Recensioni degli utenti

What happens if you are a genuinely nice person? Willing to go the extra mile for others, always submissive to the wishes of your family and are generally a nice guy. You are taken for granted and treated like dirt. By your folks, colleagues and even the girl you so fancy treats you as a nonexistent entity.

As if this was not discouraging enough, a new colleague joins who is identical to you in appearance but has the completely opposite personality.

A smart telling of the Dostoevsky novel about a person who has the capacity to tolerate everything but his own double whose existence causes him a dilemma: continue to silently tolerate everything or change and adapt.

Perhaps not the easiest of movies to watch but its quirky wit and creative cinematography will win you over.

"Look at me, look at him. He stole my face."

I don't know why this film didn't engage me as it has most people, but there was just something about it and its characters that simply alienated me. The Double is Richard Ayoade's follow up to Submarine, and it feels heavily influenced by other works, especially from directors like David Lynch and Terry Gilliam. It is actually an adaptation of an 1800's novella written by Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Ayoade adapted it with a unique and clever style. There is a lot of dark humor involved and it also has a philosophical undertone. Despite being influenced by all these works, the film still feels unique and innovative, but it just didn't resonate with me. I'm just not a big fan of these surreal films that don't follow a classical narrative style, and The Double is just that, it plays out as a sort of nightmare for the main character played by Jesse Eisenberg. It's a case where I felt the film was more about style and aesthetics than substance and content. I prefer Villeneuve's Enemy, which is also a film dealing with a doppleganger premise, over this bleak film. There is no doubt that The Double is a creepy film, but one that didn't work for me and one I don't plan on revisiting because like the main character in The Double I felt completely alienated in this dystopian world.

The film introduces us to Simon (Jesse Eisenberg), a timid and shy young man who seems to live his life unperceived by everyone else. Simon always tries to please those around him and is very submissive despite everyone's indifference towards him. He's been working at a government agency for the past 7 years, and despite having some great ideas, no one ever pays attention to him. He is in love with one of his coworkers, Hannah (Mia Wasikowska), who he is too shy to speak to. He always looks for an excuse to visit her at the printing room, but he never finds the courage to ask her out. She is also kind of a lonely and strange girl herself, and Simon often finds himself watching her through a telescope from his apartment. Simon's life turns around when one day his boss, Mr. Papadopoulos (Wallace Shawn), introduces a new coworker named James who is physically identical to him, but with a complete opposite personality. Everyone likes James, and no one even seems to notice he looks exactly like Simon because they don't even conceive of his existence. James is so outgoing he has no trouble getting his boss's attention and seducing women. James befriends Simon but ends up using his ideas to impress Mr. Papadopoulos and seduce Hannah. All of Simon's dreams and hopes are shattered by James who is taking over everything he's passionate about, but was always afraid to take a stand for.

The premise seems interesting, but the way it was presented is what didn't work for me. Ayoade created such a unique dystopian and bleak world that it made me feel dull and alienated. I didn't really care for the characters in this film, despite the wonderful dual performance from Jesse Eisenberg. He once again proves he's a talented actor and carries this film. Mia Wasikowska is also wonderful and plays alongside Eisenberg really well. The performances were strong, I had no problem with them, but what I didn't enjoy were the characters they were playing and the way the film was narrated. The film tries to explore our senses, but all it did for me was make me feel indifferent towards it the same way Simon's coworkers felt towards him. It's a quirky film with a lot of quirky sounds and musical score that just didn't work for me the same way it did for most audiences.

I was surprised to see the bad reviews on IMDb. This is actually the most creative, enigmatic, philosophical and visually stunning film I've seen in a long time (and MUCH better than the disappointing Villeneuve's "Enemy"). Every scene is made in an unusual and unexpected way...enhancing the awkwardness of the characters and the story as a whole. From the very first 10 minutes I knew I was watching something really special.

"Submarine" was cute, but this is the film that definitely makes Ayoade one of the most promising directors nowadays. Can't wait to see what he's gonna do next.

I am currently studying Russian Literature at the University of Bucharest and one of this semester's assignments involves reading three of Dostoyevsky's novels: Crime & Punishment, The Double and The Brothers Karamazov. Having finished the second book today, my memories in regard to the source material are still clear & well-defined, so I will try to pinpoint some things I've liked and some things I didn't about Richard Ayoade's 2013 film.

