All in all, a lost opportunity.

Sorry, even though I wanted to like this movie (or possibly _because_ of that) I just cannot recommend it.

I was kind of surprised by this movie experience. I just came back from sneak preview and the movie still lingers in my mind. I love Andrew Garfield, his performance was believable and I think he's one one of the best rising stars of Hollywood. I also loved his work in "Breathe", great movie, make sure you check it out.

The storyline is a bit weird, and it's pretty much centered around Andrews character, so the movie felt a bit small to me, but Andrew performance makes up for it big time. I also loved the nudity in this movie. I would describe this movie as playful, curious, funny and authentic. This is not the usual Hollywood crap, it's quite different, I had no idea where the story was going, which is a good thing because it kept me hooked and that doesn't happen to me very often anymore. I truly had a great time. It's not for everyone I think but if you like semi thriller/detective/humor/absurdity kind of movies, we'll get yourself a bucket of popcorn and have fun!

(English is not my native language)

Quite a different experience, which is hard to say about films in recent years. Takes a while to get going but worth the wait

Kinda makes me sad that this film could've been phenomenal if it was more considerate to the casual viewer. Bittersweet because it's great that filmmakers are able to make movies with little to no creative interference, but sometimes it's for the best. I'll start with what I like: this film has style for days. The lighting, production design, stilted characters were all mesmerizing. What I didn't: it felt meandering, bloated, and ultimately pointless. I know there's the "that's the point" argument to counter my "it was pointless" point, but when does "that's the point" become a cop out? I do think this film will garner an audience, but if it were just a bit more orthodox, it would've found that audience instantly.