Il sosia - The Double

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.