What I didn't like.

• I understand that the movie doesn't aim to be the most accurate adaptation, hence it's modern setting, but the truth is, the movie is just loosely based on the novel. I say that because it only makes use of some plot devices that are to be found in the book, but mostly fails in capturing the inner emotional turmoil, dilemmas, paranoia and mental dizziness of Simon, elements that make Dostoevsky's Golyadkin an interesting case for me. Here the character of Simon is simplified a bit. For example when Simon meets his double, instead of the sheer dread that makes me feel the horror of this unspeakable resemblance, one can see a sudden cut to a Simon that has just faint - an easy gateway for the screenwriters and the director. Or the very first encounter with the double, when James takes the photos of the Colonel and other employees, that seemed a bit too abrupt and in a certain sense - rushed.

• an unnecessary comedic tone, with tasteless jokes for a rather profound story.

• The mild Chinese racism - did the screenwriter try to copy Dostoyevsky's sense of mocking towards the ethnic Germans?

Things I did like

• the color grading, the tones, the hues, the sick greenish of the office; Better that I'd have imagined.

• Jesse Eisenberg's (The Social Network) and Mia Wasikowska's performances.

• ''a person can get really sick by just floating by''

• also the speech about Pinocchio and feeling like you're not real. And the subway scenes especially.

Bottom line: I think The Double is 100% worth the watch if you like weird, stylized things, but it does suffer from an unfulfilling ending. If you're not generally into "weird stuff", then this is probably not going to be the film for you. Worth mentioning that it is very bleak and confusing at times.

If this had a better ending to tie it up then it would have easily been an 8+

The Double takes you for a real ride. It's effective at making you feel a sense of non-stop stress and dread, while remaining very engaging. You feel like you can't look away without missing something right until the end.

The atmosphere is great, portraying a truly bleak, dystopian nightmare. The set design is really interesting and has a unique vibe. The work they do at the company, and many other things about the world in general, is vague in a way that they really pull off to build an effective tone.

Unfortunately, I felt the ending was unfulfilling. The ending itself is fine enough, and some of the stuff they introduce there is cool, but it doesn't feel like a real conclusion. It didn't wrap up as nicely as it seemed like it was going to, and when looking at it closer there's a lot of tough logical holes. When discussing it after there was lots of "but if *that* theory was right, then *this* thing wouldn't have happened" and it just didn't seem like any one narrative fit correctly.

Overall, I really liked the experience. It was very cerebral, very weird, and very "interesting" (in it's own bleak and unexciting way). I enjoyed it all the way through, but was let down by the ending not being fulfilling enough.

Everybody thinks they are special. Everybody thinks they are unique. Everybody also thinks there is someone deep down that can and must come out so they are better people. As our protagonist thought. But in this case, that person was not that great but was what our protagonist thought he was missing.

I am not familiar with Dostoevskys book but this adaptation from Ayoade was really more like Kafka. A bizarre story set in a bureaucratic, soul-less environment where humanity tries to come out like a flower through concrete. Or as an obnoxious douchebag.

But the memorable Brazil-like imagery aside it's a few degrees too weird and loses you a bit.

I've now seen two films by the talented Ayodade – the other being his coming of age 'Submarine" - and had a very similar reaction though they are miles apart in style, story and theme.

First, this is a gifted film-maker, who doesn't want to play by the usual rules. Next, he knows how to get off to a great start, build a fascinating world, get you involved with his people, but third, he doesn't quite find ways to make his third acts pay off as interestingly (or powerfully or emotionally) as the first two-thirds of the film promise. In both films the focus drifts to less interesting elements or variations on the stories he's telling.

And last, he needs to lighten up on the too-obvious 'homage's to his cinematic touchstones. In "Submarine" it was (among others) Wes Anderson and "Rushmore". Here the overbearing influences (there are many) are led by Terry Gilliam's "Brazil". There were a large number of design and character choices – while effective - that came close enough that I couldn't help but sit there making comparisons ('Hey, there's Wallace Shawn doing Ian Holm'). And it starts to approach that fine line between inspiration and plagiarism.

