Without Name

This movie has some amazing shots of the forest and the dark gloomy environment that the cottage is surrounded by. Other than that, this movie was a waste of time. It is extremely slow paced and the dialogue was subpar. I've seen some reviews mention that the slow burn helps intensify horror movies like this, but I disagree because this movie is not a horror. I'm not sure what genre it is exactly but I'd say it's closer to a psychological thriller than horror. That makes the fact that NOTHING HAPPENS/IS EXPLAINED even worse. The plot essentially begins with something mystical going on in these woods and ends without expanding on the thought. The movie ends without explaining what is going, how it's happening or why. The ending is also extremely predictable after 3/4 of it if you pay attention. This was very disappointing

This was very creepy thanks to clever photography and sound effects, and genuinely good acting. It is, however, a rather quiet and slow moving film with not much happening apart from the characters' minds playing tricks on them. It turns very weird towards the end. I think the guy who wrote this had too many mushrooms...

It's hard to completely pin this one down. I'm a fan of the occasional extra-subdued genre film, and this is certainly one of them - maybe even the utmost example. Composers are credited for a score that's only occasionally present (though it's often lovely when it is). Sound effects are so minimized in the audio mix that at some points they're rather almost entirely inaudible (if not for generous subtitles one might never know there was any "ominous droning" we're supposed to hear). Dialogue is only infrequently uttered in anything above a tame indoor pitch (and at that, only in the last third). The first third comes and goes so softly that even as protagonist Eric obliquely inquires about oddities, the viewer is made to earnestly wonder "wait, what happened?" The second third is defined almost entirely by dialogue and a bad trip. Suffice to say that whatever one's opinion of it, 'Without name' isn't a movie for those seeking the immediate and visceral. I'll say it now, though - with patience comes reward.

Dialogue is mostly vague and indistinct, not least as characters speak airily of some imprecise philosophical profundities, and if possible the scene writing and characters are even more fuzzy. That Alan McKenna's protagonist mostly mumbles and frowns his way through the picture is contrasted with the more typical comportment and delivery of the sparing supporting characters, but even they seem like mere approximations of people. In addition to some of the loftier dialogue, there are a few scenes that would seem to impart some specific, concrete through-line to the course of events as characters have strange experiences with, in, among, or of flora, yet given the hazy nature of the writing here at large, it's not unreasonable to question all the while if these have just been projections of a viewer who is reading too much into what unfolds before us. So it is as well for what is clearly mindful and purposeful (and, one way or another, finely executed) cinematography, editing, and effects. How intentional is all this amorphousness?

There is, at length, a definite narrative that gradually crystallizes in the last third. Abstruse themes present of the power of nature, and surrender to it whether by will or coercion. As Eric's abnormal time in the forest reaches its zenith over these ninety minutes, a pointedly broken sense of reality emerges, and it's evident that 'Without name' has aimed to be an extremely underhanded approach toward psychological horror by way of art film pretensions and a very (welcome) ecologically-friendly perspective on the world. The pay-off is long, slow, and quiet, but delicious, like subtle flavors in the bouquet of a glass of wine that manifest at the tail end of a sip and linger thereafter. For all the emphatic nuance, intelligence, and hard work that went into this feature I can only commend filmmaker Lorcan Finnegan, screenwriter Garret Shanley, and those contributing from behind the scenes. The filming location itself is truly gorgeous, and so uniquely paramount in the production that I almost wonder if the forest shouldn't have gotten a producer credit. The result of all this is a picture that is ultimately as entrancing as it is murky and almost abstract - and, I would wager, very likely to inspire feelings of hate in many who might watch it.

Do any of these words make sense? Have I wandered into the same nebulous territory of shapelessness as much of Shanley's screenplay would superficially seem to? In fairness, for those who engage with 'Without name' and come out the other end liking it, I don't know how one could speak at length of it without adopting the same affectations. There's at once so much and so little going on here; a title bursting with genius and life, yet shoving all of it into the smallest possible corner; a marvel, and a bore. I love it for exactly what it is, and also wish it maybe possessed just the slightest bit more clarity or definition. Does this sound like the type of movie you enjoy? If yes, then step right up; if not, your options are without limit. It's going to be a very, very select audience who best appreciates this, yet for those who can, 'Without name' is kind of brilliant.

An Irish surveyor gets stuck in a possibly haunted forest.

As I was watching this, I thought to myself, "This reminds me a bit of Vivarium." Turns out the same guy directed both movies. I'm not sure what exactly triggered that thought, but this is just as slow-paced and lonely as Vivarium. If anything, it's even slower paced.

Again, I don't really think this was a horror movie so much as a psychological thriller. If you come into this expecting monsters and gore, you'll be pretty disappointed. It's very European and influenced by 60s and 70s movies, I think. If you're into 70s folk horror, you'll probably enjoy this more than the IMDb rating suggests.

Ireland has some really beautiful forests. I can understand why filmmakers spend so much time shooting in them. Still, Without Name goes to extremes with endless shots of trees and nature. It's very pretty and makes me want to go explore a forest, but a bit more plot and fewer lingering shots of trees would have been nice.

The actors are pretty good, but you'll mostly be following Alan McKenna around the forest. The forest itself is pretty much his costar, though some other characters show up. The sound effects and score give the forest a Blair Witch atmosphere. It was eerie at times, but I'm honestly not especially fond of that whole Blair Witch thing.

If you don't mind a slow pace and a LOT of (pretty) shots of trees, this is worth checking out. If you're expecting bloodthirsty faeries to slash their way through a group of teenage friends, skip it.

"Without Name" is one of those movies that I really didn't like at first glance. It was too intellectual and much too slow for my personal taste when I first watched it. But after a while I kept revisiting it because of its unique nature. It's a rather slow-paced horror movie and has its focus set on the supernatural. The protagonist is a land-surveyor with a troubled marriage. The beginning of the movie is quite mundane and tries to showcase that the protagonist is just a regular guy who's doing his thing. But things change when he's sent on a special assignment. Without spoiling too much; he's supposed to measure a property that's located in a forest. But not just any forest; the one that the locals call "Goanim" (which is Welsh for "Without Name"). There are many myths about the forest and people claim that it's cursed but the protagonist doesn't seem to think much of it, initially.

As for the execution: the movie is deliberately slowed down to intensify the suspense of the horror. And I have to say, even though I criticized the pacing when I first watched it; it does work quite well in hindsight. We as the viewers know that things will eventually take a turn for the worse but we're never quite sure when. And that's ultimately where the movie shines. It manages to be terrifying because it's exploiting the most primal form of fear; the fear of the unknown. We don't know when things'll go south and we never really get to see the ghost. And yet it's evil presence is pervasive throughout the movie. Like a shadow, looming over the the protagonist's head. It's really reminiscent of the movie "It Follows" in terms of the flair. Do you know the feeling that you get when you think you're being watched? That's kind of the best way to describe this movie. It has that type of aura because the protagonist spends most of his time in the forest; feeling like he's being watched without being 100% certain about it. Doubts fester and his sanity degrades perpetually. The psychological tension is almost palpable.

To conclude: I really like this movie because it's so unique. There is no other horror movie quite like it. With that being said; it's also its biggest downside. If you don't like slow-paced movies this is probably not the movie for you. I mean, it's literally on the extreme end of the spectrum (on the slow end).

Final verdict: recommended (if you have the patience for it)