Dual - Il clone

This bone-dry black comedy feels very much like Yorgos Lanthimos lite, with to-the-point dialogue its no-frills delivery being its most obvious feature. Having said that, taking inspiration from someone isn't a crime and it's not as if the movie is a rip-off. 'Dual (2022)' tells an oddball story about a terminally ill woman who has herself cloned in preparation for her guaranteed death in an effort to prevent those she loves from having to grieve her demise. Unfortunately for her, her boyfriend and mother seem to prefer her double, who soon becomes a person in her own right. Worse still, our hero doesn't die; in fact, she completely recovers. There can't very well be two of her, though, so she and her double are forced to undergo a duel to the death. The piece is quirky and uncomfortable, built upon some seriously dark satire that has the ability to both make you laugh and (far less literally) cry. It's uncompromising in its vision, yet it also knows how silly it is and slyly alludes to that. On the surface, it's totally serious, but its absurdity is purposeful and provokes a chuckle every now and again. It's also fairly subversive, even considering its inherently off-kilter nature. I can see how some people would struggle to connect to it; after all, the characters are purposefully icy and the dialogue is extremely on-the-nose by design. Though isn't as refined as it could be, it generally has a good grasp on its narrative and tone. If you can get on its wavelength, though, it's a fairly entertaining experience from beginning to end.

This is NOT a mainstream movie by any stretch. It is brought to us by a young writer-director whose specialty is unusual, quirky stories. I was anxious to see it because it stars Karen Gillan, I am a big fan, I could watch and listen to her read a phone book and be entertained.

So the premise here is in a alternate universe a technology has been invented to clone people. And a fantastic thing about it is, you spit in a cup and an hour later you meet your clone, the same size and same apparent age as you. Of course you have to teach it about yourself, family, likes and dislikes, things like that. And guard your boyfriend.

Why would you want to? You get a disgnosis that you have a terminal illness, you don't want to deprive your family and friends your presence so you make a clone to replace you.

So for most of the movie Gillan is playing two characters with subtle differences, she does it well, often with just the slight expressions on her face, and with some different voicings. What happens if, against the odds, she doesn't die? There is a law, within a year the two of them will battle until only one remains.

Set on the US west coast but filmed in Finland, it is not a sci-fi movie as much as it examines human nature and the things that motivate us, either for good or for evil. Pretty good viewing.

My wife and I watched it at home on DVD from our public library. I enjoyed it more than she did. We were slightly puzzled at the end but the DVD "extra" featuring the director's commentary cleared up any doubts.

Great Sci-Fi that relies on the story and not unnecessary over-the-top special effects. I felt like this movie could be telling about what we have in store in the future. Every character is somewhat robotic, and without feeling or personality...much like a society where indoctrination has voided all critical thought and reason. That's my take anyway.

Beautifully shot, score was well done, and acting really portrayed the uncaring nature of society. Great film!

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.

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!