That said, there's a lot to like here. The photography is often gorgeous. Jessie Eisenberg does a terrific job in a tough double role – a meek office worker who is suddenly faced with another employee who looks exactly like him. But the new guy has a brash, self-confident personality, everyone loves him, and no one else seems to notice the two are physically exactly alike, right down to their clothes.

This raises interesting questions about personality, perception and reality. Is "James Simon" (the cool one) merely a psychological projection of the nerd, "Simon James"? But if that's the case, why does everyone else interact with both, together and separately? Is it that Simon is the only one who thinks they look alike? i.e. is Simon projecting himself onto someone who – if we saw objectively – wouldn't even really look like him? Well, that would be an interesting idea, and a promising road for the film to explore, and it hints heavily at that possibility, only to simply drop and contradict it.

And that's part of why this is two-thirds of a great film, not a whole one. In the end things play out in a way that has been foreshadowed from early on, and suddenly the film feels less deep, less challenging, more an exercise in cinematic playfulness than an exploration of deeper themes both personal and societal. The head trip becomes too literal, the conclusions too simple for the complex surreal reality we've come to accept

On the plus side, the effects are terrific, and many of the best scenes in the film are Eisenberg talking to himself in one shot. (A hell of an acting challenge as well). And the film has a dark sense of humor that keeps the Kafkaesque world and 'big themes' from becoming ponderous, (Again, I just wish I had less often chuckled, but then thought 'hey, that just like the scene in 'Barton Fink…', or whatever).

In any case I look forward to whatever Ayoade does next, but I hope he will find a way to finish as strong as he starts, and to be brave enough to trust his own very good sense of style, and not borrow quite so much from others.

This is the second feature film from Richard Ayoade after his quirky debut Submarine. Loosely based on the Dostoevsky novel the story follows Simon James - a quiet, timid character living in a bleak, soulless world where he goes unnoticed by his boss, the cute photocopier girl and even his own mother. Then one day James Simon appears, an exact double of Simon except he's better at everything in life - he has the cocky charm, he worms his way to the top in work and even gets the girls.

This is a dark, moody comedy peppered with some hilarious dialogue and genuine pathos although it doesn't quite fulfil its early expectations. The real highlight here is Ayoade's directorial style with real shades of Terry Gilliam in its surrealist approach to the world he has created. He cranks up the volume of everyday things like taps running or footsteps to build tension up in scenes and Jesse Einsberg is perfect casting for playing both roles.

A real curious piece but one which deserves an audience and suggests Ayoade is on track to become a real tour de force.

This is a seriously weird and disturbing movie that initially looks like it's going to come across as a bit of a 21st Century downmarket version of Brazil. Our hero experiences a sequence of unsettling events, seemingly unconnected and apparently trivial to a degree, although clearly aiming to tee up some of the later action.

The lighting, the sounds, the camera shots are all wonderfully done, setting a disturbing and unsettling atmosphere that gently but with increasing urgency begins to throw a blanket of latent claustrophobia across characters and happenings. We witness curious incidents and are left to guess their significance, our hero reaches out to the girl but is beaten to the jump by....who exactly?

How much of what we see actually takes place is questionable. How much some of the latter scenes make sense even more so. Yet, as it twists and turns towards the denouement, I found myself gripped and engaged to an uncommon degree. It is a difficult movie as it winds up, no question, but I find the notion that anyone feeling suicidal needs warning before viewing as slightly hysterical.

On the one hand, this is an easy film to describe, whether you reference the source material, or your talk about the doppleganger and what it might be like to find one has a double. Yet on the other hand, it's almost impossible to sum this up after one viewing, as there felt like there are so many little bits and pieces that suddenly reveal themselves to your eyes and ears. that you're forced to think about going back to sit back through it again. The question is, which one of you will go...?

Here's the basic gist- this film is pretty ambitious on a visual level. It's reminiscent of the type of film Lynch would have made in his early days (yes, I got memories of Eraserhead for whatever reason). On a storyline-level, it's more straightforward. You can pretty much guess where the narrative is going and the strings it's going to pull. The film still works however, largely because of its cast. Jesse Eisenberg's performance here stands alongside his Oscar-nominated turn in The Social Network as the best acting he's ever given. It's truly superb work. Wasikowska is also quite effective. The score is effective and sort of haunting. Overall, I wish I'd liked it more, but it's definitely recommended.

