Avaliações de usuários

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!

It's not for everyone, I'd admit.

If you enjoyed "the art of self defense", I think you would like this movie.

I think the title is clever, having a dual meaning.

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!

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.

Maybe it's supposed to be dry humour and they just completely failed at that, cause let's face it it's not a thriller or sci fi. What were the notes they gave Karen Gillan? "We need you to give a robotic performance, but do it like your an actress who doesn't know how to act"?

Painful to watch, tedious (very simple) story, nothing interesting or new. I mean it wasn't even interesting to look at, no skilled cinematography, I'm really struggling to find something positive.

It gets two stars, because there are worse movies out there but not many.

Karen Gillan was my favorite Dr. Who companion and I loved her in this. Hulu put "Dual" in the single genre of science fiction, but it's more like a dark comedy/thriller. The deadpan humor gave me Napoleon Dynamite vibes but when the movie ended I was left with a lingering icky feeling. Not as bad as the one induced by Requiem for a Dream, but similar. As I processed the ending over a few days, I felt like I understood the choice, and came to an acceptance. It was a fun ride. A very creative and surprisingly relatable premise, as I could see my own loved ones responding to a double of myself in the same way. Biggest complaint: LIGHTING!!! We live in a time where lights of all shapes, sizes and colors are super affordable. I'm so sick of not being able to SEE what's going on in movies! Apparently, Sarah's double has blue eyes while she has brown eyes. If you say so. Gun to my head, I would not be able to tell you which one was which from my TV screen. Still a very worthwhile watch, though.

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 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.

If you're looking for a fast paced action or a slow build to an intense conclusion, this isn't it. This movie has a slow build, with an even slower ending (which I appreciate). Although the writing could have used some improvement, the movie overall was good. The premise is so absurd, but Karen Gillan did such a fantastic job that it kept me interested until the end. For 1.5 hours and it's currently available on streaming, I recommend it for anyone who's into strange, somewhat dystopia movies.

Dual has an intriguing (albeit not entirely original) concept with a lot of comic and dramatic potential.

But the film is stuck in tonal limbo, being neither really funny nor especially poignant.

Dual's setting is its greatest strength. Its world always feels a little off-kilter and subtly dystopian.

But the storytelling is simply not engaging.

The writing feels bland and lazy.

The actors look mostly bored.

Riley Stearns is an interesting filmmaker. His first (and best) film Faults struck the right balance between absurdity and realism.

Since then he's gone on to adopt a more Lanthimos-ish tone, which seems overly self-conscious and gimmicky.

While that may have worked in his previous film, The Art of Self Defense, it doesn't in Dual.

I hope he returns to his earlier style for the next one.

If you like SLOW movies with build up to absolutely nothing then this is your movie! As for me I will never see it again and will not recommend it. Only good thing was the guy in it (The trainer) I think he is fine. Girl was annoying af!

The beginning of the film is a prelude to what comes next. Intimate in its own way. Pure black homor with an argument as original as it is effective. The concept of the film is absurd but approached without pretentiousness which favors it for our delight. I strangely loved the movie. Probably because I saw him "that night" although I'm very susceptible to movies with bizarre characters. From the beginning to the end of the film it is seen with the same interest and intensity. Aaron Paul is simply divine.

The concept is great but the delivery is more robotic than elon musk's playhouse. It was a real chore to get through this movie !

Very disappointing.furthermore i'm struggling to understand how so many people thought this was a good idea.

7/10 - 2022 is turning out to be the year of oddly charming dance sequences (between this and the similarly surprisingly good Fresh), but in all seriousness, this dystopian tale that features a whole lot of Karen Gillan is thoroughly captivating and thought-provoking.

Since Dr Who hasn't ripped them big anymore. This movie promises a lot of stories but is dead boring.

Karen Gillan and Aaron Paul offer a bland performance and don't feel like they're making any effort.

I loved this film and it deserves much better ratings.

My only criticism is that it's trying too hard to emulate Jorgos Lanthimos's style, 'The Lobster' in particular. Still, since the original Lanthimos has somewhat ditched the avant garde with 'The Favourite', then I can forgive director Riley Stearns for filling the gap.

I get bored easily, but I found this film enjoyable from start to finish, and don't really understand all the negativity in the reviews. I guess it's not for everybody, but if you liked 'The Lobster' or 'Killing Of A Sacred Deer' and are looking for something new along those lines, then I don't think you'd be disappointed.

This is a non-gruesome psychological horror artistic film with a lot of deadpan humor, which is what I think they were going for. It was an interesting watch and I enjoyed it, but within the first 15 minutes I found myself thinking "this is 100% a festival film for artsy film types, now I get why it's only playing in one theater for one week in the largest city in America. Sure, it could have been a bit more polished, but they told the story they were looking to tell and succeeded in bringing it to life. The story is surely imperfect, but it surprised me more than once by taking me places I hadn't expected it to go, and there was a touch of beautiful tragedy to it. So if you like that kind of thing, I think it's worth a watch or two. If you don't, I think you'll struggle to pick up on and understand the layers in this film unless you've done something like taken a film analysis class.

The only thing that I hated about the movie was Aaron Paul pronouncing "cache" (as in, collection or stockpile) as "cash-shay"... how did nobody in that entire production not tell him it's pronounced "cash" - like money? There's no plot relevance or humor value to it, so it just feels like a huge oversight. Also, I count the table as a weapon.