'The Double' serves as a poignant critique of the solitary and monotonous existence that many individuals gets trapped into.

It explores the strange paradox of striving for our goals while simultaneously sacrificing our identities and truer selves in the pursuit. More so true for the blue collar jobs, a theme which resonatesd deeply with me.

However, the biggest caveat with unorthodox narratives is, they do not resonate uniformly with all kinds of viewers. Interpretations can differ massively, leading to varied emotional responses.

Even with a well-crafted script that astutely examines a range of societal issues, if the audience fails to engage with the material, the efforts invested may ultimately prove futile.

And I am afraid. Not everybody will grasp the underlying messages here; the effectiveness of the movie hinges on the viewer's ability to connect with its symbolic insinuations and its allegories.

If you can do that, you would certainly have a great time, rest assured!

Before you get all pissy and shout at your computer screen that this movie is based on a Dostoevsky novella from the 1800s, let me be clear: I am not inferring that the story somehow ripped off other contemporary sources. I'm just saying that I felt distracted while viewing The Double by its many similarities to films I've seen and that have seeped into popular culture. Specifically, I kept thinking of Fight Club, The Tenant, Youth In Revolt, Enemy, Rear Window, Brazil, Eraserhead, Dead Ringers, and The Trial. Which leads me to the question: Do we need this movie? Even if it is a mostly faithful adaptation to a hitherto unadapted story by a world famous 19th century novelist, which recalls excellent films from the history of cinema, and which was beautifully, skilfully crafted and acted...do we really need another surreal-noir about the anonymity of corporate jobs? Or another movie with the doppelganger/alter ego paradigm, especially one which does nothing to reinvent or subvert the genre? It should be noted that I enjoyed watching this film for its set design and b/c of Wasikowska's enchanting ways. But not for its story. Which isn't to say I think the source material is weak, but that the elements which had been so intriguing when the novella was first published have now become tropes of this type of film. In short, The Double left me thinking of the films it resembled, already forgetting the doppelganger (could this have been the point?).

'The Double' begins with an unanswered question, and the story unwinds so at the end you have the answer to the question. The story was linear. It follows Simon James, a quiet, awkward man who one day finds that he has a doppelganger, James Simon.Once he befriends his lookalike, things go downhill in all aspects of his life. Throughout "The Double", it is always nighttime. No scenes are shot during the day. I noticed there were not many sources of light in a lot of the scenes. Singular sources of lights were used often. The room would often be dark and be lit by dim lights. The colors were often warm and dark, there weren't any bright colors used. The lighting used also gave off an eerie feeling. Most of the scenes weren't full of people, and the lighting helped communicate that. The camera work was very straight forward sometimes, while other times it was very interesting. It ranged from very wide shots, to close ups, to interesting angles.

This isn't a movie I would usually watch, but it was so different it drew me in. The awkward humor was funny and disturbing. Eisenberg, who portrays both of the main characters, did a terrific job. If this movie had anyone playing Simon and James, it wouldn't be half as great. After being skeptical while watching, by the end I decided it wasn't bad a film.

It's an artsy-psychological tale with sparse dialog and lots of confused hints of an actual plot. The unsatisfying surprise-ending seemed like a lame attempt to explain all of the "tangled web". I felt no empathy for the disturbed main character. I was emotionally un-invested and intellectually disappointed.

Great soundtrack. That's an impression. Superb acting given the nature of both subject and a slippery theme. Another impression. Difficult material by writers such as Dostoyevsky are deeply profound, dark reading and, as such, are a challenge to adapt to screen. A reference to Brazil is appropriate at a glance given the setting and camera work. Emulation is not flattery, but observance. Direction, camera values are not nuance, but intentional. That this film was not commercially successful points out it's import. Ironic.

That said, multiple viewings may bring even more appreciation of the story and how it is purveyed. Don't we all have someone inside that wishes to break the mold within which society cast us? Cut the strings, evolve back? Kudos to cast and crew as this theme is hard to evoke on film in a manner that engages both of us. Me and me.

Not for every viewer, but certainly for those that can see inside and out with doubt. Bravo.

It takes a long time to reach the point where the doppelganger makes his appearance and some viewers might already have been lost. Coen brothers like hints of what is to come have nevertheless been provided for you - it's almost necessary that this is the case as you would have no chance of making sense of the story otherwise. So, now that you're half way through, do you feel Simon's frustration? Wouldn't you have done something, something different to worshiping your visual double? So flattered are you by this new incarnation of your self you fail to stand up for yourself. Well, so it may be and that's a lesson for us all. Simon eventually works out how to resolve this tricky problem but not before accepting the truth about flattery.

The Double is based on a story by the Russian writer, Dostoyevsky. And, I'll be blunt here—he is NOT for everyone! In fact, his stories are really not going to generate a lot of revenue when they are made into films because they are so strange and non-cinematic. Obviously the filmmakers really must have wanted to make this and they knew they'd never get rich off this one! This must be the reason Jesse Eisenberg decided to do this 'little' film. Interestingly, one of the executive producers* is Michael Caine—so he, too, must have really liked the material and wasn't too concerned about raking in the cash! As for the director, Richard Ayoade, he isn't that experienced with full-length films but certainly is someone to watch, as he really made the most of this strange tale by infusing it with some incredibly odd but satisfying touches—such as, for no reason I could discern, infusing the film with Japanese music! He also has a Fellini sort of love of strange supporting characters—all with very odd faces. It's all very weird…but it works! In addition, Ayoade wrote the screenplay based on the Dostoyevsky novel.

The story is about as bizarre as any I've seen lately. Simon (Eisenberg) is a very emotionally constricted and lonely young man. No one seems to notice him or care about him as he plods away at his job making no particular mark. In fact, he's literally a real 'nothing' as soon his work identification badge stops working and he is repeatedly hassled by the strange security guard who acts like he's never seen Simon before—though he's worked at the company for years. Then, out of the blue, a new employee comes to work—and he is the exact double for Simon. James (also Eisenberg) looks like Simon but no one seems to think this is unusual. What is really strange is that everyone seems to naturally love James and he's much the opposite of his lookalike. He's confident, aggressive and Simon eventually learns that he's also a bit of a user. While they are friends at first and James seems to be trying to help Simon, soon you see that James is trying to take over Simon's life…and lonely Simon is becoming more and more alienated and depressed. What is poor Simon to do?

In many ways, this story looks like it was infused with liberal doses of the movies 1984 as well as Brazil. While the film lacks the huge budget of Brazil, the dystopian look to this place gives it an otherworldly feel that seems oppressive, strange and gloomy. It also has an odd sense of humor—though it certainly is not a comedy. This actually works well with the story. But what is it all about? THAT is the thing about The Double—no one is exactly sure what it all means. Since the story was written long ago folks have been debating this. Is this simply Simon's descent into madness? Are there literally two of him, a yin and a yang? Or, is there some other meaning? Some will like the film's vagueness—others will hate that they aren't being spoon-fed the answers. The bottom line is that the story is difficult, strange and confusing— and these are NOT qualities you find in a Hollywood picture. As for me, I liked it and appreciated that the filmmakers didn't try to make a film like any other. And, the strangeness certainly wasn't a bad thing. Would I like more films like this? Perhaps I might—but not in large quantities. But, as a change of pace, I really enjoyed the film. Whether or not you'll enjoy this strange film, I cannot say—it all depends on your tolerance for the surreal.

*I am confused. How can a film have four executive producers? Usually, there is one producer in charge (the executive producer) and the others are simply called producers.

This wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination and was very weird but there were parts that really made me laugh out loud. I doubt I'd give it a 2nd watch

"The Double" is a boring film with a story inspired by Fyodor Dostoevsky's novel "The Double" in an environment of Terry Gilliam's "Brazil". The invisible Simon James meets his Doppelgänger called James Simon that has opposite personality and steals his job and the woman he suffers from unrequited love. The plot is disclosed at a slow pace and despite the great performances and the stylish cinematography, does not engage the viewer since it is tiresome for a thriller, unfunny for a comedy and shallow for a drama. The conclusion is inconsistent since does not provide explanation why James and Simon are connected when injured but not when healed. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "O Duplo" ("The